NationStates

My government will be very pleased to see this poorly-written, flawed, and unnecessary resolution repealed, as we trust it shall be.

Yours,

Sigismund Ibsen
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

Pai Lei wrote:The United Isles of Pai Lei supports any resolution that will result in the repeal of protection of monuments. The WA has no right to tell nations what they can or cannot do with their own infrastructure.

Providynce agrees with the esteemed representative from The United Isles of Pai Lei. While we appreciated the sentiment behind the original proposal we feel that the WA should respect the autonomy of member nations and reserve its influence and power to more important and weighty issues.

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species. By repealing this sanction, are we going to allow nations in times of war, to blatantly desecrate our sacred icons, monuments, and memorials? We enacted this resolution to help us remember our past, and now it seems as though we do not even remember why we enacted this resolution. My friends, the delegates of the World Assembly, ask yourselves, would you like your nations monuments blatantly desecrated?

This isn't about disrespect for monuments, it is about the WA having a resolution which determines for each nation what is and isn't a monument and how each is dealt with in a one size fits all manner. There is also the provision for no private ownership, requireing the government to own anything of historic value, and requireing, as others have said, that nobody can live in a building which has been determined to have historic significance. It has been pointed out that because our Royal Palace is considered historically significant, the Royal Family must, by this WA law, be evicted. Many private citizens also live in culturally and historically significant buildings, and many culturally and historically significant buildings are also still being used for their original purpose. Are all occupants of those buildings to be evicted as well? I would hope not.

That is why this repeal is important.

To protect monuments in time of war is indeed a worthy goal, it is all the rest that is objectionable about this.

We would also like to point out that the best methods of protecting monuments during war is to A.) Not fight a war; or B.) Have a stronger military than your opponent. But that is neither here nor there. *wink*

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

Zhilidgo looked over to a worker-gnome from the Monument Assessment Committee, smearing his naked butt across a statue of Eduard Heir to verify its historical importance.

"Err.. yes, repeal this shit -- Now ! Please." whispered Ambassador Zhildigio.
Pointing to the gnome in particular, "and...are we paying for this?"

"Most Perfect O-Haruhi-Sama is pleased to see both a WA resolution worthy of the name AND in favor of sane government. Therefore, it is my pleasure and duty to tender the Magocrasy of Vatiel's vote in favor of this Repeal. The less tax money we devote to maintaining buildings that rightfully belong in private management, the more money our people can devote to their own self-improvement and freedom."

-Koh Kamichu, WA Ambassader for Vatiel

When voting for the previous legislation, I failed to recognize the errors and dangers of the legislation, and feel overwhelmingly guilty for accepting such a clearly disgraceful law. However, I will hold my position in this current legislation unless another member can present to me and the rest of the WA a better resolution.

Please send me a TG with any responses directed at this comment. Thank you.

The Halseyist Faction votes for scrapping this ridicious piece of legislation, as we already remarked we would. However, we find it both saddening, and amusing, that this legisaltion was passed, not one week ago, by a sizeable number of votes. If, within that same week, a repeal is passed, perhaps again by a sizeable number of votes, does this not suggest that this assembly is just blindly voting for every measure that comes it's way? The amount of votes that are declared and arguements that are felt in this chamber, are insignificant in perportion to the silent voters that keep mindlessly tapping yes to whatever garbage comes along.

The Halseyist Faction wrote:The Halseyist Faction votes for scrapping this ridicious piece of legislation, as we already remarked we would. However, we find it both saddening, and amusing, that this legisaltion was passed, not one week ago, by a sizeable number of votes. If, within that same week, a repeal is passed, perhaps again by a sizeable number of votes, does this not suggest that this assembly is just blindly voting for every measure that comes it's way? The amount of votes that are declared and arguements that are felt in this chamber, are insignificant in perportion to the silent voters that keep mindlessly tapping yes to whatever garbage comes along.

This is something which myself and several others have long held to be a sad truth, that far too many WA nations are only aware of the "approve" button, or that far too many only vote for the title of the resolution at vote particularly if it is one of the "feel good" titles.

Of course, in the case of this particular repeal, I ain't complainin' too bloody much. This resolution really needs repealing.

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species. By repealing this sanction, are we going to allow nations in times of war, to blatantly desecrate our sacred icons, monuments, and memorials? We enacted this resolution to help us remember our past, and now it seems as though we do not even remember why we enacted this resolution. My friends, the delegates of the World Assembly, ask yourselves, would you like your nations monuments blatantly desecrated?

It's not a matter of wanting our monuments desecrated, it's a matter of wanting a better resolution to protect them with. The last one was hopelessly flawed and overreached by a wide margin, which is why The Feudal Socialist Magocracy of New Olwe is for repealing it.

Alyssa Locke, Olwean Ambassador to the WA

(OOC: I've not quite hit 500 mil yet, but I'm trying on my custom nation title to see how it fits beforehand.)

Just a note to the assembly in general and not any one person in particular, because of some private communications my office has received. We are also quite certain that the vast majority of you already know this. However, as it appears that some do not, I would like to say: Once written and passed, a proposal cannot be re-worked, re-worded, tweaked, twaddled, twiddled or tumbled. In order to modify a passed resolution, it must be repealed first, then reworked, resubmitted, re-approved by the delegates, and re-voted on.To believe otherwise is a surefire indication that you have not read the rules of writing, proposing and passing resolutions.

Is this a repeal intended to stop the protection of monuments or is a better proposal to safeguard national historical sites the goal here?

Edit: It seems that you have answered this. As it stands I support this resolution, but I am curious regarding what your planned proposal will look like. I hope it adequately handles an issue that is of great concern to my people. Thank you.

Allbeama wrote:Is this a repeal intended to stop the protection of monuments or is a better proposal to safeguard national historical sites the goal here?

Edit: It seems that you have answered this. As it stands I support this resolution, but I am curious regarding what your planned proposal will look like. I hope it adequately handles an issue that is of great concern to my people. Thank you.

Philembesi, who proposed this repeal, does not have a planned replacement. Nor are they required to. However, there is discussion of one possible replacement, by another person, which can be found here.

Enn wrote:

Allbeama wrote:Is this a repeal intended to stop the protection of monuments or is a better proposal to safeguard national historical sites the goal here?

Edit: It seems that you have answered this. As it stands I support this resolution, but I am curious regarding what your planned proposal will look like. I hope it adequately handles an issue that is of great concern to my people. Thank you.

Philembesi, who proposed this repeal, does not have a planned replacement. Nor are they required to. However, there is discussion of one possible replacement, by another person, which can be found here.

proposed jointly with Grays Harbor. hmmpf. We worked it out together.

Allbeama wrote:Is this a repeal intended to stop the protection of monuments or is a better proposal to safeguard national historical sites the goal here?

Edit: It seems that you have answered this. As it stands I support this resolution, but I am curious regarding what your planned proposal will look like. I hope it adequately handles an issue that is of great concern to my people. Thank you.

The world is not black and white. Because Phlimbesi and Myself, and with the support of many many others, want to repeal this badly written bit of micromanagement, it does not automatically follow we are somehow "anti-monument". A nation can be against a proposal such a "Protection of Monuments" with being anti-anything other than anti-badly written micromanged one size fits all proposals. A proposal is more than the title.

And has been pointed out, because one proposes a repeal, they are not required to author, or even support, a replacement. Sometimes something just needs repealed.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Enn wrote:

Allbeama wrote:Is this a repeal intended to stop the protection of monuments or is a better proposal to safeguard national historical sites the goal here?

Edit: It seems that you have answered this. As it stands I support this resolution, but I am curious regarding what your planned proposal will look like. I hope it adequately handles an issue that is of great concern to my people. Thank you.

Philembesi, who proposed this repeal, does not have a planned replacement. Nor are they required to. However, there is discussion of one possible replacement, by another person, which can be found here.

proposed jointly with Grays Harbor. hmmpf. We worked it out together.

:: facepalm::
Egads. That's what I get for not paying more attention. Hmm. Care for a free Ennish Shandy, to smooth things over?

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species.

"Which species?"


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Bears Armed wrote:

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species.

"Which species?"


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

That would come under Endangered Species Protection, honoured ambassador.

So is there going to be an edited follow-up for this resolution?

A mean old man wrote:So is there going to be an edited follow-up for this resolution?

Again honoured ambassador, the repeal team have no obligation to provide a replacement although we are envisaging this one to become one once completely overhauled to satisfactory standards.

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species. By repealing this sanction, are we going to allow nations in times of war, to blatantly desecrate our sacred icons, monuments, and memorials? We enacted this resolution to help us remember our past, and now it seems as though we do not even remember why we enacted this resolution. My friends, the delegates of the World Assembly, ask yourselves, would you like your nations monuments blatantly desecrated?

I highlight this as an example of the strange thinking that sometimes permeates this Assembly. National governments can protect their monuments without the express need for WA intervention. In the Imperial Chiefdom, we fund our police forces adequately enough to prevent vandalism, and we have a historical register that protects overdevelopment. Krioval has been perfectly able to protect historical sites prior to the flawed resolution that is "Protection of Monuments", and we will be able to do so once it is gone. We are not directly opposed to a replacement, though we will not waste time discussing its particulars here, but we also do not believe that a WA mandate for historical preservation is necessary.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

A mean old man wrote:So is there going to be an edited follow-up for this resolution?

While your nation may feel a burning need to have the WA dictate what is and is not a monument or historical artifact and how, who, when, where and why they are mandated to be treated, we believe that we are more than adequate of a nation to be able to determine this for ourselves without WA mandates and micromanagement.

We are also at a loss as to where some of our colleagues have gotten the idea that we who repeal a resolution are somehow required to provide a replacement, particularly as the repeal should indicate that we are somewhat displeased with the initial resolution and the scope of its mandates.

Picobella wrote:Why would we repeal a resolution that is there to protect monuments. Monuments are a part of our history, not as individual nations, but as a species. By repealing this sanction, are we going to allow nations in times of war, to blatantly desecrate our sacred icons, monuments, and memorials? We enacted this resolution to help us remember our past, and now it seems as though we do not even remember why we enacted this resolution. My friends, the delegates of the World Assembly, ask yourselves, would you like your nations monuments blatantly desecrated?

Again, the WA mandates and micromanagement and their resulting one size fits all policies are not the only solution. If a nation does not want their monuments desecrated by an enemy, the solution is simple:

Step 1.) Use Diplomacy to its fullest.
Step 2.) Do not piss other nations off through bad diplomacy
Step 3.) Do not get into a war, particularly with a nation which can invade, kick your ass, and desecrate your monuments. And oh yeah, killing many people in the meantime.
Step 4.) Have a military large enough to prevent Step 3.
Step 5.) Make sure you have effective diplomats so that Step 1 does not mutate into Steps 2 & 3.
Step 6.) Endeavor to protect and preserve your own historical sites and monuments without waiting for the WA to hold your hand and point out each and every monument worthy of preserving.

That this resolution being repealed is a bad one has been explained over and over again, with each reason pointed out by many. It would be recommended that my honoured colleagues please read the arguments for and against first before spouting the samebaseless accusations over and over and over. To endeavor to repeal a bad piece of legislation does not automatically equate to “You hate my monuments and want them destroyed!”. Please try to pay attention and see reason. It can be much more interesting when you do.

We agree that it is not necessary for the WA to tell nations how to protect their history. If they wish to, they will, and if they do not, they won't.

More to the point, we feel that "Protection of monuments" not only does not adequately advance the cause of historical protection, it could actually hinder that cause. By forcing nations to adopt what some faceless WA committee considers the "best approach" for a nation to protect its historical sites, it takes the power out of the hands of individual governments, who actually know their nation and its history, to make those decisions. Worse, by forcing nations to expel people from privately owned structures, it will have the inevitable effect of angering the people who are dispossessed. This will turn those people away from the noble cause of protecting history, and will motivate them to actively work against the cause of historical preservation, where they might have been sympathetic to that cause had they not been abruptly dispossessed of their property. Such anger could even lead nations to leave the WA entirely, rather than work towards a more fair resolution that protects historical sites without dispossessing people of their property. Many prominent Federation citizens, who own historic structures, have privately informed our government that if it had tried to enforce "Protection of monuments", that they would have bankrolled a major campaign to end Altani involvement with this body, and sought to end the already dwindling support in our populace for continued membership.

"Protection of monuments" ranks as one of the most poorly thought-out resolutions the WA has yet passed, and actually could do considerable damage to the cause of historical preservation.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

We would like to congratulate the authors on a fine piece of work, and look forward to no longer having to designate the inhabitants of our fully utilised royal palaces as "The Official Squatters."

Ambassadors,

Firstly I would like to thank all those who support the ambassador from Grays Harbor and I's endeavor so far. I would like to clear up one point though, I can only speak for myself however I can say that I have no intention of submitting replacement legislation at this time.

Further I'm not completely certain that I support the Bergnovinaian alternative as there are some flaws in that text as well. We hope that the Bergnovinaian delegate will not make the same mistake of premature submission. There is room for improvement, and that improvement should be made.

That being said we in the USP feel as though it's much more practical for nations to handle the memories and monuments they feel as needing protection in their own manner. Further we believe that it's impractical to feel that a WA resolution is going to stop an aggressive nation from attacking or destroying a nations monuments when they've already proven that they do not honor their sovereignty in the first place.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador - USP

Gobbannium wrote:We would like to congratulate the authors on a fine piece of work, and look forward to no longer having to designate the inhabitants of our fully utilised royal palaces as "The Official Squatters."

We do not know how you do things in your country, but our Royals are never referred to as "squatters".


His Majesty prefers "Undocumented Resident".