It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
68
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My comment...


If he took people to court (like you say he should) over slander or libel then he would need to prove his innocence, which is why he doesn't and won't.


InBief.co.uk - Laws on Slander


In a libel action, damage will be presumed by the court. In a slander action, however, the burden will usually fall on the claimant to prove damage


LegalDictionary


Because slander involves spoken insults, which leave a distinct lack of written proof, proving slander can be a challenge. Not only does the plaintiff need to prove that the false and malicious statements were made, but those statements must meet certain criteria.

Thats how you refute someone, so please try again....

I see you're still refusing to comment on his statements in his book about WW2 and the "offical line" or of his support of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being real.
You haven't posted anything in 2 pages to show his comments in his book aren't anti-semetic, but you know that don't you...
edit on 11-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
I never heard Icke be a holocaust denier. But he is pro-Palestinian, and today they wrongly conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli government acts with antisemitism. An absurd notion.

So, anyone criticizing the fascist Israeli government is antisemitic in many quarters in the West, where the AIPAC influence is strong.



I don't think either that David Icke is a holocaust denier or anti-semitic. There is no evidence in regards to these claims and accusations.


I agree. Though some of his ideas are valid, generally, I don't agree with his conspiracy outlook.



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My comment...


If he took people to court (like you say he should) over slander or libel then he would need to prove his innocence, which is why he doesn't and won't.


InBief.co.uk - Laws on Slander


In a libel action, damage will be presumed by the court. In a slander action, however, the burden will usually fall on the claimant to prove damage


LegalDictionary


Because slander involves spoken insults, which leave a distinct lack of written proof, proving slander can be a challenge. Not only does the plaintiff need to prove that the false and malicious statements were made, but those statements must meet certain criteria.

Thats how you refute someone, so please try again....

I see you're still refusing to comment on his statements in his book about WW2 and the "offical line" or of his support of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being real.
You haven't posted anything in 2 pages to show his comments in his book aren't anti-semetic, but you know that don't you...


We have already discussed that you it's on you to prove your claims. It's clear the burden of proof is on you to prove that Icke is a holocaust denier and anti-semitic.

Clearly from the laws of the country you live and pay taxes.

I will refer to back to the current legislation and what constitutes libel and defamation.

You can make as many accusations as you want however you shouldn't be surprised if one day you are taken to court about it. What you are writing remains in these threads.

I don't need to post anything further other than make it very clear that you are on the wrong path by making wild accusations.

I am going to have to stop you here.
edit on 11-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: peaceinoutz

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
I never heard Icke be a holocaust denier. But he is pro-Palestinian, and today they wrongly conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli government acts with antisemitism. An absurd notion.

So, anyone criticizing the fascist Israeli government is antisemitic in many quarters in the West, where the AIPAC influence is strong.



I don't think either that David Icke is a holocaust denier or anti-semitic. There is no evidence in regards to these claims and accusations.


I agree. Though some of his ideas are valid, generally, I don't agree with his conspiracy outlook.


The point of this conversation is not whether we agree or not with what Icke is saying but whether his ban is justified. Clearly it is not justified.

There is nothing against him despite the desperate attempts to portray him as a vile individual who incites violence or who is a holocaust denier and engages in anti-semitism.



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Being generally unfamiliar with European legal systems in general, and not really keen on rekindling what is tantamount to an issue particular just a few members.

But it is difficult to remain silent when arguments become inflamed and repetitive.

This thread suffered from a reliance on a source, the title of which, was far from 'balanced" and "free from bias." For the benefit of those who may have glossed over the debate, came in the middle and found it confusing, or otherwise simply missed the essence of the first 'mystery' to unravel:

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

1) The EU implemented no "BAN" on Mr. Icke.

As ArMaP kindly clarified

... [this restriction notice specified] ...

"Schengen area, which is not exactly the EU, it's the EU minus Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania. There are also four countries that are not in the EU but have an agreement regarding the Schengen Area: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Beside those, there are also Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City, which, being surrounded by Schengen Area countries act as de facto Schengen Area members."


(It is worth noting that the notification Mr. Icke's son refers to in the source; included that they were means of "appeal" available to them. Being ignorant of legal forms (as previously indicated) I don't know if it was a realistically practical offer or not.)

2) Mr. Icke was NOT 'designated or labeled' a "terrorist." Sadly, it was a hyperbolic description of the notification. I accept responsibility for not making it clearer.

(I do not shy away from the position I hold; the 'official' notice was misdirected and questionably planned, and the rationale of the "ban" is - in my opinion - deeply flawed. But it does not detract from the fact that they did not simply declare Mr. Icke is a terrorist.)

This is not a court. Legal court rules are irrelevant to unfettered communications between people. Leave that to whomever may try a case based upon the facts.

Ultimately the major point of contention which has flared up here has to do with a 'designation' which historically has become anything but honest; namely "antisemitism."

I should run from the discussion. I should avoid any entanglements in it. I dare say, I suspect that many members wince and withdraw when the passionate cries of antisemitism arise; I propose because they have all witnessed the irrationality that ensues when a "protected" group "is said" to be threatened. How virtue signalers and irreverent challengers clash - leaving the discussion into 'socially scorched earth" territory where none dare tread.

I can't run from it.

I would make a suggestion to the debaters... take it, or not. I'm no font of wisdom or super gifted orator who can always expect to be heard in respect...

If you want to prove that assertions about someone being this or that form of repugnance... offer examples. Not links, not words that OTHER people say about the subject - tell me yourself what it is exactly that you find 'antisemitic.' I am asking you to educate me. Don't yell at me, don't preach or pontificate, avoid tabloid sloganeering (like the source title.) Show me the part where he said "[insert direct quote here]." I don't care that "everyone" says this about the person. I have found too often that "everyone says" is an indication of no thought - only acceptance of external views.

If you are stalwart about 'defending' Icke's non-antisemite status (in such a context) do not bother pretending that relying on materials commonly accepted as antisemitic is 'safe.' No amount of reason will suffice to anyone who is offended already... Also, stop pretending that they have no point... They do. People are not computer programs and life is not a courtroom... I suggest that anti ANYTHING is incongruous, but I don't mean it doesn't exist. Antisemitism is as real as any other bias, I find it ironic that there can be no such thing "pro-semitic" since those considered "semites" are hardly universal allies to one another.

In this regard the strongest and single most prevalent is the crafting of a document entitled "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Much of the research I have carried out refers to it as "...the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times." Simultaneously accepted that it was "a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination;" also identified from 1902 as fabricated by the Russian Secret police in 1903 and exposed as a forgery almost immediately." This document is something the early haters of the 20th century distributed to make their "antisemitic" views seem 'reasonable' to prospective sympathizers.

I wonder, did Mr. Icke find this 'authorless' document meaningful in the sense that it "proved" bad Jewish players in the world... was that his point? If it was, no one I discuss this with seems to get that sense, his use of the document did not appear to further any "see how bad the Jews are" argument. Or is that a stigma left over from the inception of the article into the common dialogue? And if so, how unwise was it to use such a document to support or expand his contextual meaning?

I suspect that those who are inclined to 'label' people will flatly not explore any such lines of reasoning, and of course those who have been on the receiving end of "You're an antisemite!" labelling will have a less than sympathetic reaction to the "knee-jerk" style of dismissal whenever the protected class is spoken of, and criticism is become the very definition of "antisemitism."

People infer, imply, suppose, assume... they extrapolate, opine, conject, conflate.. all this makes discussion (discussions that matter) very difficult.... Now, when you add the dimensions of uncertainty, error, bias, and misjudgment it would seem discussion is a near impossibility... further color that with useless pride, transient ego, and even malicious intent...

I think that makes what ATS members do simply miraculous.

Bot's don't stand a chance here, because we agree from the onset that there is a core of reality, we can all reach. Emphasis on 'reach" - not manufacture, not influence, not impose.

Remember when you ask for proof - be certain that you really want to know. Remember, you can't "prove" he is not.

In deference to being true to my own self, I have to announce that I don't come away from Mr. Icke's productions with a sense of "I hate the Jews." So, I am surprised that anyone would, save those who need to believe that. But I am just one person, evaluating according to my admittedly limited perspective.

Thank you.
edit on 11/11/2022 by Maxmars because: formatting - dang it!



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxmars
Being generally unfamiliar with European legal systems in general, and not really keen on rekindling what is tantamount to an issue particular just a few members.

But it is difficult to remain silent when arguments become inflamed and repetitive.

This thread suffered from a reliance on a source, the title of which, was far from 'balanced" and "free from bias." For the benefit of those who may have glossed over the debate, came in the middle and found it confusing, or otherwise simply missed the essence of the first 'mystery' to unravel:

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

1) The EU implemented no "BAN" on Mr. Icke.

As ArMaP kindly clarified

... [this restriction notice specified] ...

"Schengen area, which is not exactly the EU, it's the EU minus Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania. There are also four countries that are not in the EU but have an agreement regarding the Schengen Area: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Beside those, there are also Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City, which, being surrounded by Schengen Area countries act as de facto Schengen Area members."


(It is worth noting that the notification Mr. Icke's son refers to in the source; included that they were means of "appeal" available to them. Being ignorant of legal forms (as previously indicated) I don't know if it was a realistically practical offer or not.)

2) Mr. Icke was NOT 'designated or labeled' a "terrorist." Sadly, it was a hyperbolic description of the notification. I accept responsibility for not making it clearer.

(I do not shy away from the position I hold; the 'official' notice was misdirected and questionably planned, and the rationale of the "ban" is - in my opinion - deeply flawed. But it does not detract from the fact that they did not simply declare Mr. Icke is a terrorist.)

This is not a court. Legal court rules are irrelevant to unfettered communications between people. Leave that to whomever may try a case based upon the facts.

Ultimately the major point of contention which has flared up here has to do with a 'designation' which historically has become anything but honest; namely "antisemitism."

I should run from the discussion. I should avoid any entanglements in it. I dare say, I suspect that many members wince and withdraw when the passionate cries of antisemitism arise; I propose because they have all witnessed the irrationality that ensues when a "protected" group "is said" to be threatened. How virtue signalers and irreverent challengers clash - leaving the discussion into 'socially scorched earth" territory where none dare tread.

I can't run from it.

I would make a suggestion to the debaters... take it, or not. I'm no font of wisdom or super gifted orator who can always expect to be heard in respect...

If you want to prove that assertions about someone being this or that form of repugnance... offer examples. Not links, not words that OTHER people say about the subject - tell me yourself what it is exactly that you find 'antisemitic.' I am asking you to educate me. Don't yell at me, don't preach or pontificate, avoid tabloid sloganeering (like the source title.) Show me the part where he said "[insert direct quote here]." I don't care that "everyone" says this about the person. I have found too often that "everyone says" is an indication of no thought - only acceptance of external views.

If you are stalwart about 'defending' Icke's non-antisemite status (in such a context) do not bother pretending that relying on materials commonly accepted as antisemitic is 'safe.' No amount of reason will suffice to anyone who is offended already... Also, stop pretending that they have no point... They do. People are not computer programs and life is not a courtroom... I suggest that anti ANYTHING is incongruous, but I don't mean it doesn't exist. Antisemitism is as real as any other bias, I find it ironic that there can be no such thing "pro-semitic" since those considered "semites" are hardly universal allies to one another.

In this regard the strongest and single most prevalent is the crafting of a document entitled "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Much of the research I have carried out refers to it as "...the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times." Simultaneously accepted that it was "a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination;" also identified from 1902 as fabricated by the Russian Secret police in 1903 and exposed as a forgery almost immediately." This document is something the early haters of the 20th century distributed to make their "antisemitic" views seem 'reasonable' to prospective sympathizers.

I wonder, did Mr. Icke find this 'authorless' document meaningful in the sense that it "proved" bad Jewish players in the world... was that his point? If it was, no one I discuss this with seems to get that sense, his use of the document did not appear to further any "see how bad the Jews are" argument. Or is that a stigma left over from the inception of the article into the common dialogue? And if so, how unwise was it to use such a document to support or expand his contextual meaning?

I suspect that those who are inclined to 'label' people will flatly not explore any such lines of reasoning, and of course those who have been on the receiving end of "You're an antisemite!" labelling will have a less than sympathetic reaction to the "knee-jerk" style of dismissal whenever the protected class is spoken of, and criticism is become the very definition of "antisemitism."

People infer, imply, suppose, assume... they extrapolate, opine, conject, conflate.. all this makes discussion (discussions that matter) very difficult.... Now, when you add the dimensions of uncertainty, error, bias, and misjudgment it would seem discussion is a near impossibility... further color that with useless pride, transient ego, and even malicious intent...

I think that makes what ATS members do simply miraculous.

Bot's don't stand a chance here, because we agree from the onset that there is a core of reality, we can all reach. Emphasis on 'reach" - not manufacture, not influence, not impose.

Remember when you ask for proof - be certain that you really want to know. Remember, you can't "prove" he is not.

In deference to being true to my own self, I have to announce that I don't come away from Mr. Icke's productions with a sense of "I hate the Jews." So, I am surprised that anyone would, save those who need to believe that. But I am just one person, evaluating according to my admittedly limited perspective.

Thank you.


Great post.

I am clear from the beginning that whoever makes a range of allegations such as that David Icke is a holocaust denier and anti-semitic then he/she must have to prove them.

In addition they must know the laws of the country they live in in regards to make potentially libelous and defamatory claims and statements. In the UK for example defamatory claims are considered not to be true unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof lies always within those who make these accusations.

The member above believes he can make a range of accusations such as the ones listed and it is David Icke who has to prove his innocence. Which is just as absurd as everything else he said.



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Hence you have nothing apart from your personal opinion as to why he isn't allowed in Holland.

There's the police report on the letter, in which they state:


The British David Icke has been internationally known for years as a propagator of conspiracy theories. Among other things, he claims that the world is ruled by so-called reptiles, which are a group of powerful aliens that pretend to be humans. According to critics, the reptiles are a metaphor for a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful secret world government and is active in all ranks of society. He claims that the Jews financed Hitler and that the Jews are responsible for organizing the 2008 financial crisis and the terrorist attacks on September 11.



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxmars
Ultimately the major point of contention which has flared up here has to do with a 'designation' which historically has become anything but honest; namely "antisemitism."

Also, "antisemitism" isn't really correct, as Palestinians, for example, are also Semitics, so someone against Palestinians should also be labelled an "anti-Semitic".



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Hence you have nothing apart from your personal opinion as to why he isn't allowed in Holland.

There's the police report on the letter, in which they state:


The British David Icke has been internationally known for years as a propagator of conspiracy theories. Among other things, he claims that the world is ruled by so-called reptiles, which are a group of powerful aliens that pretend to be humans. According to critics, the reptiles are a metaphor for a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful secret world government and is active in all ranks of society. He claims that the Jews financed Hitler and that the Jews are responsible for organizing the 2008 financial crisis and the terrorist attacks on September 11.


Yes I am aware of the report.
However the Police should have never made reference using highly speculative language as to what Icke refers to when he speaks about reptiles and aliens. It becomes even more absurd when the police references what critics and others think about Icke.

The last part of the text doesn't prove or even show in the slightest that Icke is a holocaust denier or anti-semitic as it has been claimed earlier in this thread. There is nothing that proves these allegations.. Still the report is highly speculative as to what Icke has claimed and the main issue with this story is that there was political pressure by activists not to let Icke in. The Government seemed to have succumbed to the pressure.
edit on 11-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars

Thank you. Always sad to see Threads deflected and polarised.

Correct me if I am wrong, the Thread's premise is political decision to 'ban' an individual for his views and not about that person or their views?

I suppose Ike is seen as a useful focus for introduction and normalisation of punitive cancellation for wrongspeak.



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
There's the police report on the letter, in which they state:


The British David Icke has been internationally known for years as a propagator of conspiracy theories. Among other things, he claims that the world is ruled by so-called reptiles, which are a group of powerful aliens that pretend to be humans. According to critics, the reptiles are a metaphor for a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful secret world government and is active in all ranks of society. He claims that the Jews financed Hitler and that the Jews are responsible for organizing the 2008 financial crisis and the terrorist attacks on September 11.


I believe I understand the intent and spirit behind the police report... however right or wrong, bias is accepted as status quo here:

- "The British David Icke has been internationally known for years as a propagator of conspiracy theories."

This statement is indisputably true, however it bears the perennial aspect present in any such statements. Does this not implicitly reflect that

(Mr. Icke) ... has been internationally portrayed by all media for years as a propagator of conspiracy theories.

and

- "According to critics, the reptiles are a metaphor for a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful secret world government and is active in all ranks of society."

could be expressed equally by saying

An unnamed person or people have interpreted this as a metaphor meaning reptiles symbolize a (partly Jewish) elite that forms an all-powerful ...."

Which I find interesting given that some 'critics' have chosen to interpret his message this way and despite their tacit recognition that there are only some Jews in the metaphorical mix, to speak of reptiles is to speak of all Jews. Thus no one can tread on this topic without potentially bringing offense (which has been legislated into actual "injury") to all Jews. And unfortunately - that is where we are, offense is now injury.

- "He claims that the Jews financed Hitler and that the Jews are responsible for organizing the 2008 financial crisis and the terrorist attacks on September 11."

I would say the same to them as applies in the real world... His claims are his own, if you're pretending to stand against his claims, say so. Be prepared to have to address all those things you seem reticent to address. If your attack is on the man - say so. Antagonism isn't something that 'hides' very well.
edit on 11/11/2022 by Maxmars because: formatting - dang it!



posted on Nov, 11 2022 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: Maxmars

Thank you. Always sad to see Threads deflected and polarised.

Correct me if I am wrong, the Thread's premise is political decision to 'ban' an individual for his views and not about that person or their views?

I suppose Ike is seen as a useful focus for introduction and normalisation of punitive cancellation for wrongspeak.




You are not wrong.

Outside of the immediate diversion lies a question that can be expressed many ways... my most recent is

If people want to hear what someone says, why can a government put an end to that person's speech?

It is not my contention that a local or perhaps even regional government can't have a say about it - if that's what their constituents really want them to do. But the "we are gloriously free here in [insert country]" posture needs to be challenged. It is almost a one-way street when it comes to government imposing limitations... things don't "get better" do they? Do they ever get "more relaxed?"

These alarming "unspecified threats of protest" would logically be addressed at the "protester" level anywhere else. But not here? Can anyone imagine a government which determines the proper course of actions by wondering how the 'fringe element' will feel about things?

If things are that volatile, these would-be "violent protesters" are the problem that need confronting... not the speaker (assuming the speaker isn't the one calling for violence.)

edit on 11/11/2022 by Maxmars because: formatting - dang it!



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

So the challenge is still here.

If you are claiming that Icke is a holocaust denier and that is one of the main reasons he wasn't allowed in the country then you need to give examples and prove your assertion.

Real examples and not just personal opinions or refer to what others think.

For example you could say that in his book A and in page 52 he clearly denies the holocaust and give the relevant quote. Or in his book B and in page 35 he again denies the holocaust giving the relevant quote. In addition in his interview 3 years ago which can be found on this platform and in 15:25 of this video he again denies the holocaust. So does in his lecture which was given at this time and date giving the relevant quote.

That's what everyone wants to see as proof of what you are saying.

But the reality is somehow different.

I think it's best not to continue with this conversation unless you have some very good evidence.



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 12:33 AM
link   
As for the core of this story it's clear that the Dutch Government succumbed to pressure to a range of left wing activists and protesters who threaten to create unrest and disorder. And instead of dealing with them they have decided not to allow the rather peaceful speaker to go ahead with his speech by not allowing him entry in the country and in the name of peace and order. As if he was the one who threatened to create unrest and disorder...



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 01:27 AM
link   
i thought he was just some ancient alien guy.


level 3 terrorist?

what the hell? sounds bad.



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: sarahvital

It's social engineering (or politi-speech) in action. The establishment decided some 50 years ago that they hate him. They been telling us that everybody hates him ever since.

Whether it be his personal charisma, the value of his message, or the contents of his message - they haven't managed to make him disappear. But they keep slinging the irrational vitriol at him, as if he was a major threat.



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: sarahvital

It's social engineering (or politi-speech) in action. The establishment decided some 50 years ago that they hate him. They been telling us that everybody hates him ever since.

Whether it be his personal charisma, the value of his message, or the contents of his message - they haven't managed to make him disappear. But they keep slinging the irrational vitriol at him, as if he was a major threat.


Icke has the charisma to speak for hours and hours as he believes passionately what he says. But the message it conveys in most of these talks is not to trust those in power and authority and not to trust the establishment. I am sure many will agree with his political views regardless of whether they agree with the lizards, the reptiles, and the aliens.



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars

I would like to thank you for a very well written and thoughtful post.



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

As Maxmars so eloquently put it here...



In this regard the strongest and single most prevalent is the crafting of a document entitled "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Much of the research I have carried out refers to it as "...the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times." Simultaneously accepted that it was "a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination;" also identified from 1902 as fabricated by the Russian Secret police in 1903 and exposed as a forgery almost immediately." This document is something the early haters of the 20th century distributed to make their "antisemitic" views seem 'reasonable' to prospective sympathizers.


I asked you earlier in the thread if you knew what the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." were and how they had been used? I even linked to information about them for you. David Icke is a supporter/believer that these documnets are real which have been proven fake. You commented about me referring to "some protocol" which in my opinion showed you didn't know what they were and how they were used by Nazi Germany.
As Maxmar also noted earlier these have only been used to spread hate and antisemitism and I think anyone using said document in this day and age are using it for neferious purposes.

These are also direct quotes from his book "And the Truth Shall Set you Free" (1996) p135-137, He also denounced the Nuremberg Trials as "a farce" and "a calculated exercise in revenge and manipulation." in the same book.


Why do we play a part in suppressing alternative information to the official line of the Second World War? How is it right that while this fierce suppression goes on, free copies of the Spielberg film, Schindler's List, are given to schools to indoctrinate children with the unchallenged version of events.

Icke when talking about World War 2 here, isn't talking about battles or how Normandy was landed, he's talking against known historical facts pertaining to the way Jewish people were treated, which show his true beliefs.

You also ignored this that I posted earlier.


No, I don't think the ban is justified but I do think there's a gray area and I do think there's a discussion to be had between what is freedom of speech and what is hate speech or inciting/inspiring violence at these types of events.

The reason I believe he has been refused entry isn't purely because of some left-wing pressure. It's because of demonstrations that will happen because of his attendance and the possible escalation from either side into violence and by refusing entry like other countries have done, it's an instant de-esculation of the situation.

edit on 12-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2022 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes I am aware of the report.

Then don't say that Kurokage has "nothing apart from your personal opinion as to why he isn't allowed in Holland."


The last part of the text doesn't prove or even show in the slightest that Icke is a holocaust denier or anti-semitic as it has been claimed earlier in this thread. There is nothing that proves these allegations.

They do not need to prove any thing about Icke, they just need to show that there is the possibility of civil unrest because of the perception people have of his ideas.

As you know, these days you (generic "you") don't have to prove a thing, you just say it on social media and most people act as if it's the truth.

edit on 12/11/2022 by ArMaP because: wrong user name.




top topics



 
68
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join