David Icke's Visa Cancelled

[Checkmite]

No-one's curtailing Icke's freedom of speech. He's perfectly free to say whatever he wants. Just not here.

Exactly. Icke's books have not been banned, nor is his website being made inaccessible.

 

[cullennz]

Totally hypothetical, but what if he was just coming for a holiday with an agreement not to do any public speaking?

Still too scary?

 

[arthwollipot]

Totally hypothetical, but what if he was just coming for a holiday with an agreement not to do any public speaking?

Still too scary?

I don't think there'd be a reason to deny him a visa then. But I don't know - I don't get to decide and I don't know the policy. What if he came in under that reason and still went to speaking events anyway? He would have lied to the government to circumvent their policy. I don't think things would go well for him then.

 

[cullennz]

I don't think there'd be a reason to deny him a visa then. But I don't know - I don't get to decide and I don't know the policy. What if he came in under that reason and still went to speaking events anyway? He would have lied to the government to circumvent their policy. I don't think things would go well for him then.

Simple

Just get all the lizard people to kidnap him, poison him with their venom and hide is body in the remote outback.

 

[arthwollipot]

David Icke slams 'Orwellian totalitarian state' after his Australian visa is revoked ahead of planned speaking tour

British conspiracy theorist David Icke said he is "shocked and appalled" at the Australian Government's decision to revoke his visa ahead of a planned speaking tour of the country.

A number of community groups, including the Anti-Defamation Commission and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, successfully lobbied Immigration Minister David Coleman to ban Mr Icke.

Mr Icke is a Holocaust denier who says the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City were an inside job, and that the world is secretly run by shape-shifting alien lizards.

In a statement, he expressed disappointment at Australia's "knee-jerk reaction" and insisted he was not anti-Semitic or a Holocaust denier.

"I have been a victim of a smear campaign from politicians who have been listening to special interest groups attempting to discredit my beliefs, my views and my character by spreading lies," Mr Icke said.

"With no shred of evidence, these ploys have worked.

"This is the creation of a blatantly Orwellian totalitarian state and says the Government believes they have the right to dictate what the public can and can not choose to hear."

Yup, that was predictable.

 

[angrysoba]

David Icke slams 'Orwellian totalitarian state' after his Australian visa is revoked ahead of planned speaking tour

Yup, that was predictable.

Yes, it was predictable that he would protest the decision.

As I have already said, I think that governments do have the right to bar people from their shores, although I agree with theprestige that in this instance the decision looks capricious. It is not a good look to make arbitrary or easily abused decisions about whether or not someone should be allowed in the country.

But I am interested to know why you framed this in terms of "no platforming" and "when X speaks, people listen" and seemed to suggest that you are in favour of preventing people speak in general.

1) What if someone decides to speak instead of David Icke, or if the venue decides to use a screen of him Skyping his message to people in Australia? Should authorities in Australia shut down the event?

2) What do you do about the information that David Icke propagates through the internet and through his books? Should his websites be blocked and should his books be banned?

3) If the answer is "no" to above questions, how is it even an effective measure to ban David Icke from the country?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, it was predictable that he would protest the decision.

As I have already said, I think that governments do have the right to bar people from their shores, although I agree with theprestige that in this instance the decision looks capricious. It is not a good look to make arbitrary or easily abused decisions about whether or not someone should be allowed in the country.

But I am interested to know why you framed this in terms of "no platforming" and "when X speaks, people listen" and seemed to suggest that you are in favour of preventing people speak in general.

1) What if someone decides to speak instead of David Icke, or if the venue decides to use a screen of him Skyping his message to people in Australia? Should authorities in Australia shut down the event?

2) What do you do about the information that David Icke propagates through the internet and through his books? Should his websites be blocked and should his books be banned?

3) If the answer is "no" to above questions, how is it even an effective measure to ban David Icke from the country?

I have no answers to your questions, because as I noted previously, I am not a party to the decision, am unaware of the reasons the Minister for Immigration denied the visa, and do not know what the policy is.

Note that I have not so far stated whether I support or do not support the decision. I've merely been posting links and asking opinions. I think that there are good arguments on both sides. But I will say that it appears to me a symbolic gesture at best, for the reasons you point out.

 

[uke2se]

In my view, this has less to do with the sorry sods who might want to go see David Icke speak. It has to do with messing with the man's income. He makes money spreading conspiracy theories that radicalize people. Limiting his ways of making money in turn limits the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, it's still available online, but Icke doesn't get the cash infusion and book sales he would have got from a speaking tour.

I think a good way to think about this for many here is to imagine replacing "David Icke" with "a radical Islamist preacher known for radicalizing youth into joining ISIS".

 

[Elagabalus]

David Icke slams 'Orwellian totalitarian state' after his Australian visa is revoked ahead of planned speaking tour

Yup, that was predictable.

You know how this has to end. Mick West,David Icke - two speedos, one mud pit. Two go in, one comes out.*




*of the mud pit, not the speedos!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Funny: Icke with a gang of random bimbos on Aussie TV (who believe that "between 6 and 12 million" Jews died in the Holocaust).

Anchor: "If people are crazy enough to pay money to hear you speak, they should be allowed to do that. That is called free speech."
Icke: "People are crazy enough to listen to this program every morning, how crazy can you get?"

 

[Checkmite]

Answering for myself:

1) What if someone decides to speak instead of David Icke, or if the venue decides to use a screen of him Skyping his message to people in Australia? Should authorities in Australia shut down the event?

No

2) What do you do about the information that David Icke propagates through the internet and through his books? Should his websites be blocked and should his books be banned?

No

3) If the answer is "no" to above questions, how is it even an effective measure to ban David Icke from the country?

I believe that the act of declaring an individual essentially persona non grata - refusing to allow his physical presence in the country - can communicate a valid and worthwhile message all by itself, while still respecting "freedom of speech" insofar as not interfering with your own citizens' choices of what books to read or what websites to visit. It's not necessarily about stopping Icke's own "message" or any information he wants to exchange. It's about slamming the door in his face.

 

[psionl0]

Note that I have not so far stated whether I support or do not support the decision. I've merely been posting links and asking opinions.

If it comes down to the best way to prevent radicalizing people then one could either prevent Icke from entering the country and risk giving free publicity to his views or allow him to speak to his faithful and hope that his views don't spread from there or that when exposed to air, the views are thoroughly rebutted.

Has anything in this thread persuaded you either way?

 

[smartcooky]

I believe that the act of declaring an individual essentially persona non grata - refusing to allow his physical presence in the country - can communicate a valid and worthwhile message all by itself, while still respecting "freedom of speech" insofar as not interfering with your own citizens' choices of what books to read or what websites to visit. It's not necessarily about stopping Icke's own "message" or any information he wants to exchange. It's about slamming the door in his face.

It can also come across as censorship (even if you and I are smart enough to understand that its not) and his supporters will play that up as "so you are afraid to let him speak; what are you afraid of?"

 

[cullennz]

I believe that the act of declaring an individual essentially persona non grata - refusing to allow his physical presence in the country - can communicate a valid and worthwhile message all by itself, while still respecting "freedom of speech" insofar as not interfering with your own citizens' choices of what books to read or what websites to visit. It's not necessarily about stopping Icke's own "message" or any information he wants to exchange. It's about slamming the door in his face.

Just looks uber overseer nanny state and preachy to me, but each to their own.

 

[baron]

I think a good way to think about this for many here is to imagine replacing "David Icke" with "a radical Islamist preacher known for radicalizing youth into joining ISIS".

Yeah, we have a real problem with Ickian terrorists blowing up concert halls of children, throwing homosexuals off buildings and cramming hundreds of babies into industrial dough kneaders.

 

[sadhatter]

I have no answers to your questions, because as I noted previously, I am not a party to the decision, am unaware of the reasons the Minister for Immigration denied the visa, and do not know what the policy is.

Note that I have not so far stated whether I support or do not support the decision. I've merely been posting links and asking opinions. I think that there are good arguments on both sides. But I will say that it appears to me a symbolic gesture at best, for the reasons you point out.

I hate this "I refuse to look into the issue because I enjoy the outcome" attitude that is becoming more and more common.

Being stupid is okay being willfully ignorant is abhorrent.

 

[sadhatter]

In my view, this has less to do with the sorry sods who might want to go see David Icke speak. It has to do with messing with the man's income. He makes money spreading conspiracy theories that radicalize people. Limiting his ways of making money in turn limits the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, it's still available online, but Icke doesn't get the cash infusion and book sales he would have got from a speaking tour.

I think a good way to think about this for many here is to imagine replacing "David Icke" with "a radical Islamist preacher known for radicalizing youth into joining ISIS".

How far away is it from banning James randi?

Don't know many politicians in Australia, but we have quite a few over here who would love to ban people like him from speaking. Or do you assume this weapon you want unleashed will never be aimed at you?

 

[sadhatter]

Just looks uber overseer nanny state and preachy to me, but each to their own.

How little faith does the government of Australia have in its people?

"Sorry Dave we can't let you in because we think you will start covering people to believing in lizard people en masse "

****, if that is a fear, take the money being spent banking this guy and put it in the school system.

 

[angrysoba]

I believe that the act of declaring an individual essentially persona non grata - refusing to allow his physical presence in the country - can communicate a valid and worthwhile message all by itself, while still respecting "freedom of speech" insofar as not interfering with your own citizens' choices of what books to read or what websites to visit. It's not necessarily about stopping Icke's own "message" or any information he wants to exchange. It's about slamming the door in his face.

I am not sure what valid and worthwhile message is being sent out in a national government refusing to allow in some nutbar conspiracy theorist who argues that his secret history of the world being suppressed by ... national governments. I mean his tagline to his talks may as well be, "Stuff the Powers That Be... don't want you to see!". The slam of the door is only satisfying to the tin-eared.

 

[angrysoba]

In my view, this has less to do with the sorry sods who might want to go see David Icke speak. It has to do with messing with the man's income.

I thought you were in favour of it because conspiracy theories are used to radicalize.

He makes money spreading conspiracy theories that radicalize people. Limiting his ways of making money in turn limits the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, it's still available online, but Icke doesn't get the cash infusion and book sales he would have got from a speaking tour.

I think that's an even worse rationale, frankly. And again, I have to wonder if it is really even effective.

I think a good way to think about this for many here is to imagine replacing "David Icke" with "a radical Islamist preacher known for radicalizing youth into joining ISIS".

Not really. If Icke was a member of a terrorist organization and was using his visit to Australia as an operation to further terrorist atrocities, then it would be a good comparison. Or if he was a member of an organized crime syndicate setting up his Australian branch of the franchise then it would be a good comparison. This is because terrorist organizations and organized crime syndicates are engaging in crimes. Someone spouting nonsense about how the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen of England are reptiles is just telling the truth ... well... spouting nonsense.