tldr

Just pick any David Duke quote and go with it.

I donGÇÖt see any moral difference between a suicide bomber and somebody in a F-16 fighter jet who fires a missile into an apartment complex and then kills 10 or 15 little girls and boys. I donGÇÖt see much difference there. In fact, I think the pilot is a greater offender, you know, heGÇÖs getting medals, while the suicide bomber is sacrificing his life for what he believes in.

We're not askingGÇö you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nationGǪ.

Two step, I found your next client.

Wow, that was quite a wall of text. One might even call it a manifesto...



Sadly, I have a strict "no-neo-Third-Reich" policy.

What a racist.

Next you will be complaining about Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution and his followers.

running again? i did nazi this coming

The mind goebbels...

Are you goering to make a big deal about this?

I believe the biggest issue facing EVE is that of the economy. This rampant inflation is a serious issue that must finally be faced. Do you have any solution?

A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-**** starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.

A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-**** starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.

They didn't last election, why would they this time? All they did last year was just edit out anyone else making references to his worldviews.

They didn't last election, why would they this time? All they did last year was just edit out anyone else making references to his worldviews.

Am pretty sure they are hoping we are smart enough not to elect him and make Fon their issue.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to learn a new word - I've never heard of 'hoodwinking' before, but I guess I really should get used to using it broadly.

Not mentioning that this very word precisely defines things you're doing here

Thanks for the bumps, but any crap will be ignored just as before.

Thanks for the bumps, but any crap will be ignored just as before.

Invade Poland?

No, I don't believe that would be final enough as per his insinuation, you clearly missed what he was getting at.
You should probably concentrate more when reading through posts before quoting them. It wouldn't be too outlandish to look into courses furthering your abilities in that regard.

Perchance there are specialised group courses of sorts specialized in cognitive focus, possibly even ones providing outdoor accomodation to some extent in remote, cordoned-off areas. Hell, these could even be guarded.

You know...for security.

any crap will be ignored just as before.

After listening to Xander's *excellent* interview, I am even more shocked and dismayed that Fon was allowed to run at all. I went and read his thread on eve-ru, and luckily many members of the Russian community are just as troubled by his views as I am. I hope everyone sends him a message to not bother to run for CSM9 by not giving him enough endorsements to even pass the pre-election.

Russian community as a whole does not give a flying talos about one's political views. Why you are so hurt and insecure about basic human rights such as freedom of speech is beyond my comprehension. I mean you can do whatever you want in US - turn it into one big happy mind-policing concentration camp if you want, but just keep it to yourself.

http://cs315826.vk.me/v315826224/84a0/XAXFgNYCRLY.jpg

Russian community as a whole does not give a flying talos about one's political views. Why you are so hurt and insecure about basic human rights such as freedom of speech is beyond my comprehension. I mean you can do whatever you want in US - turn it into one big happy mind-policing concentration camp if you want, but just keep it to yourself.

http://cs315826.vk.me/v315826224/84a0/XAXFgNYCRLY.jpg

Where did I say he wasn't welcome to say whatever hateful things he wants to say? He is free to express his own opinions, and I would hope that any potential voters would realize that someone with his repulsive views would be ignored at best by both CCP and by his fellow CSM members.

If you truly want the non-racist ideas that Fon expresses to happen, I would look for a more viable candidate.

After listening to Xander's *excellent* interview, I am even more shocked and dismayed that Fon was allowed to run at all. I went and read his thread on eve-ru, and luckily many members of the Russian community are just as troubled by his views as I am. I hope everyone sends him a message to not bother to run for CSM9 by not giving him enough endorsements to even pass the pre-election.

I would look for a more viable candidate.

Is there any?
Main problem with 'russian vote" - players are tired from 0.0 bloc statists in CSM. Best example: UAxDeath posted three times on the forums since his re-election, completely avoiding any interaction with player base. He may be complete pony-loving Jesus and all around nice guy in real life, but as community representative he was useless and never met expectations.

If strong liver, sense of humor and alcohol resistance are main factors for CSM-member success, then we need to cut the crap and finish this "CSM elections" theater once and for all. Do we need CSM as reality check for developers or as loyal group accepting most changes after pub crawl?

That frankly depends what is more important to you; personal views on people from different cultures and ethnicity or internet spaceships?

I guess you are missing one important point - personal views should be clearly separated from the professional conduct.

Being an open and Olympic level racist could never impact your professional life. In fact, anyone in the workplace who is bothered by his ideas of racial purity is being a bigot!!!! WHAT ABOUT HIS FREEDOM????

Anti-Russian hate.

Wherein calling out neonazi-apologists turns you into 6-year-old college dropouts.

I guess it has something to do with you inability to distinguish between AND and OR statements.

Oh, apologies.
Wherein calling out neonazi-apologists turns you into EITHER a 6-year-old OR a college dropout.
Because clearly, only those two groups show a sufficient lack of intelligence that leads them to stoop to such lows as calling out neonazi-apologists, an innocent minority so savagely misunderstood.

Also, additional questions may arise.

"Wherein you better agree with Na-¡zi-¡ apologists, lest you get smothered with foggy semantics derails." -¡

By the way, should anyone want to conduct another interview to maybe address some EVE concerns previously left untouched, I'm open for invitations..

oh sigh. one picture worth thousand words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

.

This thread clearly shows that "anti-fascists" are the true fascists. Best of luck in your campaign, Fon.

Do you want to discuss russian rock scene?

Yes, the uneducated masses cruelly proclaiming a guy that openly talked about his racial views and included not one but SIX neonazi rock songs in the soundtrack of his pvp-'magnum opus' (the other 3 might be too, I don't know since I don't know them or speak russian, but since one of them actually included the lyrics "Sieg Heil!" in the chorus, I'm somewhat suspicious) and quotes David Duke as a neonazi and don't want him to represent them regardless of his pvp-prowess.

How dare they?

Such grave prejudice and injustice.

Honestly does the fact he follows a political movement that is almost about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, really matter?

So the creator of that movement and leader of that country was classified as a war criminal. You would be lucky to find many people that were adults during that war.

We have had war criminals leading countries since then and we presumably have followers of their parties in the CSM.

So does his RL political views matter to a Games Politics?

So does his RL political views matter to a Games Politics?

So does his RL political views matter to a Games Politics?

If you want a no BS candidate, Fon's your man.

+3 votes from me.

i don't know how well do you think an unrepentant racist neonazi will get along with anything other than a lily-white csm and represent eve to the wider world

Frankly I have no idea but I do not believe that someones political views should prevent them from serving on a player elected council in a game.

This just in:

Worshipping Hitler is no longer a no-no because the holocaust is sooo last century.

Neonazism is quite a bit bigger than a political view. You realize that, right?

So your suggesting that CCP should ban people in political parties guilty of starting wars of aggression?

Well I suppose that will annoy members of the US republican party, The Australian Liberal Party and UK labour party.

Either way around it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views and frankly even though this may let nut jobs run for things like this it also means that companies like CCP cannot just chose to exclude for instance members of political parties such as labour and conservative while allowing members of Official Monster Raving Loony Party to run.

i think he's suggesting ccp should ban people from political parties who conducted a program of industrial murder to kill around twelve milion people, also people who openly espouse the principle that other races are inferior

Frankly I have no idea but I do not believe that someones political views should prevent them from serving on a player elected council in a game.

So 12 million bad, 120,000 good? but besides that.

But yes his personal views may make him come undone once elected but to refuse him the ability is to discriminate against him, just as he would discriminate against others.

This just in, the war in Iraq is literally the Holocaust.

Either way around it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views and frankly even though this may let nut jobs run for things like this it also means that companies like CCP cannot just chose to exclude for instance members of political parties such as labour and conservative while allowing members of Official Monster Raving Loony Party to run.

could you please point to the program of industrialized murder that you believe equates to the holocaust from any of your examples

In many countries, or at least the US, yes, it may be illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views... if you're a business, looking to hire someone. It happens anyway, but that's beside the point. "A business looking to hire someone" is not what's happening here - it's a gathering of players looking to vote for 14 other players to represent them to CCP. If those players decide that the political views of one of the candidates is reason for them to not serve, they're well within their rights to do so.

Either way around it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views.

I am sorry I thought The US, Australian and British Military were classed as industrial institutions, I missed the fact it was a few guys with a couple of beers..

also please identify the precise law you believe makes it illegal to discriminate against someone for espousing neo-nazi views and racist views

any law from anywhere besides the third reich will do

You mean besides, EU law, US law, AU law?

The players yes, VERY yes. If the players don't like it hell yeah we don't vote for the neo-**** scum.

But CCP no.

You mean besides, EU law, US law, AU law?

If you don't know what he means by "industrialized murder" then you should probably do yourself a favour and stop talking about the Holocaust.

You mean besides, EU law, US law, AU law?

You are literally hiding behind scale.

Yes the lets call it old german party as it censors it, went out of their way to exterminate, Jews, Gays, Intellectuals, Communists, and the list goes on, using their military might. The current war is killing a race of people en-mass by going well we want those guys so we will just kill everyone in the area with smart bombs and drones.

The reason may be different an smaller scale but the effect is just the same.

You are literally hiding behind scale.

Yes the lets call it old german party as it censors it, went out of their way to exterminate, Jews, Gays, Intellectuals, Communists, and the list goes on, using their military might. The current war is killing a race of people en-mass by going well we want those guys so we will just kill everyone in the area with smart bombs and drones.

The reason may be different an smaller scale but the effect is just the same.

Specific laws, Frying Doom. You don't get away that easily (also loooooooooool at thinking the EU would protect neonazi anything ever)

You could have saved me the hassle of re typing, it is in GD atm

But check out the Handbook on European non-discrimination law section 3.5.2 page 81
"The right to freedom of association has also been taken to include protection
for the formation of political parties, which the ECtHR has accorded a high level
of protection against interference.

Similarly, as noted in Chapter 4.11., any interference with the right to free speech in the context of political debate is
scrutinised very closely."

So yes the neo-bloody-**** party is protected under EU law.

I'm just going to pretend/hope that you're not such a complete and pathetic waste of oxygen that you're actually devil's advocate trolling in favour of an actual neonazi for a moment.

When "industrialized murder" is used, it's not referring to the "what", it's referring to the "how". Figure that out and you'll figure out why the Holocaust is particularly horrifying even as far as genocides go.

Please quote exact passages of said laws rather than vague implications that said passages may or may not exist, tia.

the government is not allowed to interfere (generally, with neonazis being one glaring exception) with the formation of political parties

organizations, however, are absolutely free to refuse to hire neonazis and racists

try again

Well how about you show me these lovely laws that allow organizations, excluding other political and religious organizations to discriminate? Or you might want to read further down in that document I told you to look up as it says exactly the opossite.

But I am happy to see your references.

So your suggesting that CCP should ban people in political parties guilty of starting wars of aggression?

Well I suppose that will annoy members of the US republican party, The Australian Liberal Party and UK labour party.

Frying Doom,

If you can't see the difference between a war that was started to attempt to liberate a country from a dictator (and people dying in the process) and a dictator who wanted to kill people to kill people on a mass scale, then I don't know what to tell you.

I might point out the irony here is that the Iraq war was started to release a country from a dictator who had performed acts of genocide in the past, but I think it would be lost on you.

You are unbelievably stupid.

Well how about you show me these lovely laws that allow organizations, excluding other political and religious organizations to discriminate? Or you might want to read further down in that document I told you to look up as it says exactly the opossite.

But I am happy to see your references.

Yes the lets call it old german party as it censors it, went out of their way to exterminate, Jews, Gays, Intellectuals, Communists, and the list goes on, using their military might.

You're (you see, it's a contraction of "you are") missing my point, mostly because I didn't suggest CCP take any action based on his campaigning efforts. In fact, I did not suggest any form of action be taken whatsoever. My sole motivation in this thread thus far was to ridicule both the efforts of a nazi whitewashing himself in public and the mindless nazi-apologists pretending there is no problem at all.

On a somewhat-related note, I do believe CCP should both draw-up and enact policies to suppress and/or punish the posting of content related to the support and/or glorification of parties instrumental to the holocaust. But that's just my personal opinion. But this isn't as relevant to this thread as my second opinion:

I do believe that CCP should not suppress or censor people calling nazis out on the forums like they did in the very same campaign thread one "Revedhort, Fon" posted a year ago.

Finally, if you believe that worshipping Hitler, supporting and voicing racial supremacist theories or disseminating content that does so "is a political view", you need to seek professional help.

Except for the fact that the death toll that has occurred in this "Liberation" is a lot higher than if it was left as is and that if it was purely for liberation the target would have been North Korea or at that time China but then there was WMDs wasnt there.

Oh and I believe the last reason for that was they needed more land, there is always a reason to start a war of aggression, I believe japans was oil. It just depends on whether history counts it as a valid reason to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Oh and before you imply it, I believe strongly in soldiers doing as they are ordered, it is the politicians however that should be forced to serve on the front lines.

You know, Frying Doom, at this point you should step back and realize that you've given more defense to an avowed neonazi than to a guy who didn't update a wiki 2 years ago.

But on the other I will not back down on a persons right to live without discrimination be it from sex, race, sexual persuasion, religion, disability or political affiliation or lets be frank any other form of discrimination.

do I think neo-nasis suck, yep personally I do but they still have the right to freedom of speech and political association that they would happily deny others.

But on the other I will not back down on a persons right to live without discrimination be it from sex, race, sexual persuasion, religion, disability or political affiliation or lets be frank any other form of discrimination.

Saddam's death-toll was as "light" as it was because there was large international intervention (a war).

You just keep getting dumber. HOW.

But on the other I will not back down on a persons right to live without discrimination be it from sex, race, sexual persuasion, religion, disability or political affiliation or lets be frank any other form of discrimination.

do I think neo-nasis suck, yep personally I do but they still have the right to freedom of speech and political association that they would happily deny others.

do I think neo-nasis suck, yep personally I do but they still have the right to freedom of speech and political association that they would happily deny others.

also neonazi views, like genocide, do not merely "suck"

neonazi views are so abhorrent that anyone who even tolerates someone with those views is unwelcome in any civilized society, let alone the person themself

And we have the freedom to ridicule people that have voluntarily identified themselves as racist, neonazi shitheels when they're pretending to be good community representatives.

Any view that results in the deaths of any innocent civilians is unwelcome in any civilized society, let alone the person themself.

just to forestall your next attempt i expect next you'll try to cite page 117 which talks about discrimination based on expression or speech, based on ECHR article 10

you will, in your manifest ignorance, doubtless think aha this applies, but I already checked article 10 and it bars only governmental interference so private entities are absolutely free to discriminate

Yes you absolutely do and I encourage you to use that freedom.
It is just CCP who cannot exclude them from running in the election on the basis of political association but yes everyone really should make fun of them.

No actually I am waiting for your quote that expressly says an organization can discriminate.

No actually I am waiting for your quote that expressly says an organization can discriminate.

No actually I am waiting for your quote that expressly says an organization can discriminate.

like let me be very clear virtually any company would fire not only fon but you, frying doom, for your defense of fon in this thread if you did it under your real name and they found out

and they would be completely justified in doing so because they have that right and failure to exercise that right is taken by civilized people to be an implicit endorsement or toleration of those views

american law generally accepts he and you should be free to say these things without punishment from the government (unlike EU law) but offers you absolutely no protection against people refusing to associate with you or do business with you

The reality is that personal freedoms have taken such a battering in the last 20 years that now people consider freedom of speech and freedom of association to be crimes these days as this thread perfectly well shows.

Do I believe in his values frankly not at all, but I do believe in his right to have those views and everyone elses right to mock him for them, but not discriminate.

Where is the law that tells me I am allowed to have sex?

Guess I can't do that.

You're defending a neo-Nazi by using ~internet lawyer logic~ which is a really, really silly idea.

The reality is that personal freedoms have taken such a battering in the last 20 years that now people consider freedom of speech and freedom of association to be crimes these days as this thread perfectly well shows.

Do I believe in his values frankly not at all, but I do believe in his right to have those views and everyone elses right to mock him for them, but not discriminate.

Since this thread is now mass-spammed, I'm taking my opportunity to remind you that you can use eve-mail to ask questions.

Actually their are laws in the US and Australia that tell you very clearly how you cannot have sex just as the EU has

"The term discrimination first entered EU discourse in the form of its prohibition on the basis of nationality in Article 18 TFEU. Article 19 TFEU, introduced as Article 13 EC by the Treaty of Amsterdam, extended the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited to sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, includes in Article 21(1) a general prohibition of GÇÿany discrimination based on any ground, such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientationGÇÖ."

as I said care to find me one that says organisations have the right to discriminate?

This may come as a shock, but not every country has American Freedom of Speech or Association laws. Also I'm pretty sure personal freedoms have never been more expansive than they are today so . . .


Hey Fon I have a question: What are your views on racial equality?

article 52, section 3, means the scope of the right that you're citing (since it is enumating rights laid out in the EHCR) is the same as it is in the EHCR, and in that case it's strictly a prohibition against governmental discrimination

And yes Nulla poena sine lege does occur in some parts of the world.

Parts of Australia to be specific.

Actually their are laws in the US and Australia that tell you very clearly how you cannot have sex just as the EU has

So...how about this Fon Revedhort dude, huh?

Sorry please feel free to make fun of the nasi scum.

Shame I am not quoting from there but you are obviously under the belief that anyone who is not a government can discriminate. So I will no longer try to break your illusion.

Where is the one that tells me how I CAN.

Again, you seem to miss the point.

Ok lets take Sexual positions beyond missionary are illegal in Washington, D.C.

So yes you have a choice, no sex or missionary, it does not specify you can it just makes everything else illegal.

Ok lets take Sexual positions beyond missionary are illegal in Washington, D.C.

So yes you have a choice, no sex or missionary, it does not specify you can it just makes everything else illegal.

all parts of all democratic countries, to be specific

if you're trying to claim the opposite, that parts of australia ban you from doing anything not specifically allowed by law, you're going to need to show something to support that

No the opposite being not, no penalty without a law, where a specific dead is not written so it cannot be punished (Victorian Law) and where they assume a best fit (Western Australian Law)

research illegal video surveillance should tell you what you need

In Victoria if the crime is not on the books they cannot charge you with a crime, while in Western Australia they can.

Do you get your legal advice from dumblaws.com?

Man oh man.

yeah find me anything to support that

Well in that case yeah, stupid US laws are not of of my hobbies.

The fact that Australia has some stupid laws is.

For example you can have a **** on the side of the road behind your passenger rear tire while parked on the side of the road so long as you do not look up.

it is also genuinely hilarious that someone is claiming that ~the sheeple~ have allowed their liberties to be taken away while at the same time claiming that it is the law that you are not allowed to do something unless the government specifically says you can

Go search Australian High court as so far you have managed to provide 0 other than badgering.

in general all of those suppsed dumb laws don't exist

like "it is illegal to wash your llama in a bathtub on sundays!" el oh el turns out to be it's just illegal to wash any animal in a tub meant for human use on any day of the week, and they just make it overly specific to make it seem dumb

Well here is an easy dumb law for you.

Western Australia still has the death penalty for mass murder and mass ****. It cannot be used as it would be found to be cruel and unusual punishment by the high court.

Yes these laws do exist. The American one honestly no idea, the Australian ones yes they do.

Same as drink driving in a babies pram, law exists in Australia.

you are making the claim, you support it

every time you give me something to actually work with (a mistake you've made twice) i've cited the specific provisions of actual law that knock it down

and given everything you've said about law is incorrect we're obviously not going to take your word for it

you clearly don't know what you're talking about at all and are just hoping i get distracted in a wild-goose chase for a link that doesn't exist

to bring this around to fon:

ccp is freely allowed under icelandic, and any other law, to remove fon from the running and refuse to associate with him. although they have failed to do this (and we should castigate them for that), we should all realize that fon, and anyone who associates with him and defends him, are unworthy of a vote and should not be associated with

Ok how about Directive 2006/54/EC that the countries laws come from?

We're already making fun of you, Herr Doom.

that refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, which is explicitly banned in employment in most countries: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:204:0023:0036:en:PDF

you will not, however, find anything of the sort that bars private discrimination on the basis of political opinions or ideology

Ok how about Directive 2006/54/EC that the countries laws come from?

So your now saying that anyone who defends some one like him should not be associated with.

So you are saying never talk to barristers, solicitors, judges

Funny I am standing up for a scums personal rights and it is your limited views I feel sorry for.

So your now saying that anyone who defends some one like him should not be associated with.

So you are saying never talk to barristers, solicitors, judges, politicians, hell anyone how votes for a persons rights.

Funny I am standing up for a scums personal rights and it is your limited views I feel sorry for.

keep reading that is only the top

that refers to discrimination on the basis of sex, which is explicitly banned in employment in most countries: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:204:0023:0036:en:PDF

you will not, however, find anything of the sort that bars private discrimination on the basis of political opinions or ideology

keep reading that is only the top

How about we go for a simple base mark

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 10 GÇô Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as (...)

as you'll recall I already knocked that one down: it only applies to the government



it's a poor man's first amendment: it bars nothing the first amendment doesn't bar and it has that giant exception in clause 2

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but political science is something I have studied for quite a while (And work with, albeit unpaid). I'm saying that PolSci is my qualification simply because I want you to be sure that this is, in fact, a post calling your bullshit.

The ECHR concerns itself with states, citizens and people without citizenship. Although some are clearly also directed as companies (Check out Article 4), those are rights given to people, not mandates to companies. Article 14 doesn't give you freedom from discrimination on basis of the traits listed, but states that the ECHR itself is not discriminating on those basis.
See this:


The articles 10 and 11 have clauses allowing for national law to limit the rights in the ECHR, as it is done in Germany, Poland, Netherlands, France (?) and other countries in regard to the **** parties and their broader supporters (And in Germany, several fascist parties or groups as well - AFAIK).

Now, when it comes to private companies, they too are under some restrictions to their conduct. A company in Denmark is not allowed to discriminate on basis of gender, race or sexuality, for example. What Danish law does fully allow, though, is evaluating a persons competence to fulfill the job in question. A company not hiring a neonazi as spokesman or advisor is not discrimination in any way, shape or form. It's simply the company determining that the neonazi does not have the qualities they're looking for.
A tech company could, for example, be looking for some pretty girls to stand around their booths at conventions.
When said tech company doesn't hire men, it's not discrimination in regards to gender, but simply picking the employees with the qualities, traits, abilities and whatever, required to do the job.

Furthermore, in this case it's not even employment. It's an advisory position, a thing that for a private company in Denmark would only be regulated by their own rules (Well, and privacy laws etc, but not any discrimination laws). I'm not exactly sure how not-employed and unpaid advisors in Iceland are protected by law, but I'm risking the bet and say that discrimination in the appointment process is not a part of the package.

So the guy who literally refers to 'too many null reps on the csm' as a 'war crime' in his sig is now bending over backwards to vehemently defend an actual neo-**** by citing any random law he can find anywhere while not being a lawyer himself in an argument with actual licensed attorneys.

Meanwhile, Fon is still 'approved' as a CSM candidate despite his recent interview defending his views on racial nationalism.

Just trying to make sure I 'get' this thread.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a political scientist, but: Seriously, Frying Doom, all you're doing here is keeping this thread at the top of Jita Park, for no other reason than your unwillingness to concede and back down.

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

Ok lets try this as a belief system for you then

"Baggs v Fudge an Employment Tribunal found that a claimant's membership of the BNP was not a philosophical belief because the BNP restricted its membership on racial grounds, but did not require members to hold a particular religious, philosophical or political belief. Similarly, in Finnon v Asda Stores Ltd, the Tribunal found that British Nationalism did not involve a clear belief system or a profound belief affecting the way of life or view of the world.

Following these two cases, the EAT decision in Grainger plc and others v Nicholson suggested that while "support of a political party" does not of itself amount to a philosophical belief, a belief in a political philosophy or doctrine, such as Socialism, Marxism or free-market Capitalism, might qualify.

Therefore, contrary to this existing caselaw, the ECtHR's decision in Redfearn may open a window for claimants to suggest that membership of a political party, such as the BNP, does amount to a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010."

Also note "Can I use the Human rights act against another private individual who infringes my rights?

Not directly. You cannot sue, or be sued by, another individual for breaking the Convention rights. But you may benifit indirectly because the Human Rights Act means all laws have to be given meaning and effect which is as close as possible to the Convention Rights." So see above.

What are you even talking about?

The case you quoted (and several like it) went against the claimant and sided with the employer; that his political beliefs were not protected by disciminatory law.

Also, in the UK, you cannot be prison guard or member of the police force if you are BNP.

Your fantasy world where you can be an out-an-proud neo-Nazi and be protected under law is just that, fantasy.

Well you missed the point completely.

My sig is a joke, kind of like the getting drunk and telling jokes.

But then there is the serious bit and that does not get much more serious than what this all comes back to "THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

Which is kind of where everything comes from.

But I thought you knew treaties helped form laws, so random treaties would have been a better comment.

No frankly I think I have made my point.

I'd like to adamantly go on record saying: No, you most certainly have not.

Just to put this in perspective, you are copying and pasting results of Google searches to try to prove yourself right.
He (and another member you are arguing with) have actual legal experience (are licensed attorneys).

I dunno man, you might want to look at this in some perspective.

So the guy who literally refers to 'too many null reps on the csm' as a 'war crime' in his sig is now bending over backwards to vehemently defend an actual neo-**** by citing any random law he can find anywhere while not being a lawyer himself in an argument with actual licensed attorneys.

Meanwhile, Fon is still 'approved' as a CSM candidate despite his recent interview defending his views on racial nationalism.

Just trying to make sure I 'get' this thread.

It is my belief that human rights are worth fighting for, your opinion is that they are not.

Ask a Neo-Na-¡zi what they think about human rights.

Go on.

Ask.