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.
In four weeks time, my trial will take place in London and the three songs concerned will be screened in court. Two clips will show songs from my appearance at The London Forum in September 2016 in front of an audience of roughly 100 people who, considering the standing ovation I received at the end, clearly enjoyed my performance. The third clip is of a song which contains the word SATIRE in the title, which leads me to the point of this blog post.
The full document containing communications between Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s office (PCC) can be found here.
The correspondence between both organisations begins with a letter to PCC Hardyal Dhindsa from CAA chairman, Gideon Falter, dated June 8 2016. Surely no coincidence that my original demo of (((Survivors))) was uploaded the same day?
Continuing from my previous post, as well as from the main topic of my recent videos, i.e. YouTube censorship, I feel it is necessary at this point to dwell somewhat on the double standards imposed by certain countries regards freedom of expression, especially when it comes to one particular historical event, namely, the ‘Holocaust’.
According to Wikipedia, 22 nations have laws which forbid either explicit denial of the ‘Holocaust’ or else denial of genocides in general. Although the list in part mirrors YouTube’s censored list, there are several notable exceptions: Russia, Spain, Portugal, Liechtenstein and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why are these nations resistant to YouTube’s legal complaints? And how come Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia and the United Kingdom figure on the list when these countries do not have any anti-revisionist laws?
A couple of comments on my recent YouTube videos have expressed dislike for the curtain – an Indian print – which I have been using as a backdrop. The print doesn’t belong to me and it certainly doesn’t belong to my mother who, I should say, has a more classical taste when it comes to interior design and soft furnishings. Personally, I think the issue has more to do with poor lighting rather than the print itself and I shall try to remedy the situation in the near future.
Subjected to further censorship on YouTube, in this video I have translated a recent upload by Vincent Reynouard who helps us understand why revisionism is crucial to the struggles we face.
I re-uploaded the intro to my original video which has now been censored by YouTube, including in my home country the United Kingdom. In anticipation of my adversaries making a fraudulent complaint, I prepared a separate short clip, instructing viewers who want to continue watching to go to BitChute where the full version is now uploaded with revised subtitles in the French-spoken sections.
Link to full version also below. Please feel free to download, share, mirror and use on your platforms.
Asides attempting to secure a conviction by arguing that a hyperlink posted to a blog page constitutes sending grossly offensive material, the prosecution will also have to persuade the judge that the content of my songs is indeed grossly offensive.
A difficult task, when there exists no legal definition of grossly offensive, not to mention an array of examples which would suggest that it is I, myself, who is being targeted rather than my songs.