NationStates

There are a few spelling and grammatic errors that bother me.

Borinata wrote:

REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

So a monument, say a religious building (OOC:the Vatican, Angkor Wat), has to be ceded to the government to qualify as a monument? While it is certainly true that whoever owns it doesn't have to seek monument status for the building; however this unfairly and unnecessarily discourages private maintenance, ownership and promotion of site of historic and cultural interest.

AGAINST

i found this part of the bill rather concerning myself.

and what of the government owning objects/structures/locales of cultural patrimony? there's not even clause enshrining any other stake holders' rights...

I don't like the sort of loopholes this bill leaves open to abuse.
It seems that the greedier nations could easily use this policy to seize property/land from others, or groups within a nation get rival groups property's designated as a national monument, and therefore taken away from them.

Also, why can't they be owned by private groups? Does that mean that family manors etc that fit the criteria for ancient monuments can be taken from them?

Glitternisons wrote:Also, why can't they be owned by private groups? Does that mean that family manors etc that fit the criteria for ancient monuments can be taken from them?

Yes. That's what it means. Don't forget national leaders who's homes may also be the centerpoint of the nation and fit the criteria. They'd be out of a home.

As I understand it, a repeal is in the works as this looks like it will pass.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

a repeal is in the works

Several, actually.

Ahh good:)
I'll be sure to vote for the repeals.

BE advised that although you mean to be benevolent, the sovereignty of our soil must be respected. Is the WA presuming that we cannot determine in our right mind what is to be protected and what should be demolished or rebuilt for the good of our own people? Will the WA soon be drafting suggested diets for our populations and decide on speed limits for our vehicles? Where will the micromanagement of the WA end if we allow this proposal to be ratified?

This small, but significant piece of legislature is enough for me to relay my suggestion that our proud nation resign from the WA should it be passed. I ask all brothers and sisters who enjoy governing their countries without invasive WA proposals that constantly barrage our senses and whittle away at our freedom to live our lives as we wish; to vote AGAINST this and to make your voices known!

With respect and honour,

Spittoon, Chief Ambassador and Official Mouthpiece of the Republic of Garglers; and
Favorite Great Nephew to President in Perpetuity, Mouthwash the fourth

This small, but significant piece of legislature is enough for me to relay my suggestion that our proud nation resign from the WA should it be passed

Dibs on their office!!!

Serrland's greatest national monument is an 1800 year old monastery. While Serrland did vote in favour of this resolution, it does have concerns about whether or not the monks will still be allowed to reside within the monastery if it passes.

Serrland wrote:Serrland's greatest national monument is an 1800 year old monastery. While Serrland did vote in favour of this resolution, it does have concerns about whether or not the monks will still be allowed to reside within the monastery if it passes.

We would then recommend you alter you vote to against if you have such concerns. Even should the proposal be repealed, there are still consequences which will effect your nation in the meantime. Once your vote is cast, you may still change it.

Serrland wrote:Serrland's greatest national monument is an 1800 year old monastery. While Serrland did vote in favour of this resolution, it does have concerns about whether or not the monks will still be allowed to reside within the monastery if it passes.

If you express so much concern about the monks being able to still reside in their monastery after the Resolution is passed then by all means re cast your vote against the resolution. I myself voted against this resolution over a number of things particularly i believe that protection of historical monuments is the nations job to decide. I also feel weary about the WA stepping into our personal affairs. I myself have several Historical Monuments that still stands to this day from when our great nation was born.

I must vote no o this on behalf of my people. We have a long history of providing shelter for traveler's and many of our monuments are hotels or hostels. They are looked after and maintained by various government grants and exist to continue our tradition of hospitality. If this bill passes, our tradition will end.

I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.

I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.

Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador

Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.

I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.

Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador

I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.

Baranthar wrote:

Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.

I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.

Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador

I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.

By definition, repeals cannot be proposed until an issue is actually passed.

I do not recall where it was stated by Phlimbesi that a pre-emptive repeal was to be proposed, or even posted.

So, as such, We are confused by your comment and accusation that We would not follow correct procedure.

Oh, and We are still very much against this current proposal. Just wanted to toss that in there.

I was simply letting this body, many of whom were calling for the action, know that should the item pass we are ready and willing to respond with what they are asking for. Further I did say that I was going to refrain from discussing specifics did I not.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Baranthar wrote:

Philimbesi wrote:I rise to inform the body that the Honorable Ambassador from Grays Harbor and I have completed a repeal for this resolution and should the current trend towards passage continue the ambassador will submit this repeal forthwith. We will however refrain from discussing the specifics at this time.

I call upon all those who have voiced opposition to this drivel to please inform your delegates at the proper time.

Nigel S Youlikin
USP WA Ambassador

I trust you shall refrain from submitting the repeal until this current resolution has actually been cast? Let's follow proper procedures, for once.

By definition, repeals cannot be proposed until an issue is actually passed.

OOC: Not to mention by the mechanics of the game itself.

(OOC) I could care less about the spelling errors nobody is perfect.

(IC) Does anyone care that it forces the government to own them this is a way to force market nations to accept a form of communism. By forcing our government to take these sites from private citizens that may own them. I quote the actual document when I say “REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.” This is communism and our nation will not stand for it. Our nation refuses to give the World assembly any historical site inside Scott Tree. To enforce this you will have to invade us. This document is illegal and should be stricken from the World Assembly chatter.

Scott Tree wrote:Our nation refuses to give the World assembly any historical site inside Scott Tree. To enforce this we will have to invade us.

The WA isn't taking anything.

Scott Tree wrote:This document is illegal and should be stricken from the World Assembly chatter.

It's not illegal, if it was we wouldn't be voting on it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Scott Tree wrote:This document is illegal and should be stricken from the World Assembly chatter.

"Huh."

Wrong sir this is an invasion of my nation market based system. It should be the right of a nation to decide who can own these sites not the world. You can’t force this form of communism down the throats of my citizens who currently own these sites. Then expect a government that grants the right to own private property to break that promise and steal these sites from them. Our nation cannot allow such an injustice to take place.

MEDICATION TIME!!!

In general, the government of Felixburgh appreciates the value of historical monuments and would tend support a proposal like this. However, this proposal does not account for the fact that sometimes the populace of a nation wishes to tear down monuments because it stands for something the people no longer admire or support. Nations who have been subject to foreign rule are an excellent example. Is it not understandable that a new, nationalist government would want to tear down the statues of the old conquerors? Perhaps this decision should not be left to the a government alone and instead be put to that nation's populace but regardless, this proposal leaves room for neither.

-Sir Felix, Chancellor

While the ambassador for Tyranteous generally applauds the sentiment, we cannot agree with the motion due to the following clause:

"REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party."

This does not safeguard any current owner's rights to compensation and runs contrary to several states' internal policies with which the WA should have no say on.

OOC: Think about it... What if I decide to make my museums private, but regulated. They can't "own" their own exhibits? Or what if the monument genuinely BELONGS to someone...

I would vote for a repeal

The United Isles of Pai Lei cannot support this resolution. While the ambassador's intentions is in the right place it is the right of individual nations to determine what they can or cannot do with their own monuments within their territory, not the World Assembly.