‘Landmark decision’ in UK upholds conviction for Holocaust denial -- Denying Holohoax now a crime in UK?

[Lamprecht]

So, is questioning the Holocaust a crime now in the UK? Is simply saying that Jews were not gassed tantamount to "inciting hatred"?

Truth is hate for those that hate the truth

‘Landmark decision’ in UK upholds conviction for Holocaust denial

According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism organization, the decision sets a precedent that Holocaust denial is ‘grossly offensive’ and therefore illegal.

A notorious antisemite and Holocaust denier in the United Kingdom had her appeal against her conviction for Holocaust denial quashed by a Crown Court on Wednesday.

Alison Chabloz, a singer and blogger, posted a series of songs mocking Holocaust survivors and inciting hatred against Jews, including allegations that the Holocaust did not happen, accusing Jews of “usury,” describing Auschwitz as a “holy temple” and “theme park just for fools,” and claimed that the use of gas chambers by the Nazis to murder Jews was “a proven hoax.”

She also implicitly accused Jews of bleeding non-Jews dry, and controlling the media, books and TV, and set her songs to the music of Israeli folk songs Hevenu Shalom Aleichem and Hava Nagila.

During cross examination in her appeal hearing, Chabloz said that there are liars in all ethnicities but that “Jews are more likely to tell lies. In the Talmud, it’s even encouraged. In the verses. Lying is following religious duty.”

She said that “Jews are over-represented in banking, finance, the media,” that Jews control Twitter, and described herself as a “Holocaust revisionist,” claiming that only 600,000 Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism organization initiated legal proceedings against Chabloz over her YouTube songs as a private prosecution before it was taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service, the UK’s state prosecution service.

CAA said following the ruling that the decision to uphold the lower Magistrate Court’s conviction of Chabloz was “landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

Gideon Falter, Chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism noted that Chabloz’s conviction was the first in the UK for Holocaust denial on social media.

“The Crown Court is a court of record, meaning that its judgement upholding the previous Magistrates’ Court decision sets a new precedent in British law,” he said.

“Many brave British patriots died in the cause of defeating the Nazis. Alison Chabloz is no patriot and her actions defending the Nazis and claiming that the Holocaust was a fraud seek to defile their sacrifice. This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Reading the court’s judgement, Judge Hehir said that the court did not have to entertain “absurdity or fiction” in cases of Holocaust denial and that “we take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred.”

Turning to Chabloz, he said, “she is a Holocaust denier... she is manifestly antisemitic and obsessed with the wrongdoing of Jews,” adding that on the subject of the Holocaust “she has lost all sense of perspective.”

Addressing the songs themselves, Justice Hehir said of the first song, “it is by no means an exaggeration to call this song disgusting," before describing her other songs in similar terms.

He added that “she positively intended to be grossly offensive to Jews” before confirmed that her original sentence was upheld.

The Westminster Magistrates’ Court found Chabloz guilty last year and sentenced her to a 20-week prison sentence suspended for two years, 180 hours of unpaid community service, an indefinite order against contacting two leaders of Campaign Against Antisemitism, as well an an order banning her from social media for 12 months.

The suspension of her sentence was on the basis that District Judge John Zani said that he did not wish to satisfy her desire to become a "martyr."

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Landmark ... ial-580589

I believe the song is here: https://archive.org/details/youtube-9tmY6iItnP0

youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmY6iItnP0

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

These are the lyrics. And all she's doing is stating what 'holocaust survivors' claim to be reality and her opinions about 'holocuast survivors'. And certainly the holocaust myth is slanderous against white people/gentiles. But I guess Jews can't be racist against white people.

This certainly is a catchy tune.

My name is Irene Zisblatt and I come from Hungary
Can you believe what evil Nazi bastards did to me
They gassed me once, gassed me twice,
But escape I did
Over the electric fence
Landed on the train

I saw them taking babies and tearing them in two
And creepy Dr Mengele he removed my tattoo
They tried to turn my brown eyes blue
Make lampshades from my skin
For months I swallowed diamonds
And shat them out again

Tell us another
Come on, my brother
Repeat the cover
For tribal gain
Safe in our tower
Now is the hour
Money and power
We have no shame

Let's lie and cheat on film
No one suspects a thing
Bigger the lie is better for us!
Every fake survivor
Every fake survivor's laughing
Fake survivors' tongues are wagging
All us frauds are busy blagging
Spin and yarn there'll be no gagging
You shall pay
All the way
Every night and day!

My name is Elie Wiesel may I show you my tattoo
I wrote a book for US kids to study while at school
It's full of nonsense tales of course
What do you all expect
But it made me very wealthy
As a liar I'm the best

At Auschwitz they burned
babies tho the water table's high
Fred Leuchter's work on ditches well it almost made me cry
Treblinka was a another one
There was no funeral pyre
I cannot speak Hungarian
But oh boy can I lie

History repeats itself
No limit to our wealth
Thanks to your debt we're
Bleeding you dry
We control your media
Control of your books and TV
With the daily lies we feed you
Suffering victimisation
Sheeple have no realisation
You shall pay...

My name is Otto Frank and my daughter's name is Anne
The poor girl died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp
She wrote an introduction
To her famous diary
The rest was penned by Levin then publishèd by me

Two thousand and sixteen the copyright came to an end
The Anne Frank trust decided once again the rules to bend
We truly had no choice although
The whole thing really stank
But the book now has two authors
Anne and Otto Frank.

Bank notes let's print some more
We love to see you poor
Let's start a war
Our pockets to line
There is no more doubting
Every nations debt is mounting
While the bankers keep on counting
Pension fund has now gone awol
Nothing left upon your table
You shall pay..

[Mortimer]

The conviction should come as no surprise because Simon Sheppard and Luke O'Farrell were imprisoned for distributing a comic book called Tales of the Holohoax back in 2010 - http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/ ... lohoax.pdf
http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2013/jdiaryp1.html

[cold beer]

It's apparently legal for Jews or anyone else to say that Germans tore off the limbs of babies and threw them into fire pits, etc etc.
But calling jews liars?
Forbidden!

[phdnm]

Holocaust trials – another harsh but predictable ruling

February 14, 2019Alison Chabloz

Yesterday, February 13th, was the 74th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in which over 100,000 men, women and children were burned alive in a holocaust delivered by the British and American air forces. There were more German civilian deaths during just a few days’ bombing raids over Dresden and Frankfurt than there were British victims of German bombs throughout the entire Second World War.

They fought for our freedoms – or so we were told.

Also yesterday, the Crown Court in Southwark upheld the ruling delivered last May by Westminster Magistrates Court that I was guilty of causing “gross offensive” after posting links to live performances of three of my songs. As noted in my previous post, the points of law regards “sending” and what constitutes a “public electronic communications network” will now be appealed at the Divisional Court.

Contrary to remarks made by my accusers of Campaign Against Antisemitism and other ignorant sources, the Crown Court’s ruling yesterday does not constitute a “legal precedent”. Britain is still free of any so-called “Holocaust denial” law. Legal precedents under UK law are applicable on points of law rather than on “facts”. Furthermore, even if my case were to go the Supreme Court, it would create no more than a “persuasive”, non legally-binding “precedent” in countries such as France and Germany, which in any case are Civil Law (as opposed to Common Law) jurisdictions, and where legal precedent is not binding in the same way that it is in England.

Press citations from Judge Hehir’s ruling are simply a repetition of the usual insult and ad hominem. During cross examination on Tuesday, I was able to relate the entire campaign of demonisation against me, including police negligence, CAA use of online trolling, double standards, etc., – all of which was thoroughly disregarded by the court. Furthermore, predictable gloating from the usual suspects merely strengthens French dissident Alain Soral’s recent observations to a Yellow Vests rally and in particular his remark that those of us willing to take the hits do so in order to show who is dishing them out.

Several times during the Appeal, Judge Hehir and prosecution barrister James Mulholland QC repeated the conclusion of Judge Grey’s ruling in the 2000 Irving vs Penguin Books and Lipstadt libel suit:

Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Since then, of course, revisionists such as Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf have provided a wealth of scholarly works showing the total lack of evidence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. As I made clear in court on Tuesday, gas chambers did exist, but these were for purpose of disinfection and protection of inmates from raging typhus epidemics.

Simply put, if orthodox historians wish to retain their academic posts and be granted access to mainstream publishing outlets, then they simply avoid the topic altogether. (During my cross examination, I noted that the Board of Deputies of British Jews was responsible for issuing orders to Amazon to remove a list of revisionist books from its catalogue).

As the IHR’s Mark Weber noted at the time, Judge Grey’s ruling was harsh but predictable and the same is true of Judge Hehir’s rapidly typed-up ruling yesterday. Despite further demonisation of yours truly, my original sentence remains unchanged.

In short, CAA and the authorities are responsible for airing my songs to a wider public and I am therefore grateful for all the free publicity. My case has shed light on the blatant inconsistencies of the orthodox “Holocaust” narrative as well as on the undeniable fact that certain groups are more privileged than others when it comes to freedom of speech and the right to be offensive.

Many thanks to the dozen or so loyal supporters who sat through the hearings. I will write more soon.

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/02/14/ho ... le-ruling/

Chabloz succeeds in criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

February 14, 2019

Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

This week Judge Christopher Hehir, sitting alongside magistrate Mena Rego (a Kenyan Asian immigrant and Roman Catholic school governor), reimposed exactly the same sentence as Judge Zani had passed last year: a 20-week suspended prison sentence, plus 180 hours of unpaid “community service”, plus a 12 month ban from social media.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious...

http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/chabloz-succeeds-in-criminalising-holocaust-denial/

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

Absolutely, and here I am thinking of the case of the revisionist Vincent Reynouard, currently exiled in the United Kingdom.

Extradition to France is still possible!

He posted a video on this subject, see in the French section

[georgesmiley]

Here is her take on the judgement. To me British injustice managed to retain its high standards of insanity and doublethink.

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/02/17/br ... g-at-lies/

an excerpt

We also acknowledge that many commonly held ideas or assumptions about the Holocaust do not have a firm historical basis. We further acknowledge that the recollections of individual witnesses as to their part in the events of the Holocaust may [as is the case with any witness to an event or circumstance] be unreliable, exaggerated or even deliberately untruthful.

(and her comment):

The above acknowledgements do not form the same basis for the ideas being put across in my songs?

[phdnm]

The Case of Chabloz & the Criminalization of the "Holocaust Denial" in the UK

On February 13, Alison Chabloz was the first British citizen sentenced in her country for "denial". In its judgment, the Court issued a "judicial notice" of the Holocaust. In other words: now in England, the "Holocaust" will be considered by the courts as an "established fact", not likely to be challenged. In this video, the British nationalist Peter Rushton explains the scope of this judgment. His country is heading towards an outlawing of revisionism and already, a revisionist like Vincent Reynouard faces an extradition ...

[Dresden]

The Case of Chabloz & the Criminalization of the "Holocaust Denial" in the UK

On February 13, Alison Chabloz was the first British citizen sentenced in her country for "denial". In its judgment, the Court issued a "judicial notice" of the Holocaust. In other words: now in England, the "Holocaust" will be considered by the courts as an "established fact", not likely to be challenged. In this video, the British nationalist Peter Rushton explains the scope of this judgment. His country is heading towards an outlawing of revisionism and already, a revisionist like Vincent Reynouard faces an extradition ...

Well, this is really bad news for Revisionism.

Was Alison Chabloz aware that by taking her case to a higher court, she could be setting a precedent against Revisionism? .....I don't know.

Is Alison Chabloz a mole ..... a Trojan Horse? ..... I don't know.

[Hektor]

....

Well, this is really bad news for Revisionism.

Was Alison Chabloz aware that by taking her case to a higher court, she could be setting a precedent against Revisionism? .....I don't know.

Is Alison Chabloz a mole ..... a Trojan Horse? ..... I don't know.

I don't think she's a Trojan Horse.

The pushers of the Holocaust narrative may celebrate conviction, but that might turn out to be a Pyrrhic Victory in the end.
They can't prove their case with fact and argument, so they have to resort to the might of the state. That's obvious.
In Britain they don't have legislative backing against "Holocaust Denial". But they can resort to lawfare and legal/judicial harassment by taking people to court. The court decision may give this more edge in the future. It should however be remarked that proof of purpose of grossly offending is a requirement to be successful suing people.

Antisemitic Holocaust denier Chabloz ‘signed up to be official Labour supporter’
EXCLUSIVE: Activist and revisionist also declared her support for Jeremy Corbyn in several blog posts.
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/laboursupporter/

[borjastick]

....

Well, this is really bad news for Revisionism.

Was Alison Chabloz aware that by taking her case to a higher court, she could be setting a precedent against Revisionism? .....I don't know.

Is Alison Chabloz a mole ..... a Trojan Horse? ..... I don't know.

I don't think she's a Trojan Horse.

The pushers of the Holocaust narrative may celebrate conviction, but that might turn out to be a Pyrrhic Victory in the end.
They can't prove their case with fact and argument, so they have to resort to the might of the state. That's obvious.
In Britain they don't have legislative backing against "Holocaust Denial". But they can resort to lawfare and legal/judicial harassment by taking people to court. The court decision may give this more edge in the future. It should however be remarked that proof of purpose of grossly offending is a requirement to be successful suing people.

Antisemitic Holocaust denier Chabloz ‘signed up to be official Labour supporter’
EXCLUSIVE: Activist and revisionist also declared her support for Jeremy Corbyn in several blog posts.
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/laboursupporter/

On the Corbyn situation and anti-semitism in the Labour party, I have never been sure about the claims made against Corbyn. Is he an anti semite or just that he is critical of israel? Of course we know that israel claims any criticism of it means the critic is an anti-semite. I don't agree.

I do wonder if Corbyn is one of the few senior politicians who don't believe the holocaust claims.

[Hektor]

....
On the Corbyn situation and anti-semitism in the Labour party, I have never been sure about the claims made against Corbyn. Is he an anti semite or just that he is critical of israel? Of course we know that israel claims any criticism of it means the critic is an anti-semite. I don't agree.

I do wonder if Corbyn is one of the few senior politicians who don't believe the holocaust claims.

My guess is that far less politicians believe in the Holocaust than one may expect from looking at the surface. They know however what the consequences of publicly expressed disbelief for their careers would be.

Can't say about Corbyn, though. One may disagree with him on a lot of other issues, but I think he'd got the balls to challenge infringements on free speech for Revisionists.

[Pia Kahn]

"According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism organization, the decision sets a precedent that Holocaust denial is ‘grossly offensive’ and therefore illegal."

Non-offensive speech does not have to be protected by "free speech" laws, because nodody is offended by non-offensive speech.. Thus, the whole point of protecting fee speech is to ensure that people can voice "offensive" opinions.

So now the judges want to define what is "grossly offensive" and therefore illegal and what is only a little bit offensive. That's merely in the eye of he beholder. For jews making fun of lying holocaust survivors is "grossly offensive" for the goyim it's just hilarious.

The only hope we have is that people will begin to recognize that they are losing their freedoms and that double standards are applied in order to protect the holocaust religion. The more tyrannical the fight against unbelievers becomes, the more people will turn against the holocaust believer sect, irrespective of whether they believe in the holocaust or not.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

The American Founding Fathers, that being the men who signed the Constitution, gave 'parody' a wide berth of freedom. I see a lot of parody in Chabloz's work but I guess the laws are different in the UK.

[Jim Russel]

I disagree with most of the posted comments after reading the below blog post from Heritage & Destiny. She was convicted of making grossly offensive communications and I don't disagree with the judge who essentially decided she was guilty because the judges didn't believe her testimony that the songs were motivated by anything resembling love for the "Jewish people." The legal impact of this case and its formal legal precedent resulting from what seems a foolish decision to appeal is extremely negative for all those in the UK who express views that might offend any particular group of people. I feel that there was a lot of arrogance and pride that was the real reason for her conviction and she's very lucky in my opinion that jail time was not imposed at her second sentencing after a very weak appeals case.

I'm very proud to be an American because we have freedom of speech per the 1st Amendment and unlike UK and Canada there is no basis in law to regulate speech that might be offensive to someone or other. Canada (per James Sears' January 2019 conviction) and the crown court's Chabloz decision seem to imply that citizens of those countries have a right to not be offended. US law on the right to be offended was settled in the 1960s with the litigation of Lenny Bruce per Collins & Skover (2002) The Trials of Lenny Bruce, published by Sourcebooks. In the US, if you don't want to be offended then don't listen to her songs. If you thought Lenny Bruce was spouting obscenity you didn't have to go to see him or you could walk out.

http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/chabl ... st-denial/

Chabloz succeeds in criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’
Posted by admin978 on February 14, 2019 · Leave a Comment

‘Sophie Johnson’ and Alison Chabloz – Hope not Hate informants – celebrating the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’ this week.
Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

This week Judge Christopher Hehir, sitting alongside magistrate Mena Rego (a Kenyan Asian immigrant and Roman Catholic school governor), reimposed exactly the same sentence as Judge Zani had passed last year: a 20-week suspended prison sentence, plus 180 hours of unpaid “community service”, plus a 12 month ban from social media.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

That’s because the earlier court judgment could not set a precedent: it applied only to Ms Chabloz’s particular case. Richard Edmonds warned in an article for the Heritage & Destiny website published on January 2nd – ‘Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door’. Mr Edmonds’ warning has been fully vindicated this week.

He wrote:
“This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Dr James Thring commemorating the Dresden Holocaust.
Mr Edmonds (and H&D) were severely criticised for these observations. Ms Chabloz’s right-hand-woman – a Hungarian lady who uses the name ‘Sophie Johnson’ – sent Mr Edmonds an impertinent email calling him a “dotard” who had produced “stupid burblings” and “ugly bile”.

Yet the outcome this week has been precisely as Mr Edmonds warned.

Within hours of the verdict Zionist lobbyist Gideon Falter, a law graduate who founded the Campaign Against Antisemitism which began the case against Ms Chabloz, issued a triumphant statement:
“The decision sets a new precedent in British law. The case effectively delivered a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

For more than thirty years, Jewish lobby groups have been frustrated that the UK has stood apart from a general European trend towards criminalising ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, which they like to term ‘Holocaust denial’. In one form or another, most European countries outlaw the expression or publication of views which dare to question the established historical orthodoxy: that six million Jews were killed, mostly in homicidal gas chambers and mostly in concentration camps, during the Second World War, on the orders of Adolf Hitler and other senior figures in Germany’s National Socialist government.


Professor Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter were targetted by London’s Jewish lobbyists in 1991.
In November 1991 for example – as revealed last month by H&D – a British government document prepared for then Prime Minister John Major in advance of a confidential meeting with leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated that Anglo-Jewish leaders were wishing to prevent a visit to London by leading revisionists Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The document added:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

Fred Leuchter was duly arrested and deported from the UK, but there was no legal means of excluding Prof. Faurisson (a dual French-British citizen), and despite continual lobbying there has never been any anti-revisionist law in this country.

In 2008 there was an attempt to ban revisionism via the backdoor method of the European Arrest Warrant system. German authorities issued an EAW leading to the arrest of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, who was seized from a plane while in transit at London’s Heathrow airport and locked up in Brixton prison awaiting extradition to Germany, where he would have faced imprisonment for ‘crimes’ that are not illegal in this country.

After the last-minute mobilisation of a legal team by Lady Michèle Renouf (acting on timely information from Dr David Duke) the authorities’ attempt to extradite Dr Toben was blocked. This meant it was impossible for European courts to extradite Bishop Richard Williamson or other historical revisionists living in Britain, such as the French author Vincent Reynouard.


Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins outside the City of London Magistrates’ Court during the successful action to overturn a European Arrest Warrant against Dr Fredrick Toben in 2008.
During parliamentary discussion of the European Arrest Warrant system, several well-informed members of the House of Lords had criticised European laws restricting free historical research. Israeli-funded lobbies realised it would be difficult to pass a UK version of such laws through Parliament, and that even making the attempt might cause unwelcome scrutiny of the entire Holocaust story.

Time for Plan B.

In the UK, law can be made either through Parliamentary statute or through case-law precedent. In most cases of Holocaust revisionism, it is difficult to obtain a conviction using the race laws, since they demand evidence either that the words concerned were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the relevant circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

Sometimes an element of ‘Holocaust denial’ can be bundled in with a wider set of charges against a ‘racist’ publication, as was the case in 1998 when Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted at Harrow Crown Court for editing and publishing a magazine called The Rune. But in most cases this avenue would have little chance.

Jewish activists looked instead at the Communications Act, which is the latest version of a law dating back before the Second World War, and originally intended to criminalise “grossly offensive” telephone calls. There is a technical legal question as to whether this law even applies to the internet (and in particular to YouTube), but assuming prosecutors could succeed with that technical argument, all they needed was a form of historical revisionism that could plausibly be portrayed as “grossly offensive”.

Enter Alison Chabloz, a cruise-ship singer with no background in revisionism, or any other form of historical research. (Her political activism had previously been limited to the fringes of Corbynite Labour, and even there she could hardly be described as active or at all significant.)

A couple of Chabloz’s anti-Zionist songs were posted on YouTube in 2016, attracting complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity funded by Jews who believed their community’s leadership was too ‘soft’ on their enemies. CAA pursued a private prosecution, but at this early stage it seemed possible that the case could be won. Brave lawyers agreed to take on Chabloz’s defence, despite the pittance paid by legal aid and the bad publicity they would attract.

During 2017 and 2018 Chabloz repeatedly damaged her own defence, for example by uploading an additional song (while on bail) which was both non-revisionist, or even anti-revisionist, in singing about soap, lampshades and other long-discredited aspects of the Holocaust myth; and more blatantly “grossly offensive” within the meaning of the Communications Act, since the words suggested that one should wish that Jewish children had indeed been turned into soap, lampshades, etc.

As her trial proceeded early in 2018, Chabloz launched an extraordinary tirade against her own sole defence witness Peter Rushton. After she received a light sentence at Marylebone Magistrates, she decided to escalate the case at a higher legal level. The only thing this was likely to achieve was to establish a precedent that (in certain circumstances) criminalises Holocaust denial in the UK.

And so it has turned out, much to the delight of Gidon Falter and his backers. There was even a veteran of the 43 Group on hand in the public gallery to mark the occasion. (This was a Jewish criminal gang who specialised in violent attacks on British nationalist meetings in the late 1940s.)

Notorious Jewish gangster Jack Spot was among the Jewish thugs who attacked lawful British natonalist events in the 1930s and 1940s. A veteran of the ’43 Group’ gang was present to celebrate the Zionist victory in Southwark Crown Court this week.
So where do we now stand.

The good news is that this week’s judgment is not a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. Judge Hehir and his colleague write:
“it is important to bear in mind, as Mr Davies [Chabloz’s barrister Adrian Davies] understandably stresses, that there is no crime of Holocaust denial in this jurisdiction. Material which consists of or includes Holocaust denial can only found liability under section 127 [of the Communications Act] if it is grossly offensive. No type of speech, Holocaust denial included, can be characterised as grossly offensive per se: the question of whether particular speech is grossly offensive is always fact-specific.”

Later in the judgment, it is confirmed that:
“we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.”

Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team celebrate after their partial legal victory over British historian David Irving in 2001
Here we move to the bad news. Where this week’s judgment does break new ground is in the bald statement:
“no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly though not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 – happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds, attests to it. Moreover the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg Trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”

This week’s judgment quotes the ruling in a civil rather than criminal judgment from 2001 (a libel case between British historian David Irving and his American critic Deborah Lipstadt) to the effect that:
“no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

Judge Hehir and his colleague for the first time enshrine this conclusion in a criminal judgment:
“We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged.”

The judgment will be closely analysed by lawyers in the coming weeks, and we should bear in mind that (so far) the precedent is ‘persuasive’ rather than ‘binding’. If the case proceeds further then on certain points of law a ‘binding’ precedent could be set, which would of course be even worse news!

However at first sight it seems that revisionists – even in the UK – have now been placed in one respect in an equivalent position to their German colleagues. Just as the German courts refuse even to consider revisionist arguments, a British criminal court now (for the first time) regards the “historical fact of the Holocaust” as “undoubted” – or as the German courts put it, “manifestly obvious”.

It has always been the case that revisionists (just like racial nationalists) have had to take care that their words would not be seen as likely to “incite racial hatred”.

But now the criminal bar has been substantially lowered. Revisionism no longer needs to incite hatred to be prosecutable, it can merely be “grossly offensive” – and it is accepted that anything deemed grossly offensive to Jews should be deemed by the law as grossly offensive to the general public.

The effect of the Chabloz case has therefore been to shift the goalposts considerably to the benefit of organised Jewry and International Zionism, and much to the detriment of free historical research. The only reason why any aspect of this case this has become a ‘persuasive’ legal precedent, endangering both native Britons and fugitive European revisionists, is that Ms Chabloz’s vanity (or worse) caused her to escalate the case above the level of Magistrates’ Court where it would otherwise have remained. Richard Edmonds (and the anonymous author of an article circulated in 2017 by Agence Bocage) are fully vindicated by this week’s developments.

Alison Chabloz and her chief crony ‘Sophie Johnson’, motivated by spite or perhaps something worse, acted as informants for the ‘antifascist’ organisation Hope not Hate, disrupting the final meeting addressed by the late Prof Robert Faurisson in his Shepperton birthplace last October. That disgusting betrayal already put them beyond the pale.

This week’s disaster is arguably even worse. Alison Chabloz has succeeded in criminalising revisionism (at least in certain circumstances). Those (including at one time ourselves at H&D) who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.

Filed under Freedom of Speech, Heritage and Destiny magazine, Historical Revisionism, Movement News, Police State, Social Engineering · Tagged with
Comments are closed.