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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
But censoring someone on the basis of their beliefs in Pink Unicorns, lizard aliens who want to take over the world and the rest it's just unacceptable.

I agree.

We see the double standards as many of these protesters who want to censor Icke and cancel him don't have any issue when one who is man identifies as a woman and believes he is a woman.

Do you know each one of them personally?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
But censoring someone on the basis of their beliefs in Pink Unicorns, lizard aliens who want to take over the world and the rest it's just unacceptable.

I agree.

We see the double standards as many of these protesters who want to censor Icke and cancel him don't have any issue when one who is man identifies as a woman and believes he is a woman.

Do you know each one of them personally?

For the second part, I am talking generally and don't need to know each one personally. Those left wing activists have no issue censoring Icke but when it comes to gender identity they are usually quite vocal and will stand for the right one has to identify as whatever gender they want to.

So yes, double standards driven by ideology.
Although I am sure you realise and accept this is the case for many of those characters.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You keep attempting to correct what you've posted with your poor explainations. You've flip flopped and then expect me to explain, really??
You need to pick one and stick to it, and not try to change it because you don't like being shown you're wrong. You choose to ignore anything you don't agree with and then blame the other poster for not understanding or not showing facts.

Yes, Icke is quite generous and hasn't taken anyone to court yet. This doesn't imply an admission of guilt from his side, as you wrongly implied sometime ago.

So you know him personally do you? You know as fact that he is a generous person and is simply avioding showing he may not be antisemetic, Prove it?
You haven't refuted anything in this thread, all you've done is posted the word!

No I am not.
I have covered both scenarios.

He is indeed quite generous and hasn't taken anyone to court for libel and defamation as far as I know. He could have done so on many occasions and as you know the burden of proof is on the defendant according to English Law.

I don't have to show you that he is not anti-semitic and not a holocaust denier. It is you who has to prove that he is if you indeed accusing him. And you haven't proven anything, unless you think that whet you post here is 'proof'.

So the question I have asked you before and you seem to avoid answering. Suppose he takes you or others to court on libel and defamation charges. Where do you think the burden of proof is? On you or on him? According to English Law of course.

Let's cover this scenario first.


Let me remind you the English Law first

English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.

I just want to see if you really understand what it says above. You seem to be oblivious what the law says. For me the first two sentences are the most important when it says that English law puts the burden of proof on the defendant. I wanted to see how will you prove that he is what you claim he is?? Because if you go about this matter the way you go in these threads then that will cost you quite a lot...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see your still in denial and trying to prove Icke isn't antisemetic. You're also still flip flopping on who should take who to court.
You've posted a quote but don't seem understand it because who's taking who to court in this scenario now? At first you said I should take Icke to court but then changed your stance when shown your understanding was wrong.

I don't have to show you that he is not anti-semitic and not a holocaust denier. It is you who has to prove that he is if you indeed accusing him. And you haven't proven anything, unless you think that whet you post here is 'proof'.

You keep ignoring the proof I've posted and yet claim he's a generous person because he isn't sueing anyone but don't offer any proof of your own to back up your claims.
All you seem to do is make crazy statements and then expect people to accept them at face value.

I think this quote sums you up nicely..

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
For the second part, I am talking generally and don't need to know each one personally.

Generalisations are a great way of being unjust, so I try to avoid them.

Those left wing activists have no issue censoring Icke but when it comes to gender identity they are usually quite vocal and will stand for the right one has to identify as whatever gender they want to.

That's true, statistically, left wing people are more accepting of gender identity than right wing people.

So yes, double standards driven by ideology.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people that asked for Icke's ban do not even know what he has been saying throughout his life and are just reacting to what looks like someone supporting a right wing demonstration.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
He is indeed quite generous and hasn't taken anyone to court for libel and defamation as far as I know.

But now he is suing the Dutch immigration service.

Conspiracy theorist David Icke fights Dutch entry ban in court

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
He is indeed quite generous and hasn't taken anyone to court for libel and defamation as far as I know.

But now he is suing the Dutch immigration service.

Conspiracy theorist David Icke fights Dutch entry ban in court

It's about time but that's very different from suing individuals for libel and defamation.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
For the second part, I am talking generally and don't need to know each one personally.

Generalisations are a great way of being unjust, so I try to avoid them.

Those left wing activists have no issue censoring Icke but when it comes to gender identity they are usually quite vocal and will stand for the right one has to identify as whatever gender they want to.

That's true, statistically, left wing people are more accepting of gender identity than right wing people.

So yes, double standards driven by ideology.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people that asked for Icke's ban do not even know what he has been saying throughout his life and are just reacting to what looks like someone supporting a right wing demonstration.

Personally I haven't seen anyone on the right claiming that a man can be a woman and a woman can be man or that there are 65 genders. These are almost exclusively ideas that come from the left or the very left.

Even if you find someone on the right part of the ideological spectrum then this will be the exception. So in this case I can generalise, as right wing individuals in favour of the transgender ideology are rare entities, if they do really exist. So no, I am not unjust.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see your still in denial and trying to prove Icke isn't antisemetic. You're also still flip flopping on who should take who to court.
You've posted a quote but don't seem understand it because who's taking who to court in this scenario now? At first you said I should take Icke to court but then changed your stance when shown your understanding was wrong.

I don't have to show you that he is not anti-semitic and not a holocaust denier. It is you who has to prove that he is if you indeed accusing him. And you haven't proven anything, unless you think that whet you post here is 'proof'.

You keep ignoring the proof I've posted and yet claim he's a generous person because he isn't sueing anyone but don't offer any proof of your own to back up your claims.
All you seem to do is make crazy statements and then expect people to accept them at face value.

I think this quote sums you up nicely..

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

.


I don't have to prove anything.
It is those who make the claims that need to prove them. You have claimed he is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. Ok then. Prove it.

What you posted isn't proof. It's your idea of what proof is which isn't correct. It's just your opinion.

For the other part. Whichever way it goes it is you who has the burden of proof.

Which was you want to examine first?

Scenario 1

Icke claims that you are making defamatory and libelous statements against him due to some written and repeated statements about him being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier.
Where do you think the burden of proof is when you have written down that he is an antisemite and a holocaust denier.

Then we can go to Scenario 2

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Personally I haven't seen anyone on the right claiming that a man can be a woman and a woman can be man or that there are 65 genders. These are almost exclusively ideas that come from the left or the very left.

As I don't follow that topic (not even in my country) I cannot comment.

Even if you find someone on the right part of the ideological spectrum then this will be the exception. So in this case I can generalise, as right wing individuals in favour of the transgender ideology are rare entities, if they do really exist. So no, I am not unjust.

Do you know why you shouldn't generalise? Because "left" and "right" are not the same in all countries.

For example, would you call the Democratic Party in the US a left wing party? Or the Republican Party a right wing party?

In Portugal both would be considered centre (one left centre and the other right centre) parties.

In general, things in Europe are more like in Portugal than the US, with more variations from extreme left to extreme right, so I wouldn't be surprised if some right wing people in Europe agree with the transgender ideology.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Personally I haven't seen anyone on the right claiming that a man can be a woman and a woman can be man or that there are 65 genders. These are almost exclusively ideas that come from the left or the very left.

As I don't follow that topic (not even in my country) I cannot comment.

Even if you find someone on the right part of the ideological spectrum then this will be the exception. So in this case I can generalise, as right wing individuals in favour of the transgender ideology are rare entities, if they do really exist. So no, I am not unjust.

Do you know why you shouldn't generalise? Because "left" and "right" are not the same in all countries.

For example, would you call the Democratic Party in the US a left wing party? Or the Republican Party a right wing party?

In Portugal both would be considered centre (one left centre and the other right centre) parties.

In general, things in Europe are more like in Portugal than the US, with more variations from extreme left to extreme right, so I wouldn't be surprised if some right wing people in Europe agree with the transgender ideology.

The US democratic party isn't just left leaning but it has been hijacked by the woke ideology. You know probably what I mean. A man is man on Tuesday and a woman on Thursday and a bit of both on the weekend.

This transgender ideology is so bizarre that not even classical left wingers want to entertain. There is a subset of left wing people including left wing activists and the radical left that promote these ideas. They are also more keen to make accusations of homophobia, transphobia, anti-semitism and holocaust denialism, coming to our case with David Icke.

Indeed and just having a look at these threads it's unlikely that you will see anyone from the right part of the political spectrum to defend the transgender ideology or to make claims against David Icke for being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier.

I am not aware of people in the republican party embracing the woke culture.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see your still in denial and trying to prove Icke isn't antisemetic. You're also still flip flopping on who should take who to court.
You've posted a quote but don't seem understand it because who's taking who to court in this scenario now? At first you said I should take Icke to court but then changed your stance when shown your understanding was wrong.

I don't have to show you that he is not anti-semitic and not a holocaust denier. It is you who has to prove that he is if you indeed accusing him. And you haven't proven anything, unless you think that whet you post here is 'proof'.

You keep ignoring the proof I've posted and yet claim he's a generous person because he isn't sueing anyone but don't offer any proof of your own to back up your claims.
All you seem to do is make crazy statements and then expect people to accept them at face value.

I think this quote sums you up nicely..

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

So let reiterate the concept as you seem very confused on where the burden of proof is.

I am not the one who has to prove that Icke isn't anti-semitic or a holocaust denier as I haven't make any such claims. I have said numerous times that there is no evidence Icke is a holocaust denier and no evidence is anti-semitic so the default position is to accept that he is neither anti-semitic nor a holocaust denier.

The burden of proof is on you.

According to your own flawed logic myself and others should prove that Pink Unicorns don't exist. Where it is you who has to be prove the existence of Pink Unicorns.

I see that you have cornered yourself for once more in this thread with no way out after your arguments have been refuted on several occasions and in many threads, starting in the Covid threads and ending up here.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So let reiterate the concept as you seem very confused on where the burden of proof is.

No, I'll reiterate for you, you flip flopped on who should take who to court when you were shown you were incorrect after posting the wrong information from a law firm in Liverpool.
You also claimed Icke was a generous person for not taking anyone to court, and so I asked you to prove his "generosity", which I know you won't do.
I've also posted quotes with page numbers from his books and also posted his comments, all of which you've chosen to ignore and not comment on.

I see that you have cornered yourself for once more in this thread with no way out after your arguments have been refuted on several occasions and in many threads, starting in the Covid threads and ending up here.

The only person who's cornered themserleves is you. You haven'y even attempted to refute comments on "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" (a pamphlet SS soliders carried) or Ickes comments on historical facts concerning WW2, and why if he isn't antisemitic does he comment on these things and also "Schindlers List" being watched in schools?
As you brought up other threads, I've seen you do the same there, Just keep trying to force your opinions on others and calling "refuted" or "word salad" without any evidence if anyone disagrees with you.

You live in denial of something called facts.....

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So let reiterate the concept as you seem very confused on where the burden of proof is.

No, I'll reiterate for you, you flip flopped on who should take who to court when you were shown you were incorrect after posting the wrong information from a law firm in Liverpool.
You also claimed Icke was a generous person for not taking anyone to court, and so I asked you to prove his "generosity", which I know you won't do.
I've also posted quotes with page numbers from his books and also posted his comments, all of which you've chosen to ignore and not comment on.

I see that you have cornered yourself for once more in this thread with no way out after your arguments have been refuted on several occasions and in many threads, starting in the Covid threads and ending up here.

The only person who's cornered themserleves is you. You haven'y even attempted to refute comments on "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" (a pamphlet SS soliders carried) or Ickes comments on historical facts concerning WW2, and why if he isn't antisemitic does he comment on these things and also "Schindlers List" being watched in schools?
As you brought up other threads, I've seen you do the same there, Just keep trying to force your opinions on others and calling "refuted" or "word salad" without any evidence if anyone disagrees with you.

You live in denial of something called facts.....

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

No I didn't flip flopped on who should take who to the court. I have covered both scenarios. You have repeated it the same flawed argument as if it helps your case. The legal firm I have linked tells precisely the same as the English law i.e that if Icke wanted to take someone to the court on defamation charges then it is this someone who has to prove his/her case. The burden of proof is reversed.

I suppose you don't want Icke to do that given that he has started fighting the Dutch Government about his ban.

In case you decide to take him to court on the grounds of hate speech or anything else then it's you again who has to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on you and not on him.

The person who is in denial is you. You can't possibly see that if you write down statements about others and call them antisemites or holocaust deniers this could cost you a fortune in real life. Or do you want to have a go and see how this experiment ends up?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You did indeed flip flop when shown you were incorrect. It was after when you were shown your mistake that you decided it was the other way around....

How could my argument be flawed when I've only posted comments made by Icke? all you've done is scream "refuted", you havent made a single post showing how my Icke quotes are incorret.

I suppose you don't want Icke to do that given that he has started fighting the Dutch Government about his ban.

If you'd have read my posts you'd have seen I disagreed with the "ban" on Icke but that goes against your Cognitive bias.

He's only asked for the ban to lifted so far and the article states "intends" to file a lawsuit, so maybe you should try reading the article again? Also this has nothing to do with his antisemitism so far..
From the article..

The British conspiracy theorist, David Icke, wants the Dutch immigration service to cancel its entry ban preventing him from entering the Netherlands. The government office, IND, imposed the ban on 4 November, and Icke had called for the restriction to be lifted no later than Thursday. IND declined, and Icke now intends to file a lawsuit over the issue, he said in a statement issued by the Dutch anti-government organization Samen voor Nederland.

The person who is in denial is you. You can't possibly see that if you write down statements about others and call them antisemites or holocaust deniers this could cost you a fortune in real life. Or do you want to have a go and see how this experiment ends up?

I see you still haven't come up with a good enough reason why Icke has made those statements but you still keep trying to force your opinion on me???
Just keep repeating "refuted" it will make you feel better...

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You did indeed flip flop when shown you were incorrect. It was after when you were shown your mistake that you decided it was the other way around....

How could my argument be flawed when I've only posted comments made by Icke? all you've done is scream "refuted", you havent made a single post showing how my Icke quotes are incorret.

I suppose you don't want Icke to do that given that he has started fighting the Dutch Government about his ban.

If you'd have read my posts you'd have seen I disagreed with the "ban" on Icke but that goes against your Cognitive bias.

He's only asked for the ban to raised so far and the article states "intends" to file a lawsuit, so maybe you should try reading the article again? Also this also has nothing to do with his antisemitism so far..
From the article..

The British conspiracy theorist, David Icke, wants the Dutch immigration service to cancel its entry ban preventing him from entering the Netherlands. The government office, IND, imposed the ban on 4 November, and Icke had called for the restriction to be lifted no later than Thursday. IND declined, and Icke now intends to file a lawsuit over the issue, he said in a statement issued by the Dutch anti-government organization Samen voor Nederland.

The person who is in denial is you. You can't possibly see that if you write down statements about others and call them antisemites or holocaust deniers this could cost you a fortune in real life. Or do you want to have a go and see how this experiment ends up?

I see you still haven't come up with a good enough reason why Icke has made those statements???
Just keep repeating "refuted" it will make you feel better...

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

Naaah I didn't. This is just a desperate attempt to move away from the substance of the claims you made which are unsubstantiated.

I am not the one who has mentioned that Icke wants to fight back. It was another member above in which I commented it's about time he does. And about time he starts the lawsuits.

Given what you have said.
Prove then that Icke is an antisemite and a holocaust denier.

What you have posted in these threads is far from being a proof. Anyone can tell you this.

You do understand that you have cornered yourself with these arguments and claims?

I wonder what Icke would think if he knew that he is accused online. I am sure that he knows he is accused on some occasions. Let's summon him here. What do you think?

Naaah I didn't. This is just a desperate attempt to move away from the substance of the claims you made which have are unsubstantiated.

Really...

That would be a spectacle to watch. He is a nice chap and hasn't taken anyone to court yet for the slander remarks, libel & defamation.

If Icke takes people to court for Libel and Slander then those who accusing him and slandering him have to prove that their accusations are true.

The 'defendant' in this case is the one who makes these defamatory claims.

I wonder if you were in court how will you prove your claims.

So you are confident that if you take Icke to the court you can prove that he is a holocaust denier?

These are your comments and there's pleny more throughout the thread. The great flip flopper!!

Given what you have said.
Prove then that Icke is an antisemite and a holocaust denier.

I've proven this from Ickes own comments from his books with page numbers like you asked for but your denail of the facts has you blinded.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage

Naaah I didn't. This is just a desperate attempt to move away from the substance of the claims you made which have are unsubstantiated.

Really...

That would be a spectacle to watch. He is a nice chap and hasn't taken anyone to court yet for the slander remarks, libel & defamation.

If Icke takes people to court for Libel and Slander then those who accusing him and slandering him have to prove that their accusations are true.

The 'defendant' in this case is the one who makes these defamatory claims.

I wonder if you were in court how will you prove your claims.

So you are confident that if you take Icke to the court you can prove that he is a holocaust denier?

These are your comments. The great flip flopper!!

Given what you have said.
Prove then that Icke is an antisemite and a holocaust denier.

I've proven this from Ickes own comments from his books with page numbers like you asked for but your denail of the facts has you blinded.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

It isn't a flip flop. I have covered both scenarios.

Given the first scenario. Are you sure you can prove he is a holocaust denier and an antisemite? Remember you are the one you are accusing him on this occasion and you take him to court.



Do you claim is an antisemite?
Do you claim he is a holocaust denier?

Prove it.

You have proven nothing so far.



Reverse the scenario and try to prove you are not defaming him. The burden of proof is on you on both occasions. I want to see if I am 'blinf' as you say how blind all others will be when they are most likely to come to my own conclusions rather then yours.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
You keep posting your denial and making your stance worse.
You flip flopped after you were shown you were wrong and that the site you linked to was just a law firm here in Liverpool and a defence against defamation.

This was your link...
www.carruthers-law.co.uk...

What are the Defences available in a Libel claim?

Truth.
It is a complete defence to a claim to show that the statement is true. Section 2(1) Defamation Act 2013 states that

“it is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true”.

You live in pure denail and ignorance of the facts...

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
You keep posting your denial and making your stance worse.
You flip flopped after you were shown you were wrong and that the site you linked to was just a law firm here in Liverpool and a defence against defamation.

This was your link...
www.carruthers-law.co.uk...

What are the Defences available in a Libel claim?

Truth.
It is a complete defence to a claim to show that the statement is true. Section 2(1) Defamation Act 2013 states that

“it is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true”.

You live in pure denail and ignorance of the facts...

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

And you keep making desperate attempts as a way out of this.

Prove that Icke is an antisemite and prove that Icke is a holocaust denier.

Should we summon Icke to these threads so you can discuss it and debate it here? What do you think?

If Icke was to take you to court on defamation charges you know very well what the English law says. The burden of proof is on you and you are risking a fortune given that you have zero evidence for your claims.