By Robert Henderson
[AC: Many thanks to Robert for this account of last week’s Trial Part 1. Robert is no stranger to the negative effects of the UK’s speech laws. For more information, check out his blogs in the links below.]
The trial of Alison Chabloz day 1 – 10 1 2018
Presiding: District Judge John Zani sitting without a jury
Karen Robinson – Prosecuting counsel
Adrian Davies – Defence counsel
Witnesses for the Prosecution
Gideon Falter, chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)
Stephen Silverman Director of Investigations and Enforcement CAA
They came from far and wide in defiance of this latest assault on our freedoms. From Lancashire, Liverpool, Scotland and all the way from Canada – thank you Mr Fromm! The media coverage was glorious – mostly down to so many turning up in support, me being handed flowers outside court and general media astonishment at my songs being played inside court. And no, I certainly did not sing along – nor did I mouth the words. Where this fake news originated I have no idea – perhaps a reaction to my song Find Me Guilty? In particular, the line:
I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock!
Thanks for your message, Sergeant.
Here is my statement:
Following previous treatment of me by Derbyshire Constabulary, including six arrests, unwarranted detention and seizure of my property whilst seemingly being reluctant to carry out any proper investigation into harassment of which I am the victim, this statement will be published in full on my blog alisonchabloz.wordpress.com as well as forwarded to my solicitor, my barrister, and to Ms Jane Grenfell of the UK Charity Commission.
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?
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.