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: 23
68
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Kurokage has made some claims about Icke and he has not provided any evidence for them.

He did provide what he thinks is evidence.


He believes that the use of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or some comments Icke has made constitutes proof of anti-semitism and/or holocaust denialism.

That's his opinion, and he is entitled to it. You cannot say he hasn't presented any evidence because he has presented what he thinks is evidence of what he claims.


I am very confident that if someone was to make these claims and then accused of defamation then it will find it very difficult to prove these claims in a court of law in the UK. English Law puts the burden of proof on those who have made the defamatory claims.

I think it's like that in most countries.


It's one of few of not the only case where the burden of proof is reversed. And there is a reason a reason for this: The default position is innocent until proven guilty.

True, but when someone specifically states that he is innocent then they should also provide evidence of that.

Stating he is innocent is not the same as stating that he is presumably innocent.



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Kurokage has made some claims about Icke and he has not provided any evidence for them.

He did provide what he thinks is evidence.


He believes that the use of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or some comments Icke has made constitutes proof of anti-semitism and/or holocaust denialism.

That's his opinion, and he is entitled to it. You cannot say he hasn't presented any evidence because he has presented what he thinks is evidence of what he claims.


I am very confident that if someone was to make these claims and then accused of defamation then it will find it very difficult to prove these claims in a court of law in the UK. English Law puts the burden of proof on those who have made the defamatory claims.

I think it's like that in most countries.


It's one of few of not the only case where the burden of proof is reversed. And there is a reason a reason for this: The default position is innocent until proven guilty.

True, but when someone specifically states that he is innocent then they should also provide evidence of that.

Stating he is innocent is not the same as stating that he is presumably innocent.


That's far from providing proof or even evidence. That's a personal opinion.

I haven't made any claims. Even Kurokage has admitted this. I am stating the default position. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence that he is either an antisemite or a holocaust denier. There are only accusations.
Hence I can state the default position.

If Icke was to press charges for defamation we all know which way it will go and how it will cost as personal opinions are not enough to prove the claims made. As the matter of fact they have zero weight. Even circumstancial evidence isn't enough.

And yes I can say that he has presented nothing other than his personal opinion.

You guys are trying hard but still you need to be aware of the English Law.


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

edit on 20-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ArMaP

The default position is innocent until proven guilty.

Definitely.

To be devil's advocate, I can see how some get tripped up over Icke. He has a really long history of people taking the piss out of him because the accusers don't understand his subtlety and take a very literal stance. In short, missing his point altogether. People didn't understand his sliding scale of symbolism when he spoke of being the son of god, or about reptillians. It's a much simpler path to call him crazy than use the noggin to get the message he's trying to convey. Same with calling him anti semitic when he himself has explained that he doesn't mean ordinary jews. So instead of insisting he's anti semitic, why don't we discuss what he was trying to say? Or is that verboten?

I couldn't find an actual copy of "Protocols" but watched some videos about it that clearly call it a fabricated conspiracy and anti semitic. Fair enough, however, laid out in them we have truths, especially when detached from jews or any other religion/group.

There is a plan for world wide domination of the media, banking, industry etc. This doesn't mean others can't get a toe hold in business themselves but there is a definite web of control. Seeing how the news is verbatum worldwide at the onset of any great crisis, we can see this manipulation. There are very obvious groups, like the WEF, who are steering this. Are they jewish? Some are, most don't seem to be. Any group that is actively turning human lives to crap need called out. If it turns out jewish people were behind it, should we be silenced based on our care to not offend the elderly jewish people who were dealt with incredible atrocities? No one wants to offend that generation who suffered. Isn't this the same control method as insisting that the unvaccinated want to kill granny? All it kills is free speech and uses our natural inclination to care for humanity against us.

My point really is that if we are not allowed to discuss the corruption in the system and its direct effect on people, we cannot improve our situation. This was very evident during covid. Any group that attains the top of the pyramid when abusing others will try to control discourse on the situation, if necessary, rebranding free speech as defamation.

Every culture/race/religion has it's elite and they need held to task for their abuses. We can't stop talking about it because it offends them and we need to have the wisdom to understand that none of this is about average people, jews or otherwise. We are where we are in society because of censorship. It's a huge problem.

This was all Icke was trying to express. Maybe he's not a good enough writer to get the point across without stepping on toes but I think it's more the lack of lateral thinking ability in the public.

Innocent until proven guilty is really important to maintain in a democracy. I don't know the man personally, so haven't a clue if he's actually anti semitic, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt based on how he overall seems to genuinely care for all humanity.



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
That's far from providing proof or even evidence. That's a personal opinion.

In his personal opinion those are evidences.
In you personal opinion they are not.


I haven't made any claims.

You have, I just quoted it.


Even Kurokage has admitted this.

I don't care. It's a fact that you did make the claim I quoted.
It's there for all to see.


I am stating the default position. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence that he is either an antisemite or a holocaust denier. There are only accusations.
Hence I can state the default position.

You didn't say that in the text I quoted, you stated that he is "by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic."


If Icke was to press charges for defamation we all know which way it will go and how it will cost as personal opinions are not enough to prove the claims made. As the matter of fact they have zero weight. Even circumstancial evidence isn't enough.

I'm not talking about that and I'm not the least interested in that possibility.


And yes I can say that he has presented nothing other than his personal opinion.

That's you personal opinion and you are entitled to it.


You guys are trying hard but still you need to be aware of the English Law.

There's no "you guys", as we are not saying the same thing, and I don't care about laws, as I'm not talking about that.



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
That's far from providing proof or even evidence. That's a personal opinion.

In his personal opinion those are evidences.
In you personal opinion they are not.


I haven't made any claims.

You have, I just quoted it.


Even Kurokage has admitted this.

I don't care. It's a fact that you did make the claim I quoted.
It's there for all to see.


I am stating the default position. He is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence that he is either an antisemite or a holocaust denier. There are only accusations.
Hence I can state the default position.

You didn't say that in the text I quoted, you stated that he is "by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic."


If Icke was to press charges for defamation we all know which way it will go and how it will cost as personal opinions are not enough to prove the claims made. As the matter of fact they have zero weight. Even circumstancial evidence isn't enough.

I'm not talking about that and I'm not the least interested in that possibility.


And yes I can say that he has presented nothing other than his personal opinion.

That's you personal opinion and you are entitled to it.


You guys are trying hard but still you need to be aware of the English Law.

There's no "you guys", as we are not saying the same thing, and I don't care about laws, as I'm not talking about that.


No I haven't made any claims.
I have stated the default position that Icke is innocent until proven guilty and there is no evidence that he is either anti-semitic or a holocaust denier.

You guys are trying hard but cannot convince anyone.

You should be more concerned about the claims made against Icke that could be considered defamatory in nature.

Remind you of the English Law


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


The default position is that Icke is innocent until proven guilty.

The default position is that Pink Unicorns don't exist until they proven to be real.

I can state the default positions without need to prove them.


If you reply with the same arguments I will reply back with the same default positions. They are not negotiable.



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: igloo


Innocent until proven guilty is really important to maintain in a democracy. I don't know the man personally, so haven't a clue if he's actually anti semitic, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt based on how he overall seems to genuinely care for all humanity.


Yes I think I agree very strongly that the default position must be maintained and the burden of proof is on the claimant.



posted on Nov, 20 2022 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

A further note here.

Even if I go ahead and make claims by starting a conversation about Icke then again the statements of fact will be enough to verify my position.

Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal records
He has never been charged but most importantly convicted of any hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, or offences related to anti-semitism and holocaust denialism.

That's more than enough to prove that the accusations against him don't stand.



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 05:51 AM
link   
So it's best if you guys concede defeat on this occasion.

You have been unable to substantiate any claims made about Icke potentially being an antisemite and a holocaust denier. And every other claim made against him had the same luck.

Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal record.
He has never been charged but most importantly convicted of any hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, or offences related to anti-semitism and holocaust denialism.

The burden of proof is on those who make these claims and allegations and everyone else can maintain the default position: Innocent until proven guilty.
edit on 21-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I haven't made any claims. Even Kurokage has admitted this. I am stating the default position.


You've made several claims, you've claimed Icke isn't antisemitic, you've claimed Icke is a nice a guy, you've claimed you understand English Law (that one's hilarious). You haven't posted any evidence and talked for or against anyone elses claims.
Member ArMaP is trying to keep the thread on track and also point out were we're both making inaccurate statements here.

Here's an interstring claim you made in the thread...



He knows how to capture his audience in a spectacular way. He is brilliant!! Camouflaging his disapproval of monarchy with reptiles and aliens.

You stated that the use of reptiles and aliens is just a camoflage for his disapproval of a group of people, I wonder where else he does this??? Oh, I know when he talks about Zion and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....



edit on 21-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo

Again I find myself agreeing with many of your statements here, but I can't get away from Icke being antisemitic and only interested in spreading disinformation. The "Protocols" were a fake created to grow antisemitism across Europe, Nazi Germany published it as a "real" document and SS members were made to carry a copy of it. Icke also believes this document is the real deal and has never said he knows it's fake.
He also claimed in a now banned Youtube video the Jews created covid, an Instagram post in which he falsely claimed 5G mobile networks left people unable to absorb oxygen, a Twitter post in which he falsely claimed Germany was moving to "legalise rape" for Muslim men, the list goes on.



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: igloo

Again I find myself agreeing with many of your statements here, but I can't get away from Icke being antisemitic and only interested in spreading disinformation. The "Protocols" were a fake created to grow antisemitism across Europe, Nazi Germany published it as a "real" document and SS members were made to carry a copy of it. Icke also believes this document is the real deal and has never said he knows it's fake.
He also claimed in a now banned Youtube video the Jews created covid, an Instagram post in which he falsely claimed 5G mobile networks left people unable to absorb oxygen, a Twitter post in which he falsely claimed Germany was moving to "legalise rape" for Muslim men, the list goes on.


You said he is both anti-semitic and a holocaust denier.

The burden of proof is on you and you have failed to provide any evidence other than your unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions.

It's about time you concede defeat.

Unless you want David Icke on these threads where you can get your arguments dismantled further.



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I haven't made any claims. Even Kurokage has admitted this. I am stating the default position.


You've made several claims, you've claimed Icke isn't antisemitic, you've claimed Icke is a nice a guy, you've claimed you understand English Law (that one's hilarious). You haven't posted any evidence and talked for or against anyone elses claims.
Member ArMaP is trying to keep the thread on track and also point out were we're both making inaccurate statements here.

Here's an interstring claim you made in the thread...



He knows how to capture his audience in a spectacular way. He is brilliant!! Camouflaging his disapproval of monarchy with reptiles and aliens.

You stated that the use of reptiles and aliens is just a camoflage for his disapproval of a group of people, I wonder where else he does this??? Oh, I know when he talks about Zion and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....




Nope! You are wrong as usual.

I didn't make any claims. I just stated the default position that one is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence that he is either an antisemite or a holocaust denier.

Even you have admitted above that I haven't made any claims

Here is you on another page...


You haven't made any claims what so ever except incorrect flip flopping over laws

edit on 21-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: igloo

Again I find myself agreeing with many of your statements here, but I can't get away from Icke being antisemitic and only interested in spreading disinformation. The "Protocols" were a fake created to grow antisemitism across Europe, Nazi Germany published it as a "real" document and SS members were made to carry a copy of it. Icke also believes this document is the real deal and has never said he knows it's fake.
He also claimed in a now banned Youtube video the Jews created covid, an Instagram post in which he falsely claimed 5G mobile networks left people unable to absorb oxygen, a Twitter post in which he falsely claimed Germany was moving to "legalise rape" for Muslim men, the list goes on.


You need to be aware of what the English Law says about defamation as you are still thinking that your opinion is some sort of a fact and you hold proof of your claims that seem undeniable in your opinion.


English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood.



A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth


The default position is not negotiable and unless proven otherwise one is innocent of every charge and every claim made against them.


Quoting myself again...


Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal record.
He has never been charged but most importantly convicted of any hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, or offences related to anti-semitism and holocaust denialism

edit on 21-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




It's about time you concede defeat.


You just cant take those blinkers off can you!?!?!
I think it's you who needs to concede defeat here after your flip flopping on who is taking who to court after being shown you where wrong, and you haven't even addressed any of the comments made by Icke.



You need to be aware of what the English Law says about defamation as you are still thinking that your opinion is some sort of a fact and you hold proof of your claims that seem undeniable in your opinion.

Whats rediculious about your claims here are, I've only posted views and comments made by Icke himself.

Just because you have no come back and no way of disproving my points you keep "reeeeing" about the law, you should stop that because it's making you look very childish...



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

edit on 21-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here is what you said...



No I don't think so.
I haven't made any claims against Icke being an antisemite or a holocaust denier.




You haven't made any claims what so ever except incorrect flip flopping over laws


I see you like posting quotes out of context.
That sentence was about the quotes I posted from Icke and the fact that you keep ignoring them and how you keep calling them "my opinion" and making silly comments on the law.
It had nothing to do with other claims you've made in this thread.






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

edit on 21-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
No I haven't made any claims.

You have, you said:
David Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic.
That's a claim.


I have stated the default position that Icke is innocent until proven guilty and there is no evidence that he is either anti-semitic or a holocaust denier.

The default position is that Icke (in this case) is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you say "David Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic" you are going further than just the default position.


You guys are trying hard but cannot convince anyone.

As I said before, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm only commenting on things that I think are not correct.


You should be more concerned about the claims made against Icke that could be considered defamatory in nature.

I'm more concerned with the fact that he was banned based on the possibility of other people using him as a trigger for civil unrest and/or violence.


Remind you of the English Law
That's irrelevant to what I am talking about.


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


The default position is that Icke is innocent until proven guilty.

No, the default is that anyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As you like to quote the UK's law (more or less, as you quoting a comment on the UK's law), here's what paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Source
Emphasis added by me.


If you reply with the same arguments I will reply back with the same default positions. They are not negotiable.

If you post things that are not exactly true I will point that to you, as I have been doing.

And that applies to everyone, as you could see when I pointed the mentions to "left wing" in the letter from the Dutch immigration services.



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal records

"Doesn't seem" is not proof.


He has never been charged but most importantly convicted of any hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, or offences related to anti-semitism and holocaust denialism.

As far as you know, right?
Besides that, lack of charges is not proof that someone never committed a crime.


That's more than enough to prove that the accusations against him don't stand.

That's not what I'm talking about.
Read my posts for what they really say, not for what you are expecting them to say.



posted on Nov, 21 2022 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
So it's best if you guys concede defeat on this occasion.

As you have used that dubious "you guys" expression in posts directed to me, could you please clarify if you are including me in that "you guys" again or not, so I can answer in the case you confirm I am?
Thanks in advance.



posted on Nov, 26 2022 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal records

"Doesn't seem" is not proof.


He has never been charged but most importantly convicted of any hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, or offences related to anti-semitism and holocaust denialism.

As far as you know, right?
Besides that, lack of charges is not proof that someone never committed a crime.


That's more than enough to prove that the accusations against him don't stand.

That's not what I'm talking about.
Read my posts for what they really say, not for what you are expecting them to say.


I will repeat that Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal record. And as far as I know he doesn't have a criminal record. Unless there is someone who can show he has a criminal record (which I very much doubt).

We assume someone is innocent until proven guilty or we can say someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I see you are still trying hard with semantics this time.

As far as I am concerned he had never been indicted or convicted of anything hence any allegations don't stand unless they can be proven. Personal opinions by keyboard online warriors don't constitute evidence and they worth nothing.

If any of you have any evidence that he has committed any crime post it here. Or any other evidence that he is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. What the other member has posted was his personal opinions and not evidence.


If you reply the same way I will continue reply exactly the same way. Burden of proof is on you guys and this is not negotiable.
edit on 26-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2022 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
No I haven't made any claims.

You have, you said:
David Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic.
That's a claim.


I have stated the default position that Icke is innocent until proven guilty and there is no evidence that he is either anti-semitic or a holocaust denier.

The default position is that Icke (in this case) is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When you say "David Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic" you are going further than just the default position.


You guys are trying hard but cannot convince anyone.

As I said before, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm only commenting on things that I think are not correct.


You should be more concerned about the claims made against Icke that could be considered defamatory in nature.

I'm more concerned with the fact that he was banned based on the possibility of other people using him as a trigger for civil unrest and/or violence.


Remind you of the English Law
That's irrelevant to what I am talking about.


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


The default position is that Icke is innocent until proven guilty.

No, the default is that anyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As you like to quote the UK's law (more or less, as you quoting a comment on the UK's law), here's what paragraph 2 of article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Source
Emphasis added by me.


If you reply with the same arguments I will reply back with the same default positions. They are not negotiable.

If you post things that are not exactly true I will point that to you, as I have been doing.

And that applies to everyone, as you could see when I pointed the mentions to "left wing" in the letter from the Dutch immigration services.


Semantics you are using for once more.

The default position is that someone is innocent until proven guilty and you can phrase it anyway you want. You can say presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't change the substance of the phrase.

I haven't made any claim so far and yes Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or anti-semitic as there is no evidence to back up these claims. The default position is to assume he is not any of these and he is innocent until proven otherwise.

In addition Icke (as far as I know) has never been indicted or convicted of any hate related crimes, racism, and any other crimes altogether.

You should be more concerned about the unsubstantiated claims made about him being a holocaust denier and a antisemite. These claims online could be potentially libelous and defamatory as I have already discussed it above.

I will add for once more that I am not the one who posts inaccurate information as you claimed above.

If you keep replying with the same information. And claims I will post exactly the same. The default position is not negotiable. Using semantics to further your claims isn't a helpful tactic. Unless you have time you waste I won't be backing from my very well constructed position.

As I said several times you need to be more concerned about what the other member has claimed.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join