WA Resolution: Protection of Monuments

[Hockeynutville]

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.

[Biblical Importance]

Oct 26, 2009 13:46:43 GMT -5 Hockeynutville said:

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

Well, since symbolizes is spelled wrong. It is clearly an unacceptable piece of legislation and should never have been even considered for proposal let alone come before the entire World Assembly. It is such a waste of the WA's time to deal with this sort of stuff.

I AM VOTING AGAINST

[Omnaria]

Oct 26, 2009 14:30:56 GMT -5 Biblical Importance said:

Oct 26, 2009 13:46:43 GMT -5 Hockeynutville said:

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

Well, since symbolizes is spelled wrong. It is clearly an unacceptable piece of legislation and should never have been even considered for proposal let alone come before the entire World Assembly. It is such a waste of the WA's time to deal with this sort of stuff.

I AM VOTING AGAINST

Yes, but the author speaks a foreign language - to you Americans, that is - as his or her first language: British English. Therefore, the 'spelling error' wasn't his/her fault and adds sincerity to the proposal.

Anyway, seems good to me - I'm always one to try to preserve items of historical interest. Voting for.

[Anime Daisuki]

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.

Asses: To use their bottoms?

I am voting against as well. Being a City planner, I should know that a historical monument ordinance is not as simple as what's written above.

First of all, you need to carry out a scientific study to provide a basis to designate any sites as historical. Second of all, you don't "repair" a building, you restore it. Third of all "REQUIRES that the monument be made government property and that it can not be owned by a private party." will create all sorts of legal problems for the State.

[Walabamba]

I voted yes because I like old monuments

[Gilnas]

The only spelling error I see is the "asses" one.

[Bad Infinitum]

I say we vote AGAINST every resolution simply out of spite of the commendation repeal.

Starting with this one.

AGAINST[/i][/color]

[Brightwood]

I'm inclined to do the same as Ad.

[Elite]

same as Wala

[Gilnas]

That makes us no better than the Invaders and makes us look like spoiled brats and completely vindicates Grand Central if we do so.

[morlago]

The preservation of Art and Heritage takes up most of the government budget already in Morlago. We voted for.

[Greek People Nation (GPN)]

No

[Chronopolice]

We also preserve historical artifacts of great importance.

The USSC supports this Resolution.

[The Colonial Fleet]

It sounds reasonable, although in a firefight I'd imagine WA resolutions are going to be the last thing that comes to mind when you're diving for cover.

[Lettgalia]

It is a good idea, and a very important one as well. I think there should be something like the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and no spelling mistakes or former decisions are going to hold my nation back from supporting this issue.

We are going to vote in favour of that resolution!

[Bad Infinitum]

Oct 27, 2009 20:52:05 GMT -5 The Colonial Fleet said:

It sounds reasonable, although in a firefight I'd imagine WA resolutions are going to be the last thing that comes to mind when you're diving for cover.

Hear, hear!

[Smoked Bacon]

Although the nay-sayers do raise valid points, I see nothing really wrong with this that makes me want to say no.

*Signed

[juju72]

Oct 26, 2009 14:30:56 GMT -5 Biblical Importance said:

Oct 26, 2009 13:46:43 GMT -5 Hockeynutville said:

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

Well, since symbolizes is spelled wrong. It is clearly an unacceptable piece of legislation and should never have been even considered foheyr proposal let alone come before the entire World Assembly. It is such a waste of the WA's time to deal with this sort of stuff.

I AM VOTING AGAINST

[Ananke II]

Please don't just quote posts without adding anything yourself, Montenegro Cassira. Also, this is an old thread. No need to gravedig.

[Markanite]

I voted Yes , seems like a good idea.