Page 1 of 5

[PASSED] Repeal Protection Of Monuments

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:26 am
by Philimbesi
The honorable delegate from Grays Harbor and I have drafted this repeal. Please offer comment, critique, approval or disapproval.


APPLAUDING the ideals expressed in Protection of monuments.

UNDERSTANDING that not all nations treat historical sites with the respect they deserve.

NOTING the spelling errors, which may cause unintended confusion with implementation.

NOTING also, the numerous loopholes which allow for a nation to essentially ignore whole sections of the statute, or to abuse the protections provided by it.

REGRETTING the exclusion of personal property as a protected monument class in that the resolution does not allow for private and/or not-for-profit ownership of structures and property designated as monuments.

FURTHER REGRETTING that only a single solution is offered, that being nationalization of historical sites, museums and monuments.

APPALLED that one such consequence would be to deprive people of their homes if they fall under the historical site category.

BELIEVING that the monuments in the world deserve better protection that those afforded by this act.

DISAPPOINTED that while this resolution stands more specific and better thought out resolutions protecting a member nations monuments can not be passed.

Attached please see the original text of resolution #69

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 69
Protection of monuments

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.


Category: Education and Creativity


Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage


Proposed by: FlagThe Autumn Clans

Description: RECOGNIZING that due to war, development and lack of public interest, historical monuments are being damaged, destroyed or entering a state of disrepair.

NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

CREATES the World Assembly Monuments Register, an official list containing all Historical Monuments in World Assembly Countries. Monuments not in the list are unaffected by this act.

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

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.

REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs. Unless:
1. Said monument is beyond repair to the extent that any attempts would be too expensive or frequent to be economically feasible for the nation.

2. Repairs would directly or indirectly lead to the harm of civilians.

3. The damage is considered as a famous feature of the monument (although any non famous damage should still be repaired.)

4. The country to whom the monument belongs is in or has been in a state of crisis (this includes war, natural disasters, political overhaul and economic depression) so that its funds must be diverted elsewhere.

REQUIRES that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points by military personnel of attacking or defending countries, unless they are being used as such by the enemy.

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

ENCOURAGES governments to educate citizens about the history and meaning of their monuments.

Votes For: 4,326
Votes Against: 1,774

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:43 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny
Again, the word is "statute."

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:46 am
by Philimbesi
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Again, the word is "statute."


Fixed...

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:50 am
by New Olwe
New Olwe would support any repeal of the Protection of Monuments act. Many of our historical sites have a noble tradition that we choose not to ignore, namely that they are military installations in addition to whatever other purposes they may serve. The original resolution outlawed that practice, which we view as cultural discrimination against feudalists.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:30 am
by Bears Armed
New Olwe wrote:New Olwe would support any repeal of the Protection of Monuments act. Many of our historical sites have a noble tradition that we choose not to ignore, namely that they are military installations in addition to whatever other purposes they may serve. The original resolution outlawed that practice, which we view as cultural discrimination against feudalists.

Given that the only benefit a nation receives from listing any of its historical sites under the current resolution is the protection of those sites from deliberate damage during wars against other WA member nations, allowing sites that are still in military use to be thus listed (in any replacement resolution that might get passed) would seem highly impractical.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:19 pm
by Funkaholics
"Hey doc, doc! Listen up!"

"What's all the ruckus, Bootsie?" - Dr. Funkenstein was just inspecting the penthouse appartment on the top floor of the offices of Burwalk Medicore Incorporate, the giant pharmaceutical company who's assets had swiftly been nationalized after World Assembly resolution number 69 had passed. He liked what he had seen until now; especially the lascivious paintings on the bedroom walls had received his blessing. He was getting a bit older after all, and these depictions of various Sexy Ways would definitely help him during his nightly...

"Doc!!" - Bootsie was shaking the doctor by his shoulders. "Wake up man! Something bad happened!" The doctor reluctantly came to his senses. He looked at his minister of Education and Culture affairs, and realized that something was indeed terribly wrong; The poor man's usual blithe expression had transformed into a sorrowful frown, and he could swear that he saw a tear trickling down from behind his star shaped sunglasses.

"They're repealing resolution Soixante-neuf!" Bootsie exclaimed. The knuckles of both his hands turned white as he was grasping his diamond studded walking stick.

"No way brother, they can't do that! I just called my interior decorator to have a look at the bathroom over there. Did you see the bloody view from the balcony? They cannot repeal soixante-neuf!" - The doctor stepped towards Bootsie, until their faces almost touched. Then he bent over to whisper something in his ear.

"Listen up Boots. Those Maggot Brains are not going to take away from us what's rightfully ours! We're just going to have to make sure that this repeal is never taken to the Stage. Can you dig it?"

"Shit, goddam! I'll take care of it doc." was Bootsies reply, and he left the apartment in a hurry.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:52 pm
by Grays Harbor
:blink:

ok, I had posted the repeal before checking here. whoops. thats what I get for being impatient as well as annoyed that the monument thing had passed.

:blush:


please don't hurt me

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:59 pm
by Mad hatters in jeans
I am muchly confusilaged by this thread.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:21 pm
by New Rockport
Philimbesi wrote:REGRETTING the exclusion of personal property as a protected monument class in that the resolution does not allow for private and/or not-for-profit ownership of structures and property designated as monuments.


I would advise changing the word personal to private in the sentence quoted above. Personal property is property that is not attached to land.

-David Corrigan, Esq.
Acting Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Federal Republic of New Rockport

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:36 am
by Glitternisons
We feel that the issue of
NOTING also, the numerous loopholes which allow for a nation to essentially ignore whole sections of the statute, or to abuse the protections provided by it.
could do with being highlighted further in the final copy, in order to gain support of nations previously unaware of the issue.
And perhaps the point commenting on the spelling in the original Protection of Monuments bill be moved further down the list, since it adds a slightly petty vibe to the bill.

The Glitter Band will be supporting this though. Could we be notified when it reaches the proposal stage?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:58 pm
by Tyranteous
This repeal will have the full support of my nation, as the Kingdom of Tyranteous is currently desperately seeking a way to prevent a notable Tyrantean monument, which belongs to one of its citizens, from being nationalised against both the citizen's and the government wishes, while protection legislation over the specific monument in question is already in place on our statute books...

We would also appreciate any legal advice to prevent this travesty from befalling our citizen in the meantime, while this illiberal oppressive and invasive piece of badly written legislation remains legal.

Regards,
Ambassador for the Kingdom of Tyranteous.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:39 pm
by Kaesekartoffeln
Good to see the repeal effort has already begun. :clap:

Be sure to mention that the resolution prohibits the use of a monument as a residence. Sure sucks if you live in a historical building, huh?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:11 pm
by Southron Nation
the Southron Nation would heartily support this resolution as well. we do NOT allow the intervention of federal authority into the lives and property of our citizens.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:39 pm
by Grays Harbor
Got this TG in my inbox tonight:

How dare you attempt to repeal Autumn Clans resolution. Im extremely irritated by this act. Protection of monuments brought great pride to the Kingdom of Ireland.


I laughed. Lots. If they object to the repeal, then grow a pair and post the objections here, not try the "how dare you" tired old tactic.

:eyebrow:

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:23 pm
by Scott Tree
Listen I don't care what you do with your country you can be as communist as you want. But don't try to force it on mine.
Philimbesi wrote:REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party.

So stay out of my countries internal affairs and I will stay out of yours. :clap: :clap: :clap:

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:56 pm
by Bergnovinaia
May I also suggest that I made an earlier draft that will far more sufficently cover this better then the passed proposal... ==> http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11658&start=0

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:59 pm
by Pai Lei
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.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:38 pm
by Grays Harbor
Bergnovinaia wrote:May I also suggest that I made an earlier draft that will far more sufficently cover this better then the passed proposal... ==> http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11658&start=0


I read your draft before. While much better written than the one which was passed, I am still not of the opinion that the WA need involve itself in Historical artifacts and monuments of the individual nations.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:45 pm
by Borinata
This resolution has my support.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:58 pm
by A-Stan and The Yoro
Even though as Observing members we can't officially do anything about this act, we support it.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:03 am
by Grays Harbor
8 more delegates are required to approve this for it to come up for a vote. any WA member whose delegate has not yet voted to approve this is urged to contact their delegate with the reasons this should be approved. Thank you.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:39 am
by Charlotte Ryberg
Just to let honoured ambassadors know, We are strongly... strongly for this repeal. The authors behind the repeal should know that they have done the right thing because from our view, Nationalization of monuments was the fundamental flaw.

Yours etc.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:00 pm
by Ainocra
I too support this resolution, My imperial palace is a national monument. I do not feel like searching for a new home.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:04 pm
by Serrland
I strongly support this repeal, and am really curious how the resolution passed in the first place. Did people just not read what it actually entailed?

Serrland has had a 14% jump in homelessness due to evictions as a result of the resolution, as the city of Serr is extremely old and has had little new construction, per building codes that oddly enough were put in place TO PROTECT HISTORICAL RESIDENCES.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:34 pm
by Grays Harbor
Serrland wrote:I strongly support this repeal, and am really curious how the resolution passed in the first place. Did people just not read what it actually entailed?

Serrland has had a 14% jump in homelessness due to evictions as a result of the resolution, as the city of Serr is extremely old and has had little new construction, per building codes that oddly enough were put in place TO PROTECT HISTORICAL RESIDENCES.


With proposals such as this which have what I have termed "feel good" titles, frequently, no, I do not believe most voting for it actually read the text. There is also a group of WA members who appear to vote "yes" on just about anything with a "feel good" title because that is the "progressive" thing to do.

We have not felt the full effects of this in my country as yet, as Parliament voted out an Act of Defiance, signed by the King, which prohibits compliance with this resolution.