The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

I actually wasn't looking for specifics, I was asking what you thought of his treatment in general, both from the 80's trials and his subsequent deportation in 2005 (when he hilariously tried to claim refugee status in the wake of a German arrest warrant). I just found it odd that you answered the question first and then asked what part I meant specifically.

Now you are talking about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which article 20 states
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
...
But is not your denial of his rights because he is a neo-**** also a hate speech?

I completely agree with you if he breaks the EULA with something he says or does within EvE, these forums or a live event hosted by CCP and they ban him, he is not eligible to run.

That is completely fair.

I\m sure most of you will have already heard my interview with Fon (Poetic really should have linked to it in his article, the cheeky wee minx that he is ) but I'm just going to link it here so any of you who haven't heard it can

http://c-z.me/csm8fonrevedhort

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Exactly, he nor you have the right to perform any act or activity at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you cannot see that removing his rights because of what he says is against article 30 you need to read that again also you are also stepping on

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

and

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


He is entitled to his freedom of expression and he is entitled to be presumed innocent of any crime until he is found guilty of one.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

[...]By the same token, Fons isn't inciting violence. He's simply spewing ignorance from time to time.

Fons is certainly a racist. That is not a crime. As for him being a neo-**** ... I'm not so sure. He's a nationalist, for sure. He disagrees with Russia's immigration policies. He disagrees with Russia's multicultural policies. Those things I know for sure. And like I said, he'd be right at home in any U.S. State bordering Mexico

You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.

No, I am talking about Universal Human Rights according to the United Nations.

Article 30
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Hate-speech and racism are an act aimed at the destruction of several of the rights and freedoms listed by the United Nations (and not considered a "right" or "expression"). Therefor it is not against any of Fon's "rights" if he gets called out on it. He is purposefully and willingly stomping on human rights of others (which you have been defending today) and not entitled to any "right" whatsoever according to the United Nations.

As Vampy bat so wonderfully pointed out earlier, he is also in direct violation of CCP's EULA and ToS.
So not only have you been defending someone who violates universal human rights, EULA, ToS, you also agree with us that he should most likely be banned for such comments in the first place.

I am just trying to understand why you would support that?

Actually it was in the 90s - and he and his gang published hate speech, then terrorized those who opposed them, then of course there was the battle/riot at Sneeky Dee's when they thought it'd be "laughs" to track down and beat on of the girls.

Can you explain to me how people choosing to assume that Fon is human garbage based on the ideologies he's espoused is the equivalent of automatically assuming that someone charged with a penal offense is guilty? Because newsflash - it's not. Similarly, pointing out that many people who share his political ideology tend to be violent is not charging him with a criminal offense either - it's pointing out an association that may give one a reason for concern.

And can you explain to me how CCP going "You know what Fon old buddy, a lot of people don't really take very well to the ideologies you embrace, and from a business perspective, we've decided that we'd rather not have you as a community representative. Sorry!" is "destroying his rights"? Because newsflash - it's not. Were they to do so they'd have done exactly nothing to prevent him from expressing his beliefs - they'd have merely taken steps to distance themselves from them.

Likewise, Article 19 would be inapplicable for the same reason.

So, while your armchair laweyering is cute and everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it actually applies. Maybe you can explain that to me. Not that it's relevant at all anyway, of course, seeing as the UDHR is very much non-binding.

you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

you equate denying him the ability to run for CSM to denying his human rights

by extension being banned from eve - which denies you the ability to run for CSM - is stripping you of your human rights

can you make this a bit more challenging because it's not at all

Article 30 you will note actually says noting about hate speech, and yes they can toss him if he breaches the EULA or TOS. What I support is people human rights, all people not just those who I happen to agree with.

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.

you know, there's a massive difference between saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because you disagree with their views and saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to run because they've literally posted racist nonsense on these forums

if the guy doesn't really bother separating his wretched views and associations from EVE, why should we do the same in return?

what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed



also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~

No I am stating that stopping someone from doing something due their political affiliation, race, sex, disability, sexual persuasion is.

what do you mean i can't walk into the women's bathroom you're violating my human rights

also let me dig up a post i made many, many pages back that you may have missed



also CCP as a private entity must defend its business interests from the potential media backlash of, say, a guy who has previously spewed racist nonsense spewing racist nonsense while being in their ~player council~ especially in the event that he's on a non-delayed video stream

hmm when does that ever happen

Running for CSM is not a "human right".

Running for CSM is not a "human right".

So you have no problem with CCP making the CSM only for white, land owning males over 45 years old then?

naturally people against overt racists running for the CSM are just fine with CCP implementing an overtly racist policy

Do you have an actual argument? One that addresses how blocking someone from running for CSM violates their human rights? Or are you going to continue to throw out as many straw men as you can come up with?

That would be another straw man. Try again?

No you are arguing that stopping someone due to their political affiliation is fine but not for their age, sex and financial criteria.

Sorry you don't get to pick and chose what is a human right.