There is a very good reason why this custom has been adopted: it was adopted because scholars do not like guessing about what they are going to be reading. In order to analyze a paper critically, the reader must know up front what he or she is going to be reading and just what ideas or conclusions the author is trying to "sell." 

This, of course, is more than a mere custom, it has its genesis in the ideas of fairness and honesty in academic debate. There are other such rules or codes of conduct that are expected to be followed as well, such as, an insistence that all quotes and references be sourced and presented in context; quoting out of context is regarded as dishonest and thus frowned upon. 

In university, an egregious tendency towards quoting out of context can bring your studies to an abrupt and untimely end. Almost everyone who has had any significant degree of post secondary education has been instructed in these procedures (that would include lawyers and most politicians), and is aware of why they are considered important. 

In this paper I will, of course, provide my introductory thesis statement up front, but I wish to make a very slight and brief deviation from custom, in the sense that I also want and need to make it clear what I will not be writing about in this paper.

               This paper is not designed to validate the ideas and theories of David Icke; nor is it designed to validate the ideas of other conspiracy theorists who have been subjected to the same treatment as Icke. That I will address some of his theories in this paper is clear, but only those ideas that have been the subject of such bitter debate, and which have also been used to justify the suppression of Icke in Canada (particularly) and elsewhere. 

For those in the conspiracy community or others who might be hoping to find such validation in this paper, you now know that what you seek will not be found here and can move on if the actual subject matter is not of interest to you. However, it is my belief that the subject matter of this paper should be of interest to everyone, and, as you will see, there is a very good reason for this.

               The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the free speech implications of the censorship campaign that has been waged against David Icke in Canada by Richard Warman and other members of the Canadian and Ontario Green parties, who were, at least initially, assisted in their efforts by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and B'nai Brith. While the two latter organizations are well known for their opposition to free speech under the tiresome "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre" argument (which I will address later),¹  

I was quite surprised to learn that the Green Party has essentially led this campaign because I have voted for them in the past and would have never done so had I known their dedication to free speech was so utterly abysmal. Suffice it to say that I will not be voting for them in the future until they adequately address the very serious issues that will be raised in this paper.

               This paper will examine the nature and extent of the campaign against David Icke, the justifications that have been used to support it, and the various deceptive and dangerous tactics that have been used to enforce it. The methods used against Icke may be even more frightening and disturbing than the actual censorship. 

During the course of the campaign, Icke's oppressors have resorted to disseminating false information, intimidation (of bookstores, venues, and other third parties), and some of the most egregious instances of quoting out of context I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. 

The primary tool of demonization has, oddly, not been directly related to anything Icke has actually written or said, but by various specious "guilt by association" and "guilt by citation" arguments, along with other stranger and even more deluded theories. That the parrots in the press have not spotted these techniques, when they are supposed to serve as bulwarks against censorship, is also disturbing. 

It would appear that the Press has had no interest in verifying the various serious charges that they have instead recklessly echoed; you would think that before calling somebody an anti-Semitic "neo-Nazi" that you might want to take a moment to ascertain if the charge is true, particularly considering the very serious and crippling effect such a label can have. 

In order to illustrate the nature of the techniques used against David Icke it will be necessary to provide some background on who he is and what he purports to believe. I will also argue that the campaign against Icke is just the most visible (if, to this point, distorted) part of a larger campaign designed to demonize conspiracy theorists in general.

               I will conclude this essay by addressing the basic free speech implications and discuss why everyone should be concerned about protecting Icke's right to speak and write freely without threat of censorship or intimidation, regardless of what you think of his ideas. 

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression form the foundation upon which free and open societies are built; without this foundation freedom itself is threatened, and thus it must be tenaciously defended against all challengers. 

As you read this essay, it is important to understand that this essay is not really about David Icke; this essay is not about Richard Warman, the Green Party, or the other groups and individuals that are described here. This essay is about everyone; it is about you and me, and all those who seek to suppress opinions or ideas that they do not like. 

David Icke could be anyone, and in many ways he is everyone in this debate. Today it is fashionable to censor and suppress David Icke, but if we fail to act and express our opposition to this campaign, tomorrow it could be anybody who expresses an idea or opinion that is not endorsed or supported by the majority.

Go to: Part 1: The Curious Case of David Icke

Notes:
1. Before anybody gets upset about this comment, which I will document later, I should say that the genesis of their opposition to free speech is very understandable. The well known and terrible history of Jewish persecution was bound to create these kind of reactions, but ultimately, as the distinguished Jewish Professor and free speech advocate Noam Chomsky and others have said, those reactions are misguided and if entertained could threaten the liberty of us all.