Hate crime’s alright if you’re non-white

Hate crime’s alright if you’re non-white

Ben Weich in this week’s edition of the Jewish Chronicle confirms the gist of my previous post: police have received yet another vexatious complaint from the usual suspects and are therefore obliged to fulfil their duty and investigate my heretical comments regards Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. On and on it goes…

Today, I would like to comment on the atrocious double standards being applied by the English court system when it comes to so-called ‘hate crime’. I will return to foreign justice systems in a future article, specifically dealing with the current plights of Ursula Haverbeck and the Schaefer siblings in Germany (not forgetting Horst Mahler and Gerhard Ittner), as well as that of Canadian free speech advocate, Arthur Topham.

My suspended sentence was harsh. However, I am luckier than some. English courts, judges and juries will hammer ‘hate crime’ perpetrators when it’s a white man in the dock. Less so when the offender is from an ethnic minority or, seemingly, as in my case, is a woman. Take the most recent sentencing for a ‘malicious communications’ offence under section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act – the law under which my songs fell foul earlier this year:

 

180811 shomrim

Right: in 2016, Shehroz Iqbal drove around Stamford Hill shouting ‘Kill all Jews’. He was charged and convicted under the 1986 Public Order Act for using threatening language.

How does Iqbal’s 16 week suspended sentence compare with that of Jez Turner currently serving 12 months for a non-violent political speech made outside Whitehall in 2015? How does Iqbal’s sentence compare with nine months handed to Simon Sheppard for using colourful language to describe a non-white neighbour in a conversation with a TV repairman?

2018, Iqbal is again reported to police by Jewish Shomrim vigilantes (apparently normal British police aren’t good enough for Jews). Iqbal SENT a threatening email to the Shomrim. Charged under the 2003 Communications Act, he pleaded guilty and was given an 11 week suspended sentence, 60 hours unpaid work plus a £200 fine. 

My songs were uploaded to a server in the United States. They were not sent to any individual – and certainly not to my accusers of Campaign Against Antisemitism. My songs were uploaded from my home address in Derbyshire, yet I was forced to trek across Britain to London for no less than twelve hearings!

For uploading my own artistic work to the Internet, sent to no one, I was given a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for two years, 180 hours of unpaid work, 20 days of ‘rehabilitation’, a year-long ban from social media plus a £715 fine. Continually on the prowl despite being granted a restraining order against me(!), CAA is now apparently claiming that ‘alisonchabloz.com‘ would also be a social media platform.

Prior to my conviction, I used social media principally to share the content of this website, which helped bring in donations and foster human interactions. And now I’m expected to pay a fine when I no longer have the option to share work via Facebook or Gab. Not satisfied with having me removed from Twitter in 2016 and from YouTube in 2017 (First, they came for Alex Jones – yeah, right!) my accusers, helped by the injustice system, have now succeeded in removing my voice from the two platforms left open to me. State-sponsored censorship via the courts of artists and anyone else they dislike is the order of the day as far as this so-called ‘charity’ is concerned.

Six weeks ago, following reception of the written suspended sentence order from Westminster Magistrates and a first meeting with my assigned probation officer in Derbyshire, I served papers on my local magistrates court to stay the unpaid work order pending appeal. What exactly do I owe my community up here in Derbyshire in relation to what the judge described as “serious offences” i.e. singing songs? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see: my trial took place in London outside my own jurisdiction (involving severe inconvenience and huge expense); there are no identifiable “victims” (of my satire!) either in my own jurisdiction or indeed elsewhere – except perhaps diamond swallowing fantasist Irene Zisblatt.

Prior to my prosecution, CAA trolls had already lobbied all the venues and social clubs I used to frequent in my home town in a bid to ostracise me socially and professionally (not to mention daily reports to police and PCC Hardyal Dhindsa). They even managed to have me kicked out of my own English folk band.

Think about it: sons of immigrants, whose loyalty lies offshore, dictating that an ethnic Englishwoman is unfit to play in an English folk band because of her Revisionist convictions. Folk music from these isles is part of my culture and heritage: it’s in my blood. How dare they!

According to my accusers, musicians censored by the Third Reich were ‘Holocaust’ victims. But musicians censored by Hitler were not ethnic Germans. In Britain today, Jews endlessly cite fictitious gas chambers in order to censor a British musician. Yet if anyone dares to compare Chabloz’ censors with the Nazis, they’d be accused of being a virulent anti-Semite and would risk prosecution under the highly dubious IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.

In reality, any such comparison is misguided. Censorious Creeps Anon are worse than the Nazis. Musicians at Auschwitz weren’t prevented from performing; there was an orchestra and even a theatre.

Above: Fact or fiction? Elie Wiesel’s violin audition at Auschwitz. 

In short, a white woman’s original songs about the ‘Holocaust’ and a white man’s political speech about Jewish power carry harsher penalties than Muslim threats to ‘Kill all Jews’.  Shehroz Iqbal’s convictions and relatively lenient sentencing under the Public Order and Communication Acts demonstrate that whites in Britain are now the underdogs when it comes to judicial rulings on ‘hate crime’.

Anti-white racism is now sanctioned by the State. ‘Equality’ is for everyone except whites. White English indigenous minorities (already the case in towns such as Leicester, Birmingham and London) will never benefit from ‘protected status’ as enjoyed by ethnic minority groups. And when whites increasingly find themselves prosecuted for so-called ‘hate crime’, they can also expect harsher sentences.

The Zionist lobby’s erosion of freedom of speech in UK: The case of Alison Chabloz

The Zionist lobby’s erosion of freedom of speech in UK: The case of Alison Chabloz

Alison Chabloz

Gilad Atzmon writes:

The Jewish Chronicle seems dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This country has, in just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.

Chabloz was sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment, suspended for two years, for posting supposedly “grossly offensive songs” on the internet. It seems that music is now deemed a major threat to Britain.

Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet social interaction and intellectual exchange? Israel imposes such prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the people, and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good company.

Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work”. This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend “a 20-day rehabilitation programme”. In 21st century Britain, a singer-songwriter has been sentenced to “re-education” for singing a few tunes that offended some people. 

The initial objective of the Nazi concentration camps was also to “re-educate the people”. Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans and dissenter communists and turn them into German patriots.

I wonder what this particular rehabilitation programme will entail for the revisionist singer? Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to the Jewish folk song Hva Nagila. Will she now have now to learn to sing the song in Yiddish, or maybe to try to fit her own original “subversive” lyrics to the music of Richard Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of Jewish suffering or, far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?

We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.

Satire aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that Britain is no longer the freedom-loving place in which I settled more than two decades ago. If freedom can be defined as the right to offend, Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In contemporary Britain, exercising the right to offend evidently leads to conviction and possible imprisonment. And who defines what constitutes an offence? British law fails to do so. Chabloz was disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures, such as Elie Wiesel and Otto Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals and artists? Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia. We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.

Democracies are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts are now taken by “the law”. According to the Jewish Chronicle, Judge Zani told Chabloz that :“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly established that this right is a qualified right.”

While many of us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore. Freedom of speech in Britain is now “a qualified right”. In other words, the government and the judicial system are allowed to interfere with such right at any time. Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that is prosecuted.

Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Britain and enacted in 1948, declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights in memory only, for we experience them no more.

Letter from Jez Turner, Political Prisoner, received this morning, June 5th

Letter from Jez, received this morning, June 5th: Letter from Jez Turner, Political Prisoner, received this morning, June 5th
Dear Alison,

Thank you for your letter.


Interested to hear of the media / net reaction – no access here – so please put all links on to a page / email so I can read when I get out. I always enjoy reading R.H.’s court reports – he should be a court reporter!

I liked the stamps very much. On my arrival another chap had a book and I asked him if I could borrow it while we waited and he said ‘Give it to me next week’ – it saved my life ‘cos nothing to read in the first week here. The book was all about Malta and the aerial duals between Me’s and Macchis vs. Hurricanes and Spitfires! Spits were a big improvement on Hurries BUT the fuel tank was in front of the pilot – not good! Anyway, whole show was a complete waste of life and poor Maltese caught in the middle.

Do hope your trial verdict goes better than mine – by time you receive this you’ll know. I won’t know till S. visits me on Wednesday.

Pleased that Paris went well and the Vichy video came through – a change is as good as a rest!!

It’s funny, but the things I miss the most are the simple things…

Mail for me is censored, but anonymous mail does get through.

Please tell everyone that my spirits are high and that I’m enjoying my holiday at Her Majesty’s Expense! I will return refreshed to the fray!

Jez. 

 
____

Friends,

Good to hear Jez is in good spirits.
 
I am doing ok, awaiting my punishment due to be pronounced in ten days on the 14th. We will see if the British judiciary is prepared to jail a singer. (I’m told this doesn’t happen even in Venezuela!)
 
Attached below is my latest blog post along with photographs taken last week during the glorious sunny spell up here in the Peak District (Derbyshire). Hawthorn at its best, lambs in the field and even a paddling cow.
 
Thanks again for your much appreciated support. 
 
Best wishes,
 
Alison
 

Sad News: England Seeks Deeper into  A Zionist-Controlled Police State

Sad News: England Seeks Deeper into  A Zionist-Controlled Police State 

 
Chanteuse and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted for using telecommunications to transmit “grossly offensive” material — songs satirizing the extravagant claims on Jewish “holocaust” survivors. A gloating comment by Gideon Felter,  spokesman for the well-connected and well-funded Campaign Against Anti-semitism made it quite clear that it’s ideas that are being outlawed: ” This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

YouTuber Alison Chabloz guilty over anti-Semitic songs

Alison ChablozImage copyrightJONATHAN BRADY/ PA
Image captionAlison Chabloz had claimed the prosecution was an attempt to limit her free speech

A blogger has been found guilty of broadcasting anti-Semitic songs on YouTube.

Alison Chabloz, 54, from Glossop, Derbyshire, wrote and performed three songs about Nazi persecution, including one about the young diarist Anne Frank.

Chabloz claimed the Holocaust was “a bunch of lies” and referred to Auschwitz as a “theme park”.

She was warned she may be jailed at her sentencing on 14 June. There was scuffle outside court.

Outside the courtImage copyrightPA
Image captionThere were several heated arguments outside court

Chabloz was convicted of two counts of sending an offensive, indecent or menacing message through a public communications network.

She was further convicted of a third charge relating to a song on YouTube.

District Judge John Zani, sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, said the offences were serious and “the custody threshold may well have been passed.”

When the verdict was given supporters of Chabloz shouted “shame” from the public gallery.

Chabloz was released on bail on the condition she was placed on a night curfew at her home and does not leave England and Wales.

When Chabloz left court there was a scuffle and heated arguments outside, before police arrived to keep the peace.

Outside the courtImage copyrightPA
Image captionPolice arrived to keep the peace after a scuffle outside court
Outside the courtImage copyrightPA

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism initially brought a private prosecution against Chabloz, before the Crown Prosecution Service took over.

Gideon Falter, the group’s chairman, said: “Alison Chabloz has dedicated herself over the course of years to inciting others to hate Jews, principally by claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by Jews to defraud the world.

“She is now a convicted criminal. This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

A CPS spokesman said it first became aware of the private prosecution in December 2016 when Alison Chabloz’s solicitors asked the CPS to take it over and stop it.

However, in 2017, the CPS determined the case should continue and Alison Chabloz was prosecuted.

Alison Chabloz in a video posted on YouTubeImage copyrightYOUTUBE
Image captionAlison Chabloz previously told the court she wanted put across her “political, artistic, creative point”

Chabloz, who describes herself as a Holocaust revisionist, said her music was “satire” and had previously told the court there was “no proof” gas chambers were used to kill Jewish people in World War Two.

However, prosecutors said three of Chabloz’s songs, including one which referred to the notorious Nazi death camp Auschwitz as a “theme park”, were criminally offensive.

Another song included a section set to the tune of a popular Jewish song Hava Nagila.

The defence had told Judge Zani his ruling would set a precedent on the exercise of free speech.

Chabloz had claimed many Jewish people found her songs funny and that no-one was forced to listen to them.

STATE COURT FINDS BRITISH DISSIDENT GUILTY

STATE COURT FINDS BRITISH DISSIDENT GUILTY

HONESTY BOX Our news isn’t free for those who work to bring it to you; we depend on donations (click TeamWork). Please share our stories and purchase from our bookstore.

With the dreary predictability expected of a tinpot police state, outspoken dissident, Alison Chabloz on May 25 was found guilty on all counts when the attractive defendant appeared before Marylebone Magistrates Court.

Alison Chabloz Portrait

This throwback to the Soviet system boasts a corporate media in perfect harmony with the prosecuting counsel. Anyone, no matter how remote, who could be relied on to debauch the dissident’s reputation was media quoted at length. In Britain and the USSR, its once ally, you get two trials; one state and one media with both outcomes being predictable.

It is highly likely that the defendant is tried and convicted, and the media pen-ready, before the trial even takes place. Like elections, the rest is a theatre for the gullible Goyim.

Arrests for political comment

The state charges that directly or indirectly the parody melodies the popular chanteuse sang were deemed to have been ‘grossly offensive’.   She has yet to be sentenced because judge John Judge Zani, (they’re called beaks, in England), called for a probation report prior to sentencing Alison on June 14.

Injustice 3

In a passage of the summing up; “this court is satisfied that the material in each of the songs is grossly offensive as judged by an open and multiracial society, as opposed to, for example, merely offensive.”

A problem for Alison, you cannot go to prison for ‘offensive’ material but you can lose your liberty for ‘grossly offensive’ material. It is unclear as to how one defines the difference. This is not of course an oversight by men in dark places who decide these things.

Injustice 2

The unarguable outcome is that in Britain there is only one opinion that is permissible, the globalists politically correct view.

Whatever one’s political convictions, one has to ask do we really want to live in a state that sends dissidents to prison for being politically unfashionable. This sums up Absurdistan today.

Injustice 1

Britain is using the state police, the courts, and prisons and the press to stifle debate on government immigration and foreign policy; it questions the right of Britons to take responsibility for their sovereignty. Read this passage again and again as it cannot be put clearer than that.

There was a strong turnout at Alison’s trial and a tsunami of sympathy and support, none of which was reported by corporate and state media (BBC).

Free speech now a hate crime

KEEP REAL NEWS OPEN: Donate by using PayPal, Western Union or registered mail. 2) Follow our blog. 3) Share our stories and 4) buy our books. 5) Receive free newsletters by writing subscribe to euroman_uk@yahoo.co.uk. Click ‘Mike Walsh’ to meet the publisher of The Ethnic European.

New collage Sunweel -1

m22

 

If You’re in London, Come Out and Support Chanteuse and Satirist Alison Chabloz When the Verdict is Read, Friday, May 25th, at 10:00 a.m.

If You’re in London, Come Out and Support Chanteuse and Satirist Alison Chabloz When the Verdict is Read, Friday, May 25th, at 10:00 a.m.

 

Several arrests, multiple charges, ten court hearings, 18 months on bail and two days in jail – all for singing satirical songs alleged to be grossly offensive. Finally, the verdict in Alison Chabloz’ case will be pronounced 10 am this coming Friday, May 25th at Westminster Magistrates Court, Marylebone Rd, London.

 

Please do come along and show your solidarity.

Rendezvous Marylebone station forecourt from 9 am.

[At present, I have technical problems accessing the mailing lists, so feel free to forward information to those friends you know you would be interested, Stead.]

 

REVISIONIST HEROINES: CES FEMMES CONTRE LE « NOUVEL EVANGILE » !

Ces femmes contre le « Nouvel Evangile » !

Ces femmes contre le « Nouvel Evangile » !
Accueil » Actualité » Actualité internationale » Ces femmes contre le « Nouvel Evangile » !

CES FEMMES CONTRE LE « NOUVEL EVANGILE » !

Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck, « la grande dame allemande », est, depuis avant-hier, incarcérée à la suite de sa condamnation à deux ans de prison ferme. Dans six mois, le 11 novembre 2018, elle aura 90 ans. Elle est arrière-grand-mère.

Elle était sous surveillance médicale. Son avocat avait sollicité un report de sa date d’incarcération. Mais de bonnes et belles personnes, notamment à l’étranger, avaient protesté et exigé une incarcération sans plus de délai.

Il faut dire que la coupable avait commis un crime affreux contre la plus vraie et la plus vivace des religions du monde, la Religion de l’Holocauste.

Michele Renouf

La Nazi-Oma (Grand-mère Nazie) avait proclamé qu’elle ne croyait pas à l’existence, durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, des « chambres à gaz nazies ». Elie Wiesel non plus n’y croyait pas ; généralement tenu pour le témoin emblématique de « l’Holocauste » (ou « Shoah »), il ira même, dans ses mémoires, jusqu’à demander qu’on n’en parle plus ; cependant, au moins nous avait-il assuré auparavant dans La Nuit qu’à Auschwitz, si les Allemands tuaient systématiquement les juifs, c’était par le feu dans des fosses ardentes auxquelles, par miracle, il avait personnellement échappé à la dernière minute. D’autres respectables témoins ont attesté de ce que la même extermination se faisait soit par l’électricité, soit par la vapeur d’eau, soit par le gaz cyanhydrique, soit par la chaux vive, soit par le gaz d’échappement de moteurs de camions ou d’un tank et même une fois, à Auschwitz, par le biais d’un essai de bombe nucléaire. Quant au Père Patrick Desbois, dont on ne parle malheureusement plus guère, il croyait soit à « la Shoah par balles » de fusil, soit à « la Shoah par étouffement » « avec des édredons » ou « avec des coussins la nuit » (Porteur de mémoires, Editions Michel Lafon, 2007, p. 306-307).

Monika Schaefer

Ursula Haverbeck fait actuellement partie de tout un ensemble international de femmes qui s’insurgent contre le Nouvel Evangile. Depuis au moins 73 ans, la bonne parole holocaustique nous est enseignée. Dans ces dernières années, elle carillonne à toute volée le matin, à midi, l’après-midi, le soir et la nuit. Mais ces femmes font montre d’une résistance méritoire. Elles se nomment Michèle Renouf, Sylvia Stolz, Maria Poumier, Monika Schaefer, Alison Chabloz, Diane King, Carolyn Yeager ou encore « Didi ». Elles s’appelaient Madame Rassinier, Keltie Zubko ou Barbara Kulaszka. D’autres noms de femmes seraient encore à citer.

Voici trois réactions à l’affaire :

1) La police allemande interpelle une « mamie nazie » en fuite (site d’Europe 1, 7 mai 2018) ;

Alison Chabloz

2) « Sur le front de la répression » (Bocage-Info, diffusion privée par courriel, 8 mai 2018) :

Ursula Haverbeck a été arrêtée et placée en détention le 7 mai 2018 à 13h30. Ursula Haverbeck espérait fêter son 90e anniversaire au mois de novembre en compagnie de sa famille et de ses amis, mais les sicaires de la police de la pensée en ont décidé autrement.

L’arrière-grand-mère allemande a gagné le respect de ses compatriotes et l’estime des chercheurs indépendants du monde entier pour ses enquêtes opiniâtres sur la fraude liée à l’Holocauste. Le régime allemand, qui est fortement impliqué dans l’escroquerie, a condamné la courageuse investigatrice à deux ans de prison ferme pour avoir enquêté sur les procès-verbaux des Alliés sur les conditions dans les camps d’internement pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ursula Haverbeck est surnommée la « grand-mère nazie » par les médias du Système.  William Colby, ancien directeur de la CIA, et le Dr Udo Ulfkotte, ancien rédacteur en chef de la Frankfurter Allgemeine, étaient impliqués dans ces recherches. Les deux hommes sont morts dans des circonstances mystérieuses. Condamnée une nouvelle fois l’année dernière, Frau Haverbeck avait eu le temps de se préparer car elle ne s’était pas présentée à la prison de Bielefeld mercredi 2 mai, où elle devait être détenue, probablement jusqu’à ce que mort s’ensuive.

Maria Poumier

Un membre du comité juif d’un prétendu groupe de survivants de l’Holocauste qui s’appelle le Comité international d’Auschwitz a déclaré : « Il faut faire pression pour que la police la retrouve ». Le journal local Westfalen-Blatt a rapporté que la maison de Vlotho dans le centre de l’Allemagne où résidait Ursula Haverbeck semblait vide ces derniers jours, le courrier s’empilant devant la porte. La chasse à l’homme (sic) déclenchée pour retrouver une femme âgée coupable de réfléchir risque de se retourner contre les profiteurs de l’industrie de l’Holocauste. Dans une enquête récente, les deux tiers des gens ont déclaré qu’ils étaient excédés par les revendications incessantes et déplacées des profiteurs de ce système pervers : Holohoax heroine on the run.

3) Une révisionniste allemande de 89 ans jetée en prison (vidéo réalisée par Vincent Reynouard, 9 mai 2018).

Has Zionist Shill Teresa May Announced the End of Free Speech In Britain?

Has Zionist Shill Teresa May Announced the End of Free Speech In Britain?

Is “tolerance” compatible with free speech. If you oppose certain barbaric cultural practices like say, female genital mutilation, and make bold to say so, you’re not being very “tolerant”. Is Teresa May, Britain’s bumbling Prime Minister saying that henceforth only “tolerant” speech will be allowed. May is an utter captive of the Zionist anti-free speech lobby. In 2015, when the Board of Jewish Deputies set up a howl after a wildly distorted press smear on a Mark Weber talk at the London Forum, she banned him from the U.K. — a ban he did not learn about until 2017. The past year has seen a flurry of criminal charges against free speech supporters, including satiric chanteuse Alison Chaloz and activist organizer Jez Turner.

Theresa May announces the end of free speech in UK: “We value free speech…we also value tolerance to others”

  BY ROBERT SPENCER128 COMMENTS

Onlinemagazin@OnlineMagazin

🆘‼🧐🔥 UK: At last someone asked Theresa May the right questions on freedom of speech in the British Parliament.

Challenged in Parliament about why criticism of Christianity is taken for granted while criticism of Islam embroils one in societal (and legal) difficulties, British Prime Minister Theresa May answered:

We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country. That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy. But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we’ve looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the government has produced. I think we need to ensure that, yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression. But in doing so, that right has a responsibility, too. And that is a responsibility to recognize the importance of tolerance to others.

This heralds the end of the freedom of speech in Britain, for May’s statement is flatly self-contradictory. Who will decide whether one’s criticism of Islam has shaded over into becoming “intolerant”? Presumably the police or some governing authorities. But the freedom of speech is designed precisely to protect people from being prosecuted or persecuted by the governing authorities because their speech dissents from the accepted line. It was developed as a safeguard against tyranny.

By introducing this massive exception, May is turning the freedom of speech on its head and emptying it of all meaning. She is also implying that the British government will now be bringing the full force of the law against those who are deemed intolerant, and indeed, that has already begun.

 

British White Nationalist Leader Jez Turner Jailed for Criticizing Jewish Power

British White Nationalist Leader Jez Turner Jailed for Criticizing Jewish Power
Yesterday Jeremy Bedford-Turner  known as Jez Turner was convicted at Southwark Crown Court in London of inciting racial hatred during a speech he gave in 2015 outside Downing Street . In this speech  he attacked Jewish influence, most particularly, the  Met Police’s support for and enablement of  a  Jewish security organisation  known as the Shomrim .   He was sentenced to 12 months, six of which will be served in prison and the rest on licence. 
Did Jez have a chance of acquittal? Well, he had a jury trial so   that gave him some chance of an acquittal. Had it been a trial without a jury he would have had none. But even with a jury the odds were heavily against a not guilty verdict. In the minds of jurors must be the fear of being called a racist which has been so successfully inculcated in the general population that  it produces an automated reflex of panic and terror when faced with the possibility of the label being put on them. Any juror faced with a case such as this must have it in the back of their minds at least that to return a not guilty verdict would be to risk being called a racist. There is also the sheer shock factor of hearing politically incorrect views being unashamedly spoken. As it was the jury was out for less than two hours and returned a unanimous verdict of  guilty. 
 
The case was originally turned down by the Crown Prosecution Service  (CPS) as not meting their evidential standard for a prosecution.  The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism  threatened the CPS with a judicial review of their decision not to prosecute. Faced with that the CPS caved in and prosecuted. It is worth noting that running a judicial review is very expensive.  The fact that  the CAA managed to get the CPS  prosecute effectively creates two tiers of justice, that for the rich and that for the poor.
                      
I  shall be writing a fuller account of the trial later but I can say unequivocally that the judge showed his bias against Jezz from the word go in both his actions and manner.  He began by refusing a request by Jezz’s barrister to put  questions to prospective jurors to discover if any off them were members of the CAA or the  Community Security Trust,  a charity which has surprising support from the Met Police for a quasi-police group  known as the Shomrim  – see below.   During this passage of the hearing the judge said with great distaste that it was shocking that such an organisation as the CAA needed to exist but that was the way of the world. 
 
The judge also intervened on a number of occasions when Jezz was being cross-examined to dispute what Jezz was saying.This was not his job,  it was the job of the prosecutor to challenge what Jezz was saying. 
 
The  other thing to note was the way both judge and prosecuting counsel accepted opinion as fact and were seemingly oblivious to what they were doing which in short was enforcing the politically correct  view of the world. For example, prosecuting counsel thought nothing of quoting a senior judge that freedom of expression had to be compatible with the “standards of a just and fair multiracial society”. 
 
What has been made very clear in this trial (and that of the trial of Alison Chabloz) is that we have an elite  which is hell bent on squeezing the range of permitted opinion ever more tightly into a politically correct shape. 
 
The other striking thing about this trial is the paucity of media comment.  One might have thought the mainstream media would have jumped all over the matter  but the only mainstream press attending the trial was the Press Association. Why? Well, I suspect it was because although the politically correct wanted the prosecution and a guilty verdict they did not want the politically incorrect nature of much of the evidence to come before the public’s eyes. 
 
Where does all this leave us? Free expression is essential to democracy and political freedom. Take it away and oppression soon fills the void. It also has a general cultural value.  Its importance is examined in detail in my essay Freedom or permitted opinion below. . Beneath that  you will find a number of reports of Jez’ trial and a couple on the truly amazing powers granted to the Shomrim both here and abroad.  
 
Robert Henderson



Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice – UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate

Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice

Posted by Robert Henderson | Nov 20, 2015 | Views & Letters |  |     
Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice
   
Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice

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/