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:
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.