ALISON CHABLOZ: HEAR THE SONG THAT GOT HER ARRESTED IN ENGLAND
Alison Chabloz, English singer & satirist on trial for her songs, interviewed on THE DAILY KENN by Charles Edwards, Paul Fromm, David Gaharry & Kenn Gividen.
ALISON CHABLOZ: HEAR THE SONG THAT GOT HER ARRESTED IN ENGLAND
Alison Chabloz, English singer & satirist on trial for her songs, interviewed on THE DAILY KENN by Charles Edwards, Paul Fromm, David Gaharry & Kenn Gividen.
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,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,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, 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. 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.
 As her lawyer A.D advised the Court, the ‘personal emotional reaction’ of Mr Gideon Falter was ‘entirely irrelevant’ to the case
 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;
 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′
 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.
Jewish Free Speech Activist Brings Plight of Alison Chablox & Monika Schaefer to Meeting of Ann Arbor City Council
Henry Herskovitz is an active Jewish supporter of free speech. Here he addresses the Ann Arbor City Council about free speech martyrs Alison Chabloz and Monika Schaefer.
and fast forward to 00:10:40 to catch the beginning of my talk.g,
I bring to Council’s attention the names of two women, whose stories do not appear in the Ann Arbor News, the New York Times or the Washington Post. They are Alison Chabloz and Monika Schaefer. Alison hails from Great Britain, and Monika is a Canadian citizen. They are united in the fact that both are musicians and both sing satirical verses challenging the truthfulness of Holocaust narratives. Their followings are small, but vociferous and engaged.
Monika Schaefer lives in Jasper, Alberta, and was attending the trial of lawyer Sylvia Stolz in Germany. Stolz is on trial for what the German government falsely labels “Holocaust denial”. During a recess, Monika was apprehended by German authorities and has been held in administrative detention since January 10. The Jewish advocacy group, B’Nai Brith Canada, had filed complaints against Monika with the German government, and appears to be taking credit for her detention there.
Alison Chabloz lives in Derbyshire County, England, and according to the UK Daily mail is accused of calling the gas chambers a ‘hoax’ and has been taken to court “…in what is believed to be the first private prosecution in the UK for anti-Jewish racism.” The private party refers to the Committee Against Anti-Semitism.
Ms. Chabloz hopes to turn the tables: She writes, ” Following previous treatment of me by Derbyshire Constabulary, including six arrests, unwarranted detention and seizure of my property [they are] seemingly … reluctant to carry out any proper investigation into harassment of which I am the victim”.
In regards to knowledge about the Holocaust, Americas appear to lag well behind other western nations. We are not informed about Alison or Monika, nor were we told much during Ernst Zundel’s two trials in Toronto during the 1980’s. We can only speculate as to the reasons for this apparent blackout, but with Council’s permission, I’d like to paraphrase Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller :
First, they came for America’s white nationalists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a white nationalist.
Then they came for the anti-Israel activists, and I did not speak out – Because I supported Jewish Supremacism in Palestine.
Then they came for they came for the Revisionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was ignorant of Revisionism.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
My Censors Are the Real ‘Holocaust Deniers’ — Alison Chabloz
Excerpts from Gideon Falter’s latest whine in the Jewish Chronicle. My comments in (brackets).
“We must make those who incite hatred pay a ruinous price for their actions. They must suffer criminal sanctions, be thrown out of their professions, and be exposed in the media. When expressions of antisemitism have profound criminal, financial and reputation repercussions, then only the most determined will engage in it.
“This year, Campaign Against Antisemitism has already taken the Crown Prosecution Service to the High Court and won a judicial review over its failure to prosecute an individual for alleged hate crimes ( = exposing vigilante Shomrim). We had to privately prosecute another individual ( = yours truly) after the Crown failed to do so, only for the Crown to change its mind and take over our prosecution.
“Our message is clear: the days of getting away with Jew-hatred are over. We will make sure of that. Our effect is being felt. Despite being one of the most inadequately funded communal charities (Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Donate!), relying almost entirely on the hard work of volunteers, we are referred to by those expressing abusive views on social media, on campuses and at demonstrations as their most powerful and dangerous enemy. They are lucky we are so starved of funds. (We can’t spell ‘anti-Semitism’, but be sure to donate!)
“Our message to the authorities is similarly blunt. With the backing of government ministers who share our dismay at your woeful inaction, we will hold you to account. If you fail to enforce the law with zero tolerance, we will challenge you in court, and we will hold your failings up to scrutiny in the media.” (That’s plod and CPS told!)
(Alas, asides last weekends Hannukah party attended by the Met Chief Constable Cressida Dick no less, it would seem that CAA is slipping from favour. Only one retweet by Falter for Bedlam’s ‘extreme measures’.)
Revisionism is at the Heart of our Struggle for Freedom, Alison Chabloz
With chanteuse and satirist and political prisoner, Alison Chabloz
Throughout Europe, especially Britain, so-called hate laws are passed by parliaments to stifle debate on immigration. The purpose of these inhumane anti-debate laws is not to protect minorities; it is to shield treacherous political elite from scrutiny or criticism.
Mike Walsh, who was sentenced to 6 x 4 month prison sentences for publishing anti-immigration fliers, is skeptical of government censorship and repression.
“Since my imprisonment in 1979, British government’s foreign policy, in collusion with that of the United States, has slaughtered, maimed, and made homeless millions of ethnic groups. Since the cell door slammed on me the UK government has been directly and indirectly responsible for conflicts that caused the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.
Are we really expected to believe that corrupt political elite, whose military boots crushed liberty in a score of countries in my lifetime, gives a fig about the sensitivities of an Asian shopkeeper or Jewish moneylender?”
On October 30, British dissident Jez Turner at 13.30 attends a pre-trial hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court. The charge relates to his spoken concerns about the influence wielded by a minority with a reputation for race hate incitement. It isn’t hate, it is debate.
On November 3, six young Britons, ex-servicemen and teenagers, are brought before the Old Bailey or Westminster magistrates’ court. Their alleged offence is that they belonged to National Action. This is a small organisation that mounted sporadic non-violent protests against the UK government’s immigration policy. National Action is not an illegal organisation it is a government suppressed entity; there is a difference.
The British state’s case is unconcerned with dissent; the British state encourages Asian, African and Muslim dissent. The state is concerned that Britain’s Whites wish the same rights of protest as those practiced by immigrants and refugees.
On November 20, dissident songwriter Alison Chabloz, who enjoys an international following for her satire, is summoned to a pre-trial hearing at Westminster magistrates’ court. The Joan of Arc heretic is accused of composing lyrics and singing songs of dissent.
If hate rather than debate was the issue then why aren’t the peddlers of anti-White rap, the broadcasters of ant-White racist profanities pursued for writing and ‘singing’ anti-White lyrics in the outpourings.
On February 22, 2018, Simon Sheppard, a lone dissident, is summoned before the bench. His alleged offence is that he was outspokenly critical of noisy neighbours. Had the hapless man’s noisy neighbours been White he would not be facing the magistrates. Sadly, for Simon and the concept of free speech those he complained about are non-White.
Hate or debate? Clearly, it is the governing elite, corrupt media, spineless police and state judiciary that stands accused of hate, race hates against their own kind.
On the dates above, it is not martyred heretics who face trial. In the magistrates’ dock crouches a debauched menacing state elite. The charges against this demonic Orwellian creature relate to base treachery and anti-White race hate.
“The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.” ~ James Larkin Statue on O’Connell Street, Dublin, Ireland.
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:
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.
Dear YouTube, this is SATIRE ~ POLITICAL MUSICAL SATIRE, based on an Edith Paif song ‘La vie en rose’. Edith Piaf performed regularly in occupied France duri…
Dear all, a short account of my brief but unpleasant ordeal last week.
The new charge for causing yet more gross offence by way of singing satirical songs concerns a YouTube version (now removed) of this song which, for obvious reasons, I am unable to share on my above blog post:
Musical wishes, Alison Chabloz.
Last week, for having expressed myself musically via the Internet, I was entertained at Her Majesty’s pleasure during 48 hours.
Clearly at the beck and call of my predatory stalkers, police first arrested me for an alleged breach of bail outside Court 8 at Westminster Mags then, ten minutes later, de-arrested me. Within half an hour, I was re-arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for my songs (again), handcuffed and carted off to Charing Cross police station where I was held for six hours to await two officers from Derbyshire police to take me back to my home county for questioning.
In Buxton, I spent another 31 hours in custody, was interviewed, rearrested for breaching bail and for another count of sending a ‘grossly offensive message’ – i.e. posting another humorous song on YouTube, clearly marked as SATIRE and which contains NO HATE SPEECH whatsoever – and finally charged with the latter two offences. I was told that the incitement charge is pending police investigation. I was refused bail and informed that police had requested I be held on remand.
On the morning of October 6th, I was again handcuffed and driven in a prison bus to Chesterfield Immediate Remand Court where I pleaded not guilty to malicious communications and was freed under the same bail conditions with the new charge transferred to the next legal argument hearing at Westminster on October 25th.
Now, three days after being released and of course being the subject of all-too-predictable arrogant gloating online from my predatory stalkers (yet total silence from the mainstream press), my impression is that my persecutors were trying to break me.
I was treated badly at Charing Cross, made to suffer three hours of torture in a freezing cold police van with no seat and refused a number of my rights. I have compiled a fully detailed report which has been sent to my lawyers.
All for singing satirical songs? What has happened to this country, when the authorities behave in such a despicable manner towards an artist who has never caused any harm to anyone? What do my predatory stalkers hope to achieve?
Anyway, I am absolutely fine. As I have said before, this kind of persecution only strengthens my resolve. Thanks to everyone who has sent me kind words of support.
The Crown now must convince District Judge Zani that ridiculing Jewish lies, power and influence in a song is grossly offensive. Other points of law to be discussed at the next hearing are whether sharing a URL constitutes sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message and deciding whether YouTube is a public communications network.
My bail terms specify that anything I post has to be BOTH racist/anti-Semitic AND grossly offensive in order for me to be charged with a breach. Certainly, one of the interviewing officers didn’t seem to be offended at all – one foot tapping the beat during the showing of a police screencapture video of my alleged musical crimes!
If my trial goes ahead, all the footage of the three songs concerned will be shown in court – the third clip clearly showing a YouTube warning notice for delicate flowers who might be offended by watching! If the authorities want to make themselves look utterly ridiculous then I can’t really see any problem. Likewise, if they decide to put an artist on trial for singing satirical songs, find me guilty and send me to prison, I have absolutely no problem with that either.
Once again, my predatory stalkers have omitted to include another of my songs which, considering the definition of what they claim to be ‘grossly offensive’, could easily have been subject to similar nonsense charges. I wonder why?
A year has passed since my legendary performance at the London Forum, now subject to criminal proceedings as already explained in detail here on this blog.
Desperate to see me further punished for the crime of singing humorous songs about Jewish power and influence, my accusers and longtime stalkers fail to grasp that I am not in the least afraid. Once one knows the Truth, it simply feels right and there is no going back. If the British authorities wish to imprison a singer for her satirical songs – so be it!
Unable to perform and speak freely (my laptop STILL in police possession after almost a year), I might just as well be in prison: the experience would no doubt spark further artistic inspiration, not to mention increase Joe Public’s ever-growing distrust of police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and our elected leaders.
Anyway, on to the topic of this blog which deals with last week’s news concerning how a Hope Not Hate ‘researcher’, Patrik Hermansson – a queer Swede – managed to infiltrate the alt-right in a ‘year-long’ investigation which began last January.
Already, I can hear you say we are still only in September. Yes, the consummate liars down at Hope Not Hate (HNH) never fail to impress when it comes to trying to outdo mainstream gutter press for touting misleading headlines. Hermansson’s infiltration ended with the Charlottesville demonstration in August: seven or eight months at the most – hardly a year.
Admittedly, the Swede did manage to fleece several hardened dissidents by worming his way into the London Forum, masquerading as a masters student researching the doxing and deplatforming of figures such as David Irving, Vincent Reynouard, myself and others. The tactics used to infiltrate are largely described on HNH’s website for those of you who are interested. I shan’t be sharing any links here – apologies, but you’ll have to search for yourselves.
Hermansson used a top-of-the-range button camera to secretly film ‘interviews’ with some of the world’s leading alt-right figures. Yes, some of the footage is rather embarrassing. However, at the same time, Hermansson fails utterly to reveal anything of note. The short clips published so far prove that those targeted say the exact same things in private as they do in public. A documentary is scheduled for release at a later date.
There have been a few lukewarm press reports, mostly from the state-funded BBC. When interviewed, the Swede sticks to HNH boss Nick Lowles’ predictable script.
It is an eyebrow-raising reflection of the times we live in when a queer publication reports more even-handedly than the state-funded broadcaster.
No doubt attracted to the story by way of the Swede’s sexual preferences, Pink News has produced the most balanced report so far. Hermansson admits to engaging in dishonest behaviour, as well as lamenting the fact that he has received ‘murder threats’ – from people he’s never met!
My interview with Hermansson took place early April, just after my scheduled ‘trial’ had been adjourned and Senior District Judge Arbuthnot had recused herself after being outed as a pro-Israel stooge.
With hindsight, Hermansson had been well-trained in the art of deception.
We met in a cafe near Victoria Station in London and for the first half hour, as far as I can remember, we chatted generally about my case. Hermansson then feigned dismay that he hadn’t switched on his iPhone voice recorder from the start. Of course, all the while he’d been secretly filming me through his very expensive button camera.
I told him the facts as recorded here on my blog. As well, I gave my opinion of Hope Not Hate and the poor content of their website. A musician’s memory is a useful tool. Checking my email history confirms that, at the time, I had been researching the very organisation which had sent a paid infiltrator to spy on me in the hope of gleaning intelligence about the UK alt-right.
Unlikely that that particular section of footage will be used in the upcoming documentary. With my ‘trial’ ongoing, it’s equally doubtful that a documentary would show any discussion involving my case – especially not the part about my accusers outing themselves as abusive Twitter trolls in court last December.
Two weeks after my interview with Hermansson, HNH trumpeted their brand new revamped website. Little by little, all the archives that had back then been wiped and transferred to a holding site have begun to reappear. The main difference with the old site is that comments are no longer possible – not that anyone bothered commenting much on the old site, something I remember pointing out to Hermansson during our conversation. The content is as predictable and shoddy as ever. In fact, HNH’s MO can be summed up in four words:
Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Donate!
HNH’s infiltration of the alt-right coincides with the organisation’s desire to branch out into the US Donate Button For Gullible Goyim market. There is now a second website – a dot com – as well as a new US Twitter account. Perhaps a necessary move if Lowles and Co are to continue to live in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed?
It would appear that certain sources of funding within the UK – including from government and trade unions – may have dried up somewhat following exposure from several sources. There is plenty of evidence detailing HNH’s dishonesty, duplicity and downright incompetence in running a supposed charitable trust which is, in fact, a cover for state surveillance of political dissidents and a militant, pro-Zionist campaigning wing of the UK Labour party.
Hermansson’s write up includes a couple of predictable paragraphs – no doubt heavily edited by Lowles – about me being one of the UK’s most notorious ‘Holocaust’ deniers.
Interestingly, ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon described Lowles’ thus in one blog article dating back to 2012:
Lowles, himself an ex Jewish student activist, is not against revisionism in general. He is not against Israelis dismissing the Palestinian holocaust – he has no quarrel with Nakba denial. Nor does he oppose the deniers of the Arminian Holocaust. And for some reason, HOPE not hate is also strangely silent about the Ukrainian holocaust, the Holodomor – that according to prominent Israeli Zionist writer Sever Plocker and others, was largely inflicted by Stalin’s Jews.Nick Lowles and ‘HOPE not hate’ are completely uninterested in the denial of any holocaust – any, that is, except one.
Another fierce critic is Larry O’Hara, ‘anti-fascist researcher’ (!) and editor of Notes From The Borderland (NFB) who describes Lowles as being out of his depth when it comes to serious politics:
Lowles mistakes impulsiveness for decisiveness, and simply lacks the grey matter needed for original grounded thought.
O’Hara is equally scathing with regard to HNH company secretary Ruth Smeeth MP, as well as longtime HNH researchers Joe Mulhall and Matt Collins.
Funding for the Swede’s infiltration no doubt partly came from the seemingly aborted HNH threats to sue Nigel Farage: two crowdfunding campaigns, each to the tune of £100,000 (which I already commented on here), would easily buy a specialised button camera, numerous plane tickets, rail fares, hotel rooms and cover the rental cost of a North London flat.
Hermansson’s Twitter profile reads ‘researcher for @hopenothate’. I bumped into him again a couple of times at various meetings since our encounter but he seemed to take only a scant interest into delving deeper into my personal story. He clearly had bigger fish to fry.
At least I finally got a mention from HNH – which, amusingly, certain of my detractors seem to think is a badge of honour:
Anyone should be proud to be on a @hopenothate list. Alt right light for gods sake. Jemma Levine what’s all this judgement on fellow beings!
— Campaign4Truth (@Campaign4T) September 20, 2017
Rendez-vous next Wednesday, 10am at Westminster Magistrates Court for yet another hearing – the fifth so far, now with a third district judge in attendance.
Thank you so much to everyone who has helped me by donating. I am very grateful.