(Dismissed) Atletius vs Marquette

I believe Marquette was being racist towards Romanians and Bulgarians in the RMB while we were discussing Romanian and Bulgarian immigration into the UK (IRL)

Here is what he said:

Romanians are a blight on Europe and the country should be kicked out of the EU. Romanian immigrants in Western Europe are nothing but leeches on civilization who steal everything right out from under your nose. Romanians are making Madrid, an already difficult place to live, even worse. Same with Milan. Plus, they build their slums where they like, and just beg and steal instead of actually trying to improve their standard of living and getting an honest income.

No, it's not racist. They're literal leeches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDj0B5WQaA


Screenshots:
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 ArialMT;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0

\f0\fs22 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0
\outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 }

How are these grounds for a Court of Justice case? There is no legislation saying one cannot be racist, and that's not saying that my comment was not racist, because it wasn't. I gave substantial evidence to back up my argument, this is ridiculous.

Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding. Does the prosecution have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Marquette, that is in violation of regional laws and statutes?

Europe and Asia wrote:Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding. Does the prosecution have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Marquette, that is in violation of regional laws and statutes?

No but I believe this would come under general unacceptable conduct, similar to the Stirva case conducted earlier this year.

Atletius wrote:

Europe and Asia wrote:Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding. Does the prosecution have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Marquette, that is in violation of regional laws and statutes?

No but I believe this would come under general unacceptable conduct, similar to the Stirva case conducted earlier this year.

We gave Striva three strikes, and he had an abhorrent record. Marquette deserves that at least. Now, do you have proof of breach if rules?

Europe and Asia wrote:

Atletius wrote:

Europe and Asia wrote:Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding. Does the prosecution have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Marquette, that is in violation of regional laws and statutes?

No but I believe this would come under general unacceptable conduct, similar to the Stirva case conducted earlier this year.

We gave Striva three strikes, and he had an abhorrent record. Marquette deserves that at least. Now, do you have proof of breach if rules?

Forgive me, Your Honor, but Stirva was not exactly expressing his opinions, but rather he was blatantly insulting people for their beliefs. I fail to see how our cases share any similarities and why I should be punished in the manner he was.

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:

Europe and Asia wrote:

Atletius wrote:

Europe and Asia wrote:Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding. Does the prosecution have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Marquette, that is in violation of regional laws and statutes?

No but I believe this would come under general unacceptable conduct, similar to the Stirva case conducted earlier this year.

We gave Striva three strikes, and he had an abhorrent record. Marquette deserves that at least. Now, do you have proof of breach if rules?

Forgive me, Your Honor, but Stirva was not exactly expressing his opinions, but rather he was blatantly insulting people for their beliefs. I fail to see how our cases share any similarities and why I should be punished in the manner he was.

The objection by the defendant, Marquette, is granted. Striva vs Shirouma was an entirely different case, and is not a permissible prosecution.

As the Delegate, I am inclined to side with Atletius on this issue. I have gone over the recent "incident" involving Marquette and his posts are beginning to worry me. They are giving off strong racist vibes, I believe this is a image that the WA does not wish to promote, nor a characteristic the WA, and Nationstates, tolerates. 

However, Marquette has not fallen flaw to the three strikes regime, so there is no grounds for a banjection. However, I will motion for Marquette to have his position as RMB Moderator revoked indefinitely. 


I would like to remind you that many members of the WA are members of countless different demographics, and a substantial number of them have been offended by Marquette's post.

I would like to emphasise that Marquette did not directly violate any laws, as he does have the right to express his views. However, the comments themselves were inappropriate for the RMB.

Freedom of speech is a right, but calling certain demographics (such as Romanian's) "leches" and a "blight on Europe" is most definitely not acceptable. I do not think it would be wise for our region to be sympathetic to racist attitudes under the banner of freedom of speech. 


Also, I do agree with the statement that Marquette is an active and valuable member of the WA. This would also be the first time we've had a proper issue regarding him. Therefore, a banjection is most definitely NOT warranted, but a punishment is justified. The punishment I propose is the revoking of his moderator position.

New-Zealand wrote:
I would like to remind you that many members of the WA are members of countless different demographics, and a substantial number of them have been offended by Marquette's post.

Like one person who allegedly has Gypsy relatives was offended...

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to emphasise that Marquette did not directly violate any laws, as he does have the right to express his views. However, the comments themselves were inappropriate for the RMB.

Freedom of speech is a right, but calling certain demographics (such as Romanian's) "leches" and a "blight on Europe" is most definitely not acceptable. I do not think it would be wise for our region to be sympathetic to racist attitudes under the banner of freedom of speech. 


Also, I do agree with the statement that Marquette is an active and valuable member of the WA. This would also be the first time we've had a proper issue regarding him. Therefore, a banjection is most definitely NOT warranted, but a punishment is justified. The punishment I propose is the revoking of his moderator position.

I agree with NZ in his suggestion as punishment, as what Marquette said was not for the RMB but it's not a major offense and is the first issue.

Atletius wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to emphasise that Marquette did not directly violate any laws, as he does have the right to express his views. However, the comments themselves were inappropriate for the RMB.

Freedom of speech is a right, but calling certain demographics (such as Romanian's) "leches" and a "blight on Europe" is most definitely not acceptable. I do not think it would be wise for our region to be sympathetic to racist attitudes under the banner of freedom of speech. 


Also, I do agree with the statement that Marquette is an active and valuable member of the WA. This would also be the first time we've had a proper issue regarding him. Therefore, a banjection is most definitely NOT warranted, but a punishment is justified. The punishment I propose is the revoking of his moderator position.

I agree with NZ in his suggestion as punishment, as what Marquette said was not for the RMB but it's not a major offense and is the first issue.

According to Eurussia, Marquette resigned his position as RMB moderator. Due to this, this case is dismissed for redundancy.

Europe and Asia wrote:

Atletius wrote:

New-Zealand wrote:I would like to emphasise that Marquette did not directly violate any laws, as he does have the right to express his views. However, the comments themselves were inappropriate for the RMB.

Freedom of speech is a right, but calling certain demographics (such as Romanian's) "leches" and a "blight on Europe" is most definitely not acceptable. I do not think it would be wise for our region to be sympathetic to racist attitudes under the banner of freedom of speech. 


Also, I do agree with the statement that Marquette is an active and valuable member of the WA. This would also be the first time we've had a proper issue regarding him. Therefore, a banjection is most definitely NOT warranted, but a punishment is justified. The punishment I propose is the revoking of his moderator position.

I agree with NZ in his suggestion as punishment, as what Marquette said was not for the RMB but it's not a major offense and is the first issue.

According to Eurussia, Marquette resigned his position as RMB moderator. Due to this, this case is dismissed for redundancy.

NOTED!