'Conspiracy Author' David Icke Banned From EU, Labeled A "Terrorist"

a reply to: Kurokage

Judging by this thread, more than the original demonstration.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Far from being a Icke supporter. I do support though his right to speak his mind and I do see that all accusations against him are unsubstantiated.

I'm not saying you are a Icke supporter, I'm saying you are taking his side by saying that the accusations from those people in the Netherlands are unsubstantiated.

Unless you have analysed all of Icke's interventions and opinions and compared them with the accusations you cannot really take his side anymore than anyone else can take the accuser's side without enough information.

There's only three possibilities in situations like this: we either take the side of the accusers, the side of the accuser or we remain neutral.

To me, the "reasonably good people" do not choose to support one side without enough supporting information, and I haven't seen none that supports the "he his not anti-Semitic" or "he is not a holocaust denier".

PS: the doesn't mean that the information that presents him as "anti-Semitic" or "a holocaust denier" is correct or up to date (people do change), I haven't seen any confirmation of that information's correctness for the present day.

Yes, the accusations are unsubstantiated up to this point.

I don't have to make an analysis of what he (Icke) has said through his entire history as a speaker.

I comment in regards to the various accusations made of whatever nature. Even in these threads we have witnessed some of them that are commonly thrown out there i.e anti-semitism and holocaust denial. The burden of proof are on those who make these accusations and not on me or anyone else and certainly not on Icke to disprove them.

I am not a supporter of Icke. But given the evidence he is clearly censored, defamed, and deplatformed. May I remind you that he has accounts are blocked on major social media as he is considered a 'dangerous' conspiracy theorist.

The idea that myself and others will remain 'neutral' as you say when it comes to censorship and rights it's something that most of us don't wish to entertain.

I will repeat that the burden of proof is on those who make these allegations. And unless they are proven then they are unsubstantiated. I haven't seen anything that he is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier.

The default position is to assume innocence until proven the opposite.

Above you have stated that you haven't seen much that he is non anti-semitic and that he is not a holocaust denier! Really?!

And I haven't seen much that there are no pink unicorns and giant space penguins....

There is enough information which shows that Icke is none of that. Never I remember him or anyone else denying the holocaust, for example.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The member believe he has 'strong evidence' for Icke being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier by making the above references.

you may disagree but I see you still haven't even touched upon the issue of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and have ignored my post showing the proof you asked for with book name, comments and page numbers etc. Do you not agree that Icke made those comments in his book? Do you not believe Icke thinks "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real document?
The only reason to reference this document is for anti-Jewish/anti-semitism propaganda.

www.britannica.com...

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism mainly in the early 20th century. The document purported to be a report of a series of 24 (in other versions, 27) meetings held at Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, at the time of the first Zionist congress. There Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule. Liberalism and socialism were to be the means of subverting Christendom; if subversion failed, all the capitals of Europe were to be sabotaged...

Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, revealed that the Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources.

From the Jewish Daily Bulletin September 30 1932
www.jta.org...

Nazis Revive Spurious Protocols of Elders of Zion for Election Purposes

The revival of the use of the spurious protocols of the Elders of Zion has been ordered by Adolph Hitler himself, it was revealed today.

The Elders of Zion legends are now to be broadcast at every Nazi meeting and in the Nazi press, particularly by the “Voelkischer Beobachter.”

The Nazi leader, Julius Streicher, speaking at a Nazi meeting in Munich last night asserted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the resolutions adopted by the Geneva Jewish conference have now been materialized as the Jews rule the government of Chancellor Franz van Papen.

“Carry out God’s wish! Free Germany from the Jewish poison!” Streicher exclaimed as 10,000 Nazis, including Hitler’s high command, applauded.

research.calvin.edu...

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most astonishing documents in history. Although proven repeatedly to be forged it is still widely available today, and many (particularly in the Arab world) believe in it completely. It is supposedly the record of a meeting of Jewish leaders late in the nineteenth century to review their progress in gaining world domination. The Wikipedia article on the Protocols provides a good summary (at least it does as I write...).

Although there was sufficient evidence that the Protocols were forged by the early 1920’s, Hitler took them seriously, as did Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda system.

You seem to support the concept of freedom of speech, yet here on ATS in this thread, it appears that if someone disagrees with you, you try to shut them down and use very poor misinformed threats of "court".
Just because you claim Icke isn't as described doesn't make it so and no claims of "refuted" shows this.

You also missed the fact that I posted about his "banning" but because of your Cognitive bias you seemed to have missed this.

Unsubstantiated claims and nothing else.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If free speech was allowed then why Icke cannot go in person and has to give the speech online?

The right to speak freely is not the same thing as the right to move to wherever they want.
Do you consider a free speech problem the fact that some countries ask for a visa to people from other countries?

Of course someone is deranged when they use the same rhetoric in the absence of any evidence with the same accusations circulated.

You are assuming they do not have any evidence.

Anti-semitism
Far right extremist
Holocaust denier

He wasn't accused of being a far right extremist.

.

We all know that he has been censored as well as banned from the Netherlands and as it seems on every one of the 26 Schengen area countries.

Not only he is censored heavily but he is banned because of the threats of violent protects, unrest and disorder by some opposition-protesters.
If it wasn't for them then Icke would have been allowed to give his speech as normal.

Once the is banned from the country he is also censored. It's a direct consequence of the first action.

Icke would never have had a problem obtaining a visa to go to the Netherlands.

So banned and censored.
Also censored online on various platforms.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Unsubstantiated claims and nothing else.

I find it hilarious that you claim unsubstantiated when I've show the comments are in his own books.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The Dutch government has banned British conspiracy theorist David Icke from the Netherlands and the entire Schengen area of the European Union for two years over fears his presence could "disturb public order".

That piece of news is wrong, the Dutch government didn't ban Icke from the Schengen area, it was the authority that controls the Schengen area that accept the concerns of the Dutch police and applied the ban that can be appealed. Individual countries cannot apply a ban for the Schengen area.

Not only Icke is censored but he is banned from Netherlands and how many other countries in the Schengen area (26 in total).

Is not just censorship but part of the cancelling culture sponsored by the state.

If he was censored he wouldn't be allowed to made his speech online and his books would be banned from being on sale.
That's what real censorship is like, I lived under one during the first years of my life.

As for giving lecturer and speeches online that's not the same being physically present in crowds hundreds or even thousands of people. He has every right to do so.

Not in a foreign country, countries have a right to limit who enters them.

Furthermore the internet isn't his friend lately and he is censored on major platforms and his accounts have been blocked as far as I know pretty much everywhere.

That's a slightly different (but related) problem, as those blocks do not come from governments but from private companies.

I think you are trying hard without being very convincing at this point by arguing he is not censored that much and can still speak.

Yes he can speak but not in Netherlands.
He is banned. He is also censored in major platforms where his accounts have been blocked.

You think that because he is allowed to speak online (not entirely true as he has been blocked on major platforms) this doesn't constitute censorship?! Really?!

So the only censorship is one that is online?! That's the real one according to you. Are you serious?


Here one definition of censorship


en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Censorship%20is%20the%20suppression%20of,institutions%20and%20other%20controlling%20bodies.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies

For the last two parts I think you are in a denial over the fact that he is censored.

Yes countries can allow or block someone from entering them. In this case they have banned Icke and hence censored him. Look at the definition of censorship above.

Furthermore the fact that major platforms are private companies doesn't make censorship accept acceptable and still constitutes to censorship. Again look at the definition above.

Hence these claims have been refuted.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't have to make an analysis of what he (Icke) has said through his entire history as a speaker.

To honestly be able to state that he is not something you really need to do that, otherwise it's just your opinion.

I comment in regards to the various accusations made of whatever nature. Even in these threads we have witnessed some of them that are commonly thrown out there i.e anti-semitism and holocaust denial. The burden of proof are on those who make these accusations and not on me or anyone else and certainly not on Icke to disprove them.

True, but when you state the he isn't something you are the one that need to prove that what you say is correct.
It works both ways.

I am not a supporter of Icke. But given the evidence he is clearly censored, defamed, and deplatformed. May I remind you that he has accounts are blocked on major social media as he is considered a 'dangerous' conspiracy theorist.

He wasn't censored by the Netherlands or the Schengen are authorities and none of his accounts were blocked by the Netherlands government or the Schengen area authorities, and that's what being discussed here.
Whatever private companies do is a different (although related) problem.

The idea that myself and others will remain 'neutral' as you say when it comes to censorship and rights it's something that most of us don't wish to entertain.

That's the problem.
Starting from a neutral position allows people to gather information and analyse it without any bias, and, as a consequence, helps them avoid being, for example, fooled by false information.

The default position is to assume innocence until proven the opposite.

And that's what you are not doing, as you are assuming that those making the accusations do not have proof of what they say.
Asking for proof is one thing (with which I agree), assuming there isn't any is another.

Above you have stated that you haven't seen much that he is non anti-semitic and that he is not a holocaust denier! Really?!

Really.
For example, an Icke statement against the Nazi actions against the Jews would help give the idea he isn't an anti-Semitic, as a statement against the use of mass executions of Jews (and other "undesirables") by the Nazis would help show he isn't a holocaust denier.

And I haven't seen much that there are no pink unicorns and giant space penguins....

I haven't either, but I haven't seen anyone saying they exist.

There is enough information which shows that Icke is none of that. Never I remember him or anyone else denying the holocaust, for example.

Unfortunately, your memory cannot be used as proof in favour or against any thing.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
We all know that he has been censored as well as banned from the Netherlands and as it seems on every one of the 26 Schengen area countries.

He wasn't censored in the Netherlands.
If he was censored his writings would be banned (they weren't), his videos would be banned (they weren't) and his site blocked (it wasn't, as far as I know).

If it wasn't for them then Icke would have been allowed to give his speech as normal.

That's true.

Once the is banned from the country he is also censored. It's a direct consequence of the first action.

That's not true, see above.

Icke would never have had a problem obtaining a visa to go to the Netherlands.

If the Dutch authorities denied his entry in the country how can you say that?

So banned and censored.

No, just banned.

Also censored online on various platforms.

Irrelevant, that wasn't done by the Dutch government.

PS: I still haven't found any reference to a possible appeal of the decision, if all they used as a reason for this ban is unsubstantiated he just needs to file an appeal to repeal the ban, it says so in the letter.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't have to make an analysis of what he (Icke) has said through his entire history as a speaker.

To honestly be able to state that he is not something you really need to do that, otherwise it's just your opinion.

I comment in regards to the various accusations made of whatever nature. Even in these threads we have witnessed some of them that are commonly thrown out there i.e anti-semitism and holocaust denial. The burden of proof are on those who make these accusations and not on me or anyone else and certainly not on Icke to disprove them.

True, but when you state the he isn't something you are the one that need to prove that what you say is correct.
It works both ways.

I am not a supporter of Icke. But given the evidence he is clearly censored, defamed, and deplatformed. May I remind you that he has accounts are blocked on major social media as he is considered a 'dangerous' conspiracy theorist.

He wasn't censored by the Netherlands or the Schengen are authorities and none of his accounts were blocked by the Netherlands government or the Schengen area authorities, and that's what being discussed here.
Whatever private companies do is a different (although related) problem.

The idea that myself and others will remain 'neutral' as you say when it comes to censorship and rights it's something that most of us don't wish to entertain.

That's the problem.
Starting from a neutral position allows people to gather information and analyse it without any bias, and, as a consequence, helps them avoid being, for example, fooled by false information.

The default position is to assume innocence until proven the opposite.

And that's what you are not doing, as you are assuming that those making the accusations do not have proof of what they say.
Asking for proof is one thing (with which I agree), assuming there isn't any is another.

Above you have stated that you haven't seen much that he is non anti-semitic and that he is not a holocaust denier! Really?!

Really.
For example, an Icke statement against the Nazi actions against the Jews would help give the idea he isn't an anti-Semitic, as a statement against the use of mass executions of Jews (and other "undesirables") by the Nazis would help show he isn't a holocaust denier.

And I haven't seen much that there are no pink unicorns and giant space penguins....

I haven't either, but I haven't seen anyone saying they exist.

There is enough information which shows that Icke is none of that. Never I remember him or anyone else denying the holocaust, for example.

Unfortunately, your memory cannot be used as proof in favour or against any thing.

As state above the burden of proof is on those who make the accusations and not on any of us to disprove their arguments.

No information exists and no evidence that Icke is a holocat denier. You say about proof... The burden of proof is not on Icke or anyone else but on those who make these allegations.

I don't have any bias in this matter.

The rest of your paragraphs are just word salad in an attempt to convince us they have to be neutral and not calling out those who try to censor others.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
We all know that he has been censored as well as banned from the Netherlands and as it seems on every one of the 26 Schengen area countries.

He wasn't censored in the Netherlands.
If he was censored his writings would be banned (they weren't), his videos would be banned (they weren't) and his site blocked (it wasn't, as far as I know).

If it wasn't for them then Icke would have been allowed to give his speech as normal.

That's true.

Once the is banned from the country he is also censored. It's a direct consequence of the first action.

That's not true, see above.

Icke would never have had a problem obtaining a visa to go to the Netherlands.

If the Dutch authorities denied his entry in the country how can you say that?

So banned and censored.

No, just banned.

Also censored online on various platforms.

Irrelevant, that wasn't done by the Dutch government.

PS: I still haven't found any reference to a possible appeal of the decision, if all they used as a reason for this ban is unsubstantiated he just needs to file an appeal to repeal the ban, it says so in the letter.

Not really. Banned and censored.

Need to have a look at the definition of censorship again.


en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Censorship%20is%20the%20suppression%20of,institutions%20and%20other%20controlling%20bodies.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

He is censored both by the Dutch Government and the private corporations.

No you are not right in what you have said.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't have to make an analysis of what he (Icke) has said through his entire history as a speaker.

To honestly be able to state that he is not something you really need to do that, otherwise it's just your opinion.

I comment in regards to the various accusations made of whatever nature. Even in these threads we have witnessed some of them that are commonly thrown out there i.e anti-semitism and holocaust denial. The burden of proof are on those who make these accusations and not on me or anyone else and certainly not on Icke to disprove them.

True, but when you state the he isn't something you are the one that need to prove that what you say is correct.
It works both ways.

I am not a supporter of Icke. But given the evidence he is clearly censored, defamed, and deplatformed. May I remind you that he has accounts are blocked on major social media as he is considered a 'dangerous' conspiracy theorist.

He wasn't censored by the Netherlands or the Schengen are authorities and none of his accounts were blocked by the Netherlands government or the Schengen area authorities, and that's what being discussed here.
Whatever private companies do is a different (although related) problem.

The idea that myself and others will remain 'neutral' as you say when it comes to censorship and rights it's something that most of us don't wish to entertain.

That's the problem.
Starting from a neutral position allows people to gather information and analyse it without any bias, and, as a consequence, helps them avoid being, for example, fooled by false information.

The default position is to assume innocence until proven the opposite.

And that's what you are not doing, as you are assuming that those making the accusations do not have proof of what they say.
Asking for proof is one thing (with which I agree), assuming there isn't any is another.

Above you have stated that you haven't seen much that he is non anti-semitic and that he is not a holocaust denier! Really?!

Really.
For example, an Icke statement against the Nazi actions against the Jews would help give the idea he isn't an anti-Semitic, as a statement against the use of mass executions of Jews (and other "undesirables") by the Nazis would help show he isn't a holocaust denier.

And I haven't seen much that there are no pink unicorns and giant space penguins....

I haven't either, but I haven't seen anyone saying they exist.

There is enough information which shows that Icke is none of that. Never I remember him or anyone else denying the holocaust, for example.

Unfortunately, your memory cannot be used as proof in favour or against any thing.

You are trying very hard to convince the audience he is not censored. He is banned and censored at the same time.

You have lost the argument.


Definition of censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I think you are trying hard without being very convincing at this point by arguing he is not censored that much and can still speak.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just to make people understand what was really done.

Yes he can speak but not in Netherlands.

He can speak in the Netherlands but not in person.

He is banned.

True.

He is also censored in major platforms where his accounts have been blocked.

Irrelevant for this case.

You think that because he is allowed to speak online (not entirely true as he has been blocked on major platforms) this doesn't constitute censorship?! Really?!

Yes!
And you know why? Because it isn't!

Freedom of speech and freedom of movement are different things. As I said before, if he was censored by the Dutch government his books would be banned from the libraries and bookshops, for example, and his site would be blocked in the Netherlands.
That's what real censorship is about, to stop people from spreading their word, not from traveling to other countries.

So the only censorship is one that is online?! That's the real one according to you. Are you serious?

No, I'm not saying that, too bad your reading is selective and only sees that.

Here one definition of censorship

I don't need a definition of censorship, I lived through one.

For the last two parts I think you are in a denial over the fact that he is censored.

I don't understand what you mean by "the last two parts", could you explain it better? Thanks in advance.

Yes countries can allow or block someone from entering them. In this case they have banned Icke and hence censored him. Look at the definition of censorship above.

I have, show me where it says blocking people from entering a country is censorship.

Furthermore the fact that major platforms are private companies doesn't make censorship accept acceptable and still constitutes to censorship. Again look at the definition above.

It could be considered censorship (I would need more information about it), but it was not done by the Dutch government or by the Schengen area authorities.

Hence these claims have been refuted.

What claims? Could you be clearer, please?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
As state above the burden of proof is on those who make the accusations and not on any of us to disprove their arguments.

More correctly, the burden of proof is on those that make the claim, regardless of what they are claiming.

The rest of your paragraphs are just word salad in an attempt to convince us they we have to be neutral and not calling out those who try to censor others.

I see you didn't understand a thing of what I said...

You

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I think you are trying hard without being very convincing at this point by arguing he is not censored that much and can still speak.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just to make people understand what was really done.

Yes he can speak but not in Netherlands.

He can speak in the Netherlands but not in person.

He is banned.

True.

He is also censored in major platforms where his accounts have been blocked.

Irrelevant for this case.

You think that because he is allowed to speak online (not entirely true as he has been blocked on major platforms) this doesn't constitute censorship?! Really?!

Yes!
And you know why? Because it isn't!

Freedom of speech and freedom of movement are different things. As I said before, if he was censored by the Dutch government his books would be banned from the libraries and bookshops, for example, and his site would be blocked in the Netherlands.
That's what real censorship is about, to stop people from spreading their word, not from traveling to other countries.

So the only censorship is one that is online?! That's the real one according to you. Are you serious?

No, I'm not saying that, too bad your reading is selective and only sees that.

Here one definition of censorship

I don't need a definition of censorship, I lived through one.

For the last two parts I think you are in a denial over the fact that he is censored.

I don't understand what you mean by "the last two parts", could you explain it better? Thanks in advance.

Yes countries can allow or block someone from entering them. In this case they have banned Icke and hence censored him. Look at the definition of censorship above.

I have, show me where it says blocking people from entering a country is censorship.

Furthermore the fact that major platforms are private companies doesn't make censorship accept acceptable and still constitutes to censorship. Again look at the definition above.

It could be considered censorship (I would need more information about it), but it was not done by the Dutch government or by the Schengen area authorities.

Hence these claims have been refuted.

What claims? Could you be clearer, please?

You need the definition of censorship as you have made claims that only online censorship is real...then you tried hard to argue one is a different form of censorship from the other as it isn't connected to the state due to the fact that major platforms are private companies...

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

You clearly don't understand what censorship is or don't want to admit what censorship is...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
As state above the burden of proof is on those who make the accusations and not on any of us to disprove their arguments.

More correctly, the burden of proof is on those that make the claim, regardless of what they are claiming.

The rest of your paragraphs are just word salad in an attempt to convince us they we have to be neutral and not calling out those who try to censor others.

I see you didn't understand a thing of what I said...

Yes the burden of proof are on those who accused Icke of being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier or whatever else has been claimed. We need to call out on all those who make unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to censor and silence free speech.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You are trying very hard to convince the audience he is not censored.

As I said before, I am not trying to convince anyone.

He is banned and censored at the same time.

See the above? That's a statement made by you, so you have the burden of proving that your statement is correct.

You have lost the argument.

Was this an argument? I thought I was only presenting information to help people understand the situation.

Definition of censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

OK, that's a definition of censorship, I think we all agree with that.

Now, show us where the Dutch government suppressed Icke's speech, public communication or other information, please.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You need the definition of censorship as you have made claims that only online censorship is real...

OK, post a quote of my post(s) where I have said that, please.

then you tried hard to argue one is a different form of censorship from the other as it isn't connected to the state due to the fact that major platforms are private companies...

Again, show where I have said that, please.

You clearly don't understand what censorship is or don't want to admit what censorship is...

I lived under real censorship, I know perfectly well what real censorship is.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes the burden of proof are on those who accused Icke of being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier or whatever else has been claimed.

No, the burden of proof is on everyone that makes a statement, not just people on one side of the problem.

If someone says "Icke is anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier" then that person should present proof of both those sentences (it's possible to be one and not be the other).

If someone says "Icke is not anti-Semitic or a holocaust denier" then that person should present proof of that too.

If someone says "show me proof that Icke is an anti-Semitic or a holocaust denier" that person is asking for information and is not making a statement regarding one or the other side of the situation.

We need to call out on all those who make unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to censor and silence free speech.

We need to call out on all those who make unsubstantiated claims.

a reply to: zosimov

I must ask you to forgive me the lapse in reading. Sorry I am not timely in responding.

I realize that you specified violence, but my thoughts immediately went off on a tangential path. I was concerned about glossing over the notion that protesting is a bad thing - my bad. I'm grateful for the thoughtful clarification.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yeah..., I blew it. That was definitely a response that needed redressing.

Just to be myself, I try not to call people (even hypothetical ones) deranged. There are a bevy of reasons why people become violent, and we will always have arguments about which "why" is acceptable. Assuming that the reason for a person's violence is "derangement" (mental defect) could lead to injustice. - But I get your gist... and my comment is inconsequential to the debate.