Filleted, grilled, emotionally battered, but still undefeated

180309 adrian alisonReasons for the enemy wanting ever stricter bail conditions became clearer last Wednesday. First imposed December 2016 by Friend of Israel DJ Emma Arbuthnot (recused), I have now been on bail for 15 months. Last autumn’s Freedom of Informationrequest provides ample confirmation of Crown witness and CAA EnforcerSteve Silverman‘s determined efforts to have me locked up for breach of bail, thus obtaining a police interview which could be used against me in court. Much of the questioning in fact centred on my answers to Sgt Jon Lloyd regards my song Too Extreme For The BNP for which no charges have been brought. I think on the whole press coverage was pretty fair: selective in parts, for sure, but Jenni Frazer actually manages to call me a performer – a giant step forward. Hurrah!


Left: Barrister Adrian Davies and Alison Chabloz leaving court. Photo Colin Bex.

The BBC’s Martin Bashir takes a similar angle. Note the use of ‘Jewish people’ in the title. Have the Beeb’s headline writers been issued with an order not to use ‘Jews’? Do other BBC headlines speak of Muslim or Christian or atheist ‘people’?

The prize for the most misleading headline goes unsurprisingly to the Mail which still hasn’t corrected the header following my Racism Trail [sic] on January 10th – and which inspired the following rhyme:

The racism trail
Begins in Israel
Where stone-throwing kids
Are flung in jail
And migrants
Not of Khazar descent
May be neutered
Then home to Africa sent

Last but not least, the Blackpool Gazette used the PA‘s report. Would the fact that my IP address is now blocked by the Gazette have anything to do with my previous satirical blogpost which features the seaside town? Was someone offended?

Other articles have been released in the alternative media. As many of these link to my videos and several have reproduced my song lyrics, I am unable to share for fear of hurting someone’s feelings and once again finding myself behind bars. Ditto regards my appearances on three alternative radio podcasts, The Daily Nationalist, Down The Rabbit Hole and The Graham Hart Show. For those with time and inclination to listen, any search engine is your friend.

Many thanks to all those supporters who turned up last Wednesday. Apologies to those of you who sent messages and who have not yet received any reply. After being filleted and grilled by the opposition in a public court, my energy levels are somewhat depleted: in the days leading up to this latest court appearance, media hounding of my immediate family as well as criticism within revisionist ranks from ‘supporters’, resulted in an emotional battering from which I am only just recovering. For the record, Dr Fredrick Töben has published a full account in the latest edition of his Adelaide Institute newsletter. Again, a search engine will do the necessary for those interested.

Special gratitude to three genuine supporters who made notes from the public gallery last Wednesday. Below, you will find Robert Henderson’s review. Once I have managed to collect my thoughts more fully and deal with the tsunami of mail in my inbox, I shall write more, specifically on the use of musical satire as way to lighten our load and deliver the revisionist message in a way that is accessible, entertaining and informative. As one friend noted after listening to Monday night’s Graham Hart Show:

“Alison, you make many good points, in particular: blatantly anti-Christian songs are completely allowed, while you are merely trying to help people realize how we’ve been lied to about a historical event involving this powerful sect who has basically controlled the narrative.

“Also, the revisionists who think it’s unwise to use music to help people understand what really happened maybe don’t want people to really know. Maybe it’s just a hobby for them, instead of really caring that people find out how we’ve been lied to all of our lives.”

Finally, a HUGE thank you to JQ Rowling on Gab who has created the most wonderful meme. As with alternative media articles and podcasts, I am unable to share here on my blog. Only those receiving this missive via email may rejoice in its fabulousness!

Kindest regards to all,

Alison. xx

 

The trial of Alison Chabloz day 2 – March 7 2018

By Robert Henderson

Presiding: District Judge John Zani sitting without a jury

Karen Robinson – Prosecuting counsel
Adrian Davies – Defence counsel

Witnesses for the defence – Alison Chabloz

Background to the prosecution

Ms Chabloz denies three charges of sending obscene material by public communication networks and two alternative charges of causing obscene material to be sent. The case involves three songs which the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) claim are anti-Semitic: Survivors, Nemo’s Anti-Semitic Universe and I Like The Story As It Is.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute the case originally but after the CAA started a private prosecution and threatened a judicial review of the CPS’ refusal to prosecute, the CPS agreed to reverse their original decision and take over the private prosecution.

The events of the day

Despite having a whole day for the case we are not yet not at the end of the defence case. Ms Chabloz gave evidence but the second witness for the defence Peter Rushton never entered the witness box.

Ms Chabloz did well in the witness box. Being under cross examination is very tiring because apart from the natural nervous tension – everyone is nervous when they first experience being in the witness box – and the need to concentrate intensely is draining. Moreover, Ms Chabloz was in the witness box for the better part of two hours. Not only did she not wilt, towards the end of her testimony she had prosecuting counsel a little rattled. (Karen Robinson made the mistake of getting into a verbal cul-d-sac when she kept repeating the same question over and over instead of trying to get at the answer she wanted by asking the question in different ways.)

Ms Robinson began her cross examination by concentrating on the songs which are the subject of the charges Ms Chabloz faces. Then she swerved into raising questions about a song which was not part of the charges and tried to make a case for Ms Chabloz being a racist generally.

Ms Chabloz picked up very quickly on the fact that Robinson had gone off piste and protested that the questioning was irrelevant, but Robinson was allowed to proceed with the line of questioning. Eventually defence counsel Adrian Davies objected that the line of questioning was not relevant to the charges but Zani still allowed Robinson to pursue the line of questioning.

I suspect that Adrian Davies allowed Robinson to continue without objection by him for as long as she did to provide the basis for Mr Rushton’s evidence to be accepted. However, it is worth noting that Ms Robinson’s attempt to broaden the argument against Ms Chabloz to a general charge of racism is of a different nature to Mr Rushton’s research which is, as far as it could be judged by what was said in court, simply concerned with validating Ms Chabloz’s claims.

At the end of Ms Chabloz’s cross-examination Adrian Davies’ second witness Peter Rushton was expected to testify. Mr Rushton has been down at the British Library ferreting out evidence which objectively supported the claims made in Ms Chabloz’s songs. However, his evidence was deemed to be of a nature which did not require him to go into the witness box provided the prosecution accepted that his research could be entered as evidence. This Ms Robinson agreed to and obviated the need for Mr Rushton to go into the witness box.

The court then turned to the question of whether written not oral arguments speaking to Mr Rushton’s research should be made The prosecution wanted only written arguments . (I suspect that the prosecution were nervous about having seriously non-pc statements read out in court in whole or part). Adrian Davies wanted to make oral arguments. judge Zani ruled that oral arguments could be made as well as the written ones and booked another hearing which he thought should last for around an hour.

This is unsatisfactory because it means that the prosecution’s attempt to present to present Ms Chabloz as a general racist was made in open court, while Mr Rushton’s evidence supporting Ms Chabloz will not, at least in its entirety, be presented in open court. (Some of Mr Rushton’s evidence will presumably become clear during the oral submissions on his evidence).

The upshot of all this activity is:

1. Written arguments on Mr Rushton’s evidence must be submitted by Friday 16th March

2. Oral arguments will be made on Monday 14th May

3. Judge Zani will reserve his judgement.

4. A further hearing will be held on 25th May at which Zani will give his verdict and the reasons for it.

There were around 20 supporters of Ms Chabloz. There were a number of interruptions from the public gallery in support of Ms Chabloz . These annoyed the judge enough to make him threaten to clear the public gallery.

Compared with the first day’s hearing on 10 January there was little media interest, although Martin Bashir sat in the press section. During one of several adjournments he engaged in an extended conversation with prosecuting counsel Karen Robinson.

https://alisonchabloz.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/filleted-grilled-emotionally-battered-but-still-undefeated/

A revisionist heroine does a great job defending the truth in court – Carolyn Yaeger’s Report on Free Speech Trial of Alison Chabloz

A revisionist heroine does a great job defending the truth in court

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2018-03-08 19:33

Singer-Songwriter Alison Chabloz arrives at court carrying flowers given to her by her admirers who followed her into the courtroom and sat in the public gallery. (Daily Mail Online)


ALISON CHABLOZ ARRIVED AT WESTMINSTER COURT YESTERDAY,  March 7, for the second leg of her trial for expressing views that are called “grossly offensive” because they mock revered Jewish figures like Elie Wiesel and Anne Frank. These views are embedded in songs she wrote and sang, that were uploaded onto the Internet.

Miss Chabloz made several excellent statements under questioning by Prosecutor Karen Robinson. When asked by Robinson whether she denied the holocaust, Chabloz said:

‘Deny the holocaust? I am sorry I do not understand this term. Who can deny the holocaust? It is a term that is meaningless in itself.’

Ms Robinson said: ‘In your police interview you made a distinction between holocaust denial and revisionism.’

Chabloz said: ‘You can call it holocaust denial but I prefer holocaust revisionism.

‘I think there should be an official scientific and forensic investigation. I doubt very much that a murder case would be brought to these courts without forensic investigation.

‘It is impossible to assess that the gas chambers actually existed to kill human beings without evidence. it is impossible to affirm that the supposed murder took place.

‘As the war years continued and got harder for everybody and we see the allied bombing of the German infrastructure – why would they not bomb the concentration camps?

‘A disproportionate amount of blame was put on the Germans by the victors. The victors got to write history.

It’s about furthering the globalist agenda

‘I would say that the so-called holocaust has been used to sustain the criminal state of Israel – it is used as a foundation myth.

‘By sending school children on trips to Auschwitz and inculcating them into believing in the gas chambers, the so-called holocaust is used as a weapon to prevent nationalistic feeling amongst European people.

‘It’s about furthering the globalist agenda.

‘It is certainly a topic worthy of investigation and of intelligent debate and discussion.’

Prosecutor Robinson questioned Chabloz on her police interview where she said, ‘My grandfather certainly didn’t fight for our towns and cities to be taken over by non-whites and non-Christians.’

Chabloz told her, ‘It’s my right to express those views.’

Ms Robinson said: ‘This is not an unqualified right – one cannot send material or matter on the internet which is grossly offensive.’

Chabloz retorted, ‘But it depends for whom doesn’t it, because there are plenty of parodies of Christian music that say Jesus was gay or that he must have been born by a donkey.

‘It is concerning that where I live, my people I love, my race, that we will become an ethnic minority.’

Ms Robinson told her, ‘The views you have expressed are anti-Semitic and racist. You said of the white race, “It breaks my heart to see that disappearing.” That is nothing more than racism.’

Really?! A UK representative of the Court and the legal system says it is racist (wrong) to not want your race to disappear!! Things are worse than I thought.

Loud booing at this remark

At this point there was loud booing from the public gallery and Chabloz’s barrister, Adrian Davies, rose to speak.

‘Now the witness is being treated much as a heretic during the inquisition, she is entitled to any political view that she wishes,’ Mr Davies said.

He believes that the statute is poorly set out (worded). The charges centre on whether embedding the hyperlink to the footage constitutes as sending, and if her songs were grossly offensive.

Chabloz was given bail again until the final submissions on 14 May and a verdict will be given on 25 May. 

Category

 

DAILY MAIL REPORT ON ALISON CHABLOZ’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL

DAILY MAIL REPORT ON ALISON CHABLOZ’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL

 

 

Anti-Semitic songwriter, 53, who ‘mocked Anne Frank’ tells court the Holocaust is ‘meaningless’ and insists she’s a ‘revisionist’ not a ‘denier’

  • Alison Chabloz, 53, labelled the Holocaust as the ‘Holohoax’ in one song
  • The blogger arrived at court with fans who supported her from the gallery 
  • She mocks prominent Jewish figures, including Elie Wiesel and Anne Frank
  • Chabloz, from Derbyshire, faces five charges relating at Westminster court 

Alison Chabloz, 53, arrived at court holding flowers and was supported from the public gallery by her followers

Alison Chabloz, 53, arrived at court holding flowers and was supported from the public gallery by her followers

An anti-Semitic song writer told a court today that the holocaust is ‘meaningless’ and the Germans were unfairly blamed for the Second World War.

Alison Chabloz, 53, laughed as she was read lyrics to her songs mocked Jews being fashioned into lampshades, having their heads shrunk and being turned into bars of soap.

The songs, ‘(((Survivors)))’, ‘Nemo’s Anti-Semetic Universe’ and ‘I Like It How It Is’ are said to go beyond the right to free speech in that they caused gross offence.

Some were performed live at the London Forum, while others were played for the camera, but all were uploaded to the internet.

In one number she mocks prominent Jewish figures including Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel and Anne and Otto Frank to the tune of a traditional Jewish song.

Chabloz was asked by prosecutor, Karen Robinson, whether she denied the holocaust.

‘Deny the holocaust? I am sorry I do not understand this term.

‘Who can deny the holocaust? It is a term that is meaningless in itself.’

Chabloz, seen arriving at court, describes herself as a Holocaust 'revisionist' and raises questions about the validity of the Holocaust

Chabloz, seen arriving at court, describes herself as a Holocaust ‘revisionist’ and raises questions about the validity of the Holocaust

Ms Robinson said: ‘In your police interview you made a distinction between holocaust denial and revisionism.’

Chabloz said: ‘You can call it holocaust denial but I prefer holocaust revisionism.

‘I think there should be an official scientific and forensic investigation.

‘I doubt very much that a murder case would be brought to these courts without forensic investigation.

‘It is very unlikely to have been more than a million killed – that is my understanding of having researched the information available.

‘Certainly a million – perhaps more – but until there is an official forensics investigation…

‘It is impossible to assess that the gas chambers actually existed to kill human beings without evidence it is impossible to affirm that the supposed murder took place.

‘There is absolutely no doubt that those taken to concentration camps suffered great tragedy, taken away from family and home.

‘As the war years continued and got harder for everybody and we see the allied bombing of the German infrastructure – why would they not bomb the concentration camps?

‘A disproportionate amount of blame was put on the Germans by the victors. The victors got to write history. It was a war – everybody suffered.

She arrived at court holding onto flowers and was followed into court by some of her supporters

She arrived at court holding onto flowers and was followed into court by some of her supporters

‘I would say that the so-called holocaust has been used to sustain the criminal state of Israel – it is used as a foundation myth.

‘By sending school children on trips to Auschwitz and inculcating them into believing in the gas chambers, the so-called holocaust is used as a weapon to prevent nationalistic feeling amongst European people.

‘It’s about furthering the globalist agenda.

‘It is certainly a topic worthy of investigation and of intelligent debate and discussion.’

Much of the questioning revolved around historical rather than legal argument as Ms Robinson tried to pin down Chabloz on her anti-semitism.

In one of her songs Chabloz jokes that if six million Jews had been killed that would not have been a bad thing.

Ms Robinson questioned Chabloz on her police interview where she said, ‘My grandfather certainly didn’t fight for our towns and cities to be taken over by non-whites and non-Christians.’

Chabloz told her, ‘It’s my right to express those views.’

Ms Robinson said: ‘This is not an unqualified right – one cannot send material or matter on the internet which is grossly offensive.’

Chabloz retorted, ‘But it depends for whom doesn’t it, because there are plenty of parodies of Christian music that say Jesus was gay or that he must have been born by a donkey.

‘It is concerning that where I live, my people I love, my race, that we will become an ethnic minority.’

Ms Robinson told her, ‘The views you have expressed are anti-Semitic and racist.

‘You said of the white race, “It breaks my heart to see that disappearing.”

‘That is nothing more than racism.’

At which point there was loud booing from the public gallery and Chabloz’s barrister, Adrian Davies, rose to speak.

‘Now the witness is being treated much as a heretic during the inquisition, she is entitled to any political view that she wishes,’ Mr Davies said.

‘The example of the well known case of the street preachers who preach in the street that homosexuality is wrong – they are perfectly entitled to express that view so long as they are not being grossly offensive.

Chabloz, seen arriving at court today, denied the charges in October, claiming she was being silenced by the 'UK Jewish lobby'

Chabloz, seen arriving at court today, denied the charges in October, claiming she was being silenced by the 'UK Jewish lobby'

Chabloz, seen arriving at court today, denied the charges in October, claiming she was being silenced by the ‘UK Jewish lobby’

‘It is not a crime in England to say that no Jews died at the hands of the Germans – it is a perfectly lawful position – it is therefore, not relevant to interrogate the witness about her opinions.’

The Crown must prove that Chabloz has caused ‘gross’ offence, Mr Davies believes that the statute is poorly set out.

Chabloz says that her songs provoke a ‘range of reactions’ and although some are ‘close to the bone,’ it is no fault of hers if someone chooses to be offended.


She cited a recent music video on YouTube by the black rapper Xxxtencion where he is seen to lynch a white child and the disparity in public outrage.

Chabloz is represented by Adrian Davies, who defended infamous historian and holocaust denier David Irving in 2001 at the Court of Appeal following his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt.

Chabloz, of Moss Croft, Town Lane, Glossop, Derbyshire, denies five counts of sending obscene material by public communication networks at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The charges centre on whether embedding the hyperlink to the footage constitutes as sending, and if her songs were grossly offensive.

She was bailed ahead of final submissions on 14 May and a verdict will be given on 25 May.

Reflections on the Chabloz Case

Reflections on the Chabloz Case

Nick Kollerstrom PhD

 

I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock…
      Alison Chabloz song, Find me guilty

Mr Gideon Falter, 34, who runs the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAAS) was the chief witness for the Crown Prosecution service’s (CPS) against the British minstrel Alison Chabloz. On January 10th at Marylebone Magistrate’s Court we heard him swear the oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He then proceeded to give the court various hearsay conjectures, about what effect Ms Chabloz’ songs might be exerting, upon unspecified persons.

He averred for example that they were ‘spreading anti-semitic hatred’ and were ‘inciting to racial hatred.’ The Court was not given evidence for this,[1]nor advised where or in whom these emotions were being generated. Should he not have called witnesses to testify in support of these conjectures, or better still a psychologist to affirm that they were or had been generated?

The Court was advised of one offensive performance by Ms Chabloz, where she sang her songs ‘(((Survivors))) and ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe’ namely the London Forum in   2016 (September 24th). A problem here could be the signs of mirth and riotous applause in response to the songs: did this really show what Mr Falter had been alleging, or if not, what did?

She was recently introduced as ‘The brilliant comedienne and singer/songwriter Alison Chabloz,’ by Richie Allen, on his popular radio show (18 January).

The point of satire, is that it makes people laugh. Britain has a long tradition of satire from William Hogarth in the 18th century to Private Eye in the present time. Its future is surely at stake in this trial.

In October of 2017 she was arrested and jailed (or, ‘held in custody’) for 48 hours, for posting a video of herself singing a song. This had allegedly broken her ‘bail conditions’. As Ms Chabloz observed, “As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.”

We live in a society where just about any sacred belief is liable to be satirised for entertainment value, and those being satirised have not generally sought recourse to legal action. When punk-rock bands savagely mocked the Royal family for example, no-one prosecuted them.

The present case was being brought under the Communications Act of 2003. A degree of public support is said to exist for its controversial section 127,[2]by people fed up with online bullying. For example, a racially motivated tweet relating to a footballer was prosecuted under it. But many have objected to its catch-all character,[3] and the DPP has stated in 2102, that its section 127 ‘should not be seen as a carte blanche for prosecuting content which, however upsetting to some, would normally fall within guarantees of freedom of expression in a democratic society,’ and that freedom of expression should include the right to say things that ‘offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population.’

Last year, at least nine people a day were being arrested in the UK on such dubious grounds. Annoying someone or causing distress has never been viewed as a crime — until now. The Communications Act was basically designed for the media.[4] In contrast, songs posted up on the Web are only heard by persons who choose to listen. One exercises that choice by clicking the ‘play’ button. Ms Chabloz has not ‘communicated’ anything in the sense defined by that Act.

Normally, if a Youtube video is found to be disturbing, a complaint is put through to Youtube, rather than the person who has uploaded it. Now Ms Chabloz’ songs have either been deleted or given protective warnings by Youtube, which further complicates the question, of how and to whom she is supposed to be causing offence.

The Defence lawyer Adrian Davies had suggested at an earlier hearing that his client’s songs might be ‘offensive’ but not ‘grossly offensive,’ and that remark was reiterated by the judge in the present hearing. That is surely so: it’s not as if they were snuff movies, or featured depraved or perverted acts, or personally defamed anyone living — except for one person, Irene Zisblatt who claims that she swallowed diamonds while she was at Auschwitz. The court discussed her case, with Mr Davies pointing out that the official Yad VashemHolocaust centre in Israel had cast doubt upon the veracity of Ms Zisblatt’s story in her book The Fifth Diamond. It features of course ze evil Nazis ripping babies in half, making lampshades out of human skin, etc. Was this not a legitimate target for satire, Mr Davis asked the Court?

Some have commented that British politics would hardly be able to function if a distinction was liable to be made between ‘offensive’ and ‘grossly offensive.’ How is the law supposed to discern such a thing?

Others have wondered if it is really appropriate for the CAAS to be registered as a charity, i.e., a tax-exempt NGO, which goes around suing people. The CPS had not wanted to take this case, but was pressured by the CAAS to do so. That applies both to the pending case of British ‘nationalist’ Jez Turner as well as Ms Chabloz: in both cases the CPS had no inclination to prosecute, but arm-twisting by the CAA made them do it. In fact, the CAA works for a foreign power: its first action upon being founded in 2014 was to intimidate the Trycicle Theatre in Cricklewood so they gave up their BDS policy on Israeli goods. Why should a group specialising in legal intimidation be awarded tax-exempt charity status?

The second witness after Mr Faulter was Stephen Silverman, the CAA’s ‘Director of Investigations and Enforcement.’ Under examination he confirmed that the online character ‘Nemo’ who had been persistently trolling Ms Chabloz, was none other than Stephen Applebaum, the CAAS’s ‘senior volunteer.’ For the last two years she had received some quite intense twitter threats and curses from this character — thus on her website ‘Nemo’ declared: ‘Even if you are acquitted, we will still go after you.’ Earlier, in the first court hearing of this case in December 2016, Mr Silverman admitted that he had been tweeting as ‘Bedlam Jones’ who had likewise been making quite intimidating comments.

So, this is a case that could work a lot better the other way round, with Alison as the innocent injured party and CAA personnel as guilty of harassment and victimisation. Clearly, the CAA needs to be stripped of its charity status.  As a general comment, one can either post envenomed tweets against someone or sue them, but it may be inadvisable to try both.

The case is adjourned until March 7th.


[1] As her lawyer A.D advised the Court, the ‘personal emotional reaction’ of Mr Gideon Falter was ‘entirely irrelevant’ to the case

[2] Section 137: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network,  message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;

[3] Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Actreveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016′

[4] It aimed ‘to make provision about the regulation of the provision of electronic communications networks and services … to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting and of the provision of television and radio services, etc.

UPDATE IN ALISON CHABLOZ FREE SPEECH CASE IN THE UK: Court decision on complex legal arguments will be made next month

UPDATE IN ALISON CHABLOZ FREE SPEECH CASE IN THE UK: Court decision on complex legal arguments will be made next month

Firstly, a huge thank you to the 25 brave souls who turned up at yesterday’s hearing in support. Thanks also to those of you who weren’t able to be there but sent messages and donations.

It was a great boost to see familiar, friendly faces in the public gallery vastly outnumbering the opposition. Indeed, as proceedings began, we were informed of a request made by Crown key witnesses, CAA’s Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman. Both men had originally intended to be present in the public gallery yet neither turned up. Instead, CAA minion, Anthony Orkin, was again in attendance with just a couple of others, including the man seen on the far left of the photo below:

171017 shomrim CAA DerbysPCC 1

Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism along with representatives of other Jewish organisations including Shomrim held a meeting last week in London with Labour’sHardyal Dhindsa, Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner, to discuss hate crime.

Perhaps the fact that Derbyshire Constabulary last week finally returned my laptop is one of the reasons why Falter and Silverman failed to turn up? Who knows? But in light of the CPS barrister’s announcement, both were highly conspicuous by their absence.

The Crown also requested that my barrister, Adrian Davies, be the first to present submissions in relation to the complex legal arguments surrounding my case. As already explained, the charges (now five) which I face concern sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message under the Communications Act. I won’t go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that I was brilliantly defended by Mr Davies.

After hearing both sets of submissions, Judge Zani informed the court that he would give a decision in writing after studying the points of law discussed. He also scheduled yet another preliminary hearing on November 20th when his decision will be made public. The judge also made it clear that, at this current stage of events, he would still be inclined to keep the January 10th trial date.

Judge Zani explained that the reason for still wishing a trial to go ahead would be to hear my case not only on points of law (whether sharing a URL constitutes an offence under the Act) but also on facts, namely, the content of my songs. I, for one, shall look forward to the Crown’s star witness coming to the defence of Irene Zisblatt, Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and the already-debunked war propaganda lies of Jews being turned into bars of soap, etc., etc.

It is quite strange to consider that in the case of Judge Zani agreeing with the Defence submission and therefore ruling that I would not have committed any offence under the Act, I may nevertheless still be sent to trial. However, the judge’s decision in this matter, quite rightly, is meant to avoid further eventual hearings pending appeals. If the judge agrees with the Crown’s submission concerning points of law, then I can and will appeal.

Judge Zani then went on to discuss bail conditions. The Crown – no doubt under pressure from the usual suspects – unsuccessfully tried to impose tighter address restrictions. Mr Davies also announced our intent to sue for abuse of process following my arrest and detention earlier this month.

My arrest and subsequent charge for yet another of my songs was the result of a witness statement made by former Zionist Federation co-vice chair, Jonathan Hoffman, who – as we saw last July – has already attempted to prejudice my case on more than one occasion. As a result of Mr Hoffman’s interference, the Crown announced yesterday that he would not make a credible witness. Key evidence relating to the new charge is now solely confined to a similar statement made by Stephen Silverman aka Bedlam Jones. On this matter, I shall leave readers to make up their own minds.

For some real discussion of my case and seeing as the Mainstream is failing in its task to inform the British public of this highly newsworthy event, I shall again be a guest on tonight’s edition of Radio Aryan’s Daily Traditionalist with Matthew Heimbach and Florian Geyer. The show starts at 5 pm BST and, hopefully, the audio quality this time will enable listeners to better hear my story. Big thanks to Sven Longshanks for organising this.

*

Can a song be a Crime?

Can a song be a Crime?
The persecution of British singer and satirist Alison Chabloz for some of her holocaust-skeptical songs  makes a mockery of British free speech rights. The private prosecution, launched by Gideon Falter of the well-heeled anti-free speech group, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, took an alarming turn on Friday. On one day’s notice, Alison was summoned for a hearing to restrict her activities whilst on bail. “

” The judge told her she is not allowed to tweet or blog about her prosecutor Gideon Falter. That was unfair, her lawyer objected, because he had been tweeting about her – overruled. Nor – here was the punch line – was she allowed to do anything ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘grossly offensive:’ if she does she will be locked up until her trial, next March. These are incredibly vague and undefined terms. But, I suspect Mr Falter is not going to find this trial the pushover which he has expected.”


It is appalling that merely offending privileged group’s feelings can land a singer in court. As in Canada, with victims like Brad Love and Terry Tremaine, the vile system uses bail or parole conditions to gag a dissident even BEFORE a trial. Here the talented Miss Chabloz faces months in jail is she does anything “racist” or “anti-semitic” or “grossly offensive.” The message is clear: Shut up! What is “racist”? If you express pride in being a homosexual or being a Negro, that’s fine; if you are proud of your European heritage, you’re a “racist” And what is “grossly offensive”? It’s all in the yes of the beholder and minorities, especially Jews, have become adept at being easily offended.
Another similarity with Canada is that Miss Chabloz is not permitted to tweet or blog about her tormenter Gideon Falter. Apparently, he can agress against people but the victims cannot comment or mention him. Exactly, the same thing happened to Canadian free speech victim Arthur Topham who is not allowed to mention Richard Warman or Harry Abrams who sought to shut him down and filed complaints which led to the Sec. 319 (“hate law” charges) against him. Oh, yes, neither bothered to show up at Mr. Topham’s trial to see the mischief they had caused.
Paul FrommDirectorCANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Can a song be a Crime?

2 comments

Friday, 23rd December: Marylebone Magistrate’s Court.

Alison Chablez has been suddenly called back from Manchester with only one days notice, because the Prosecution wishes to redefine the terms of her bail. A week earlier, she had turned up, for a rather strange indeed unheard-of type of prosecution. A Campaign Against Anti-Semitism had decided a song of hers violated Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, and was ‘grossly offensive.’

In Britain today, can you be prosecuted because someone reckons your behavior is offensive?* No-one seemed to be providing evidence of anyone having been offended – we merely had the word of  Jonathan Goldberg QC, prosecution barrister (who had three attorneys sitting behind him for some sort of moral backup). Mr Gideon Falter, chair of CAAS evidently reckons so. Normally it is the business of the CPS the Crown Prosecution Service to bring such charges, but Mr Falter reckoned they were being rather dilatory in prosecuting anti-semitism and he is speeding up the process by taking out this private prosecution.

The distinguished British philosopher and tenor sax player Gilad Atzman turned up to give Ms Chablez some moral support, and I felt his presence was quite significant. Let’s hope he blogs about it. The best feature of this hearing was Ms Chablez’ marvellous lawyer Adrian Davies, let’s hope he is still defending her in March. Chablez

Can a song be a crime?  The dire charges – anti-semitism, racism Holo-denial – have effectively ended her career as a folk musician. Tell me about it. The doors do clang shut once Gods’s Chosen People reckon you don’t believe in their Holo-narrative. You thereby come to understand, like never before, who controls our world.

Let’s have a quote from her about her prosecution:

Thursday December 15, I shall be appearing in court for the first time in my life charged with causing gross offence after posting my song (((Survivors))) on YouTube. What makes this case special is the fact that I am not being prosecuted by the Crown; it is a private prosecution taken on by chairman of the wealthy Zionist ‘charity’, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), Gideon Falter, who – in order to persuade the judge that publishing my song merits a heavy fine – will have to prove that my song is grossly offensive.

I should here confess: after her inspiring performance at a packed London Forum, ’Songs of the Shoah’ she did allude to my book.  She has been described as ‘the pin-up girl of Stormfront.’

You might want to check out here Alison’s rather sensible views on the obscure Havaara agreement, and how Red Ken’s politicial career was suddenly over because of his comments upon the matter.

Coming back to the bail trial, the judge told her she is not allowed to tweet or blog about her prosecutor Gideon Falter. That was unfair, her lawyer objected, because he had been tweeting about her – overruled. Nor – here was the punch line – was she allowed to do anything ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘grossly offensive:’ if she does she will be locked up until her trial, next March. These are incredibly vague and undefined terms. But, I suspect Mr Falter is not going to find this trial the pushover which he has expected.

I had been hoping to sell my book together with her new CD. My publisher had agreed, but now she reckons she might just be locked up if she did anything like that.

It is clear that the Communications Act of 2003 was designed to regulate commercial broadcasting, in relation to the OFCOM inspectorate – not for private individuals.Chabloz2

It is vital that the great British tradition of satire – from Hogarth to Private Eye – is defended. One is permitted to scoff at people, especially rich, influential people – it is not a crime.

There is a lot at stake here. While talking to a former member of the British punk-rock band ‘Crass,’ he played me a bit of the ghastly racket they used to make, and I heard the dire lyrics. The Crown tried to prosecute them under the Blasphemy Act – but gave up. That is an important precedent. It’s called freedom of expression. I personally object to Jews insisting that everyone else has to believe their fictional, fabricated, fake narrative about what did not happen in the German labor camps of WW2; and salute Alison Chabloz for pointing out, in humorous songs – that IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.

NO Mr Falter, it’s a fictional story. And, by the way Mr Falter, you have no drop of semitic blood in you. But, your country is exterminating the semites, and stealing their land. It’s called genocide.

Muad-Dib

 

* “ This is what happens, when this group are upset by something. They assume they have the right not to be offended, as they obviously so easily are. It’s almost impossible to be part of their mind-virus unless you have been programmed into it…” Mark windows.

 

IHR Christmas Gathering A Huge Success

IHR Christmas Gathering A Huge Success
The Institute for Historical Review’s fifth annual Christmas party was held in the organization’s offices in Orange County, California. Socializing, a potluck supper and four talks filled a pleasant evening of fellowship and friendship.
 
IHR Director Mark Weber led off with a review of the past year. The IHR held nine meetings, including one in Virginia, this year with a roster of distinguished speakers, including Professor Tom Sunic and British lawyer Adrian Davies. The IHR maintains an active website . Mr. Weber has given numerous interviews with the U.S. and international press and has spoken at several meeting in Europe, including an enthusiastic reception at the London Forum.  The IHR has produced a number of important videos and has increased its distribution of books.

Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
Injecting fairness and reasoned historical commentary is the IHR’s role, he said. “If the U.S. judged Israel by the same standards we hold Afghanistan and Serbia to, we’d be sending bombers to Tel Aviv.”
 
Attorney Bill Halsey represented the IHR in the turbulent 1980s and 1990s, when their conferences were under attack by the radical terroristic Jewish Defence League (JDL). Venues were cancelled because of terror threats. The IHR’s offices were bombed and a warehouse filled with revisionist books destroyed, he recalled. The two main JDL culprits died in prison (on other charges), he noted. Mr. Halsey recalled how Congressman John Schmitz , an outspoken conservative on whose campaign he had worked, came to an IHR meeting and vouched for them to a frightened hotel owner, thus saving Frederick Fromm's photo.their conference. “All the IHR has ever tried to do is bring ‘history’ in tune with the facts,” he concluded.
 
Paul Fromm, the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, discussed the attack on Christmas. This feast, he noted, “is among the most welcoming and inclusive, in the good sense of the word. The vast majority of Americans and Canadians celebrate Christmas, most as a religious event, but many who are not religious celebrate it as a cultural event as well. Yet, most government officials and many conformist businesses avoid the word and feel they must substitute ‘Seasons Greetings’ or ‘Happy Holidays’, as if the word Christmas itself was an obscenity.”
 
The fact is, he added, the word “Christmas” is an obscenity for militant Jews who have led the assault over the past six decades, Mr. Fromm explained. The attack on Christmas is the result of growing Jewish media and cultural influence in the past 70 or so years.
 
Quoting Edmund Connelly’s writings on the subject in Occidental Quarterly (2008), Mr. Fromm said: “While much has been written and reported about this assault, few want to situate the attack on Christmas within a larger set of conflicts between Jews and white Christians. But to understand the hostility toward Christmas in America, one must do just that, as Jewish Townhall.com columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly did in his 2004 column The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas.
 

The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “

 
He then referenced work by historian Michael Hoffman III: “Christmas is a problematic time for Orthodox rabbis and their followers since it celebrates the birth of the Jesus they hate. The rabbinic term for Christmas Eve is Nittel Nacht, a night they regard as accursed.  There is a rabbinic tradition of refraining from marital relations on Nittel Nacht. According to Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidic Judaism, to conceive a child on Nittel Nacht will result in the birth of either an apostate or a pimp. 
 
The most prominent rabbinic custom commonly observed on Christmas Eve is to abstain from “Torah” (Talmud) study. There is an anxiety that one’s Talmud study may unwillingly serve as merit for Jesus’ soul, corresponding to the teaching that Talmud study gives respite to the souls of all the wicked. Refraining from Talmud study on Nittel Nacht also serves as a sign of mourning corresponding to the rabbinic belief that Jesus “was a false messiah who deceived Israel, worshipped a brick, practiced the magic he learned in Egypt and was born of a harlot who conceived while she was niddah (menstruating).”
 
There is a Talmudic custom of eating garlic on Nittel Nacht. The reason for this is attributed to the odor of the garlic which is reputed to repel the demonic soul of Jesus, which is supposed to wander on Christmas Eve like Scrooge’s dead partner Marley (cf. the rabbinic text Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel). Another widespread rabbinic custom in Orthodox Judaism is to make toilet paper on Christmas Eve, a practice made popular among Hasidic Judaics by the Chiddushei Harim (cf. Reiach Hasade 1:17).
 
Contrast these grostesque Nittel Nacht mockeries from the lowest septic tank in hell, with the heavenly story of the Holy Family in Bethlehem —  the radiant Virgin and child, humble shepherds, and angels offering glad tidings of peace on earth to men of good will. Frankly, there is no comparison between Talmudic Judaism and true Christianity, and those who attempt to assert that Christianity has ecumenical similarities with the religion of the Talmud, are more deluded than the degraded practitioners of Nittel Nacht themselves.”
 
Again, quoting Edmund Connelly, Mr. Fromm noted: “One could spend a year, from one Christmas to the next, reading about the Gentile-Jewish basis of the War on Christmas. Some accounts are scholarly, while others are more popular. Some overtly point to the religious split as the source of the hostility, while others cautiously skirt around the issue.  Rush Limbaugh’s younger brother David is at pains not to name the source of the powerful anti-Christian bias he sees in our culture. Thus, in his 2003 work Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, he can open a chapter by writing “In the documented bias against Christians and Christianity in our modern culture, Hollywood and Big Media play very major roles.” But he ignores the highly Jewish nature of the American media in general and Hollywood in particular. In fact, the words “Jews” and “Judaism” do not even appear in his extensive index.
 

The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America. Still, by including a chapter such as William Lind’s excellent “Who Stole Our Culture,” it is obvious to even the halfway informed reader what civilizational rival they are discussing.Frederick Fromm's photo.

Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique, where MacDonald describes the broad range of Jewish movements arrayed against the culture of the West, including Christianity.”

The first wave of the assault on Christmas, occurred from the late 1930s to the 1960s, Mr. Fromm explained. In 1934, at the urging of his wife Israel Itkovitz (better known as Eddie Cantor) wrote Santa Claus is Coming to Town. Jule Steyn, a Jewess from Bethnall Green in London, England, wrote the song Let It Snow, and Ivring Berlin, in the late 1940s, wrote the iconic White Christmas. “Now, there is nothing in and of themselves wrong about these songs. They celebrate the externals of the Christmas time, but neatly avoid the core meaning — the birth of Jesus Christ. By the 1960s, many Christian groups were rightly complaining that Christ had been taken out of Christmas: Jesus, Mary and Joseph had been replaced by Santa, Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman,” he added.

But the attack was heating up, Mr. Fromm explained. Then, quoting Edmund Connelly, he added: “In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over ‘A Neutral Public Square,’and it has been going on for a long time.’Happy Holidays’ and ‘Season’s Greetings’  were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.’  The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.

Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!’ Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.”

Now, we have a concerted effort to remove “Christmas” while all the while wanting us to spend carloads of shekels to give gifts for the feast that dares not say its name. “Luckily, there’s been a strong push back from Christians and others. I urge you to give cards that say, ‘Merry Christmas.'” Mr. Fromm said.  “I urge you to return with a stern note any ‘Seasons Greetings’ cards from politicians. Finally, when shopping, patronize stores that mention ‘Christmas’ and, where you can, tell the management of stores that insist on ‘Seasons Greetings’ that you won’t buy their cheap imported Chinese junk, if they won’t acknowledge the name of the date the vast majority of us celebrates. You are not being ‘inclusive’,” he added, ” excluding yourself and your beliefs.”

The evening concluded with a provocative slide show by IHR Director, Tom Berrington. “We are in the period of Kali Yuga, in Hindu mythology, an evil time of turmoil and fever,” he warned: “We are never going back  to that golden era of the 1950s of rising living standards and endless opportunity. While there are many forces ranged against our people, we have certain advantages, especially our Faustian creative spirit,” he concluded.

Frederick Fromm's photo.