Matter of Censorship should be a worry to us all

By and large, the general public accepts the given narrative of WW2. The victors get to write history, thereafter ensuring that their version of events is reinforced by way of education, media and, in particular, the funding of onside lawmakers who will eventually be persuaded to bring about legislation that will effectively silence dissenting views. Here in the UK, my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a ‘Holocaust’ denial law, as it were, being ushered in through the back door. Nevertheless, if I am found guilty in January, the appeal process will be used, if necessary to the highest level. A brief update of Monday’s hearing can be found here.

In the past, censorship of theatre productions was a duty assigned to the Lord Chamberlain – a measure initially introduced to protect Robert Walpole’s administration from political satire. From Wikipedia:

The Licensing Act 1737 gave the Lord Chamberlain the statutory authority to veto the performance of any new plays: he could prevent any new play, or any modification to an existing play, from being performed for any reason, and theatre owners could be prosecuted for staging a play (or part of a play) that had not received prior approval.

The Licensing Act was replaced by the Theatres Act 1843 which (again according to Wikipedia) restricted the powers of the Lord Chamberlain, so that he could only prohibit the performance of plays where he was of the opinion that “it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do”. 

In 1909, a Joint Select Committee on Stage Plays (Censorship) was established and recommended that the Lord Chamberlain begin to codify the grounds on which he would refuse a licence for a play. The recommendations of this committee ratified the Lord Chamberlain’s powers to prevent the portrayal of living or recently dead people, effectively suppressing any play which dared to be politically motivated or discussed political problems or featured living politicians as characters. In 1968, when Parliament began to debate the abolition of the Lord Chamberlain’s censorship power, the argument largely centered around this issue on the portrayal of living and recently dead individuals particularly in reference to the monarchy as well as politicians.

The 1843 Act remained statutory until parliament passed the Theatres Act 1968 which abolished censorship of the stage in the United Kingdom.

Needless to say, the 1968 Act was the result of campaigning by various liberal leftists, including theatre critic Kenneth Tynan. What, I wonder, if he were still alive today, would be Mr Tynan’s view on the attempt by a foreign lobbying group to suppress my freedom of artistic expression, censor my music and, in Orwellian terms, to unperson me?

Yesterday, in another clear attempt to demoralise me, the original demo of my song (((Survivors))) was sandboxed by YouTube. For the moment, it is still available to view with the usual warnings for delicate flowers. This latest assault comes 18 months after the video was originally uploaded – viewed more than 37,000 times, with hundreds of overwhelmingly positive comments and over 1,400 thumbs up. I await the outcome of my submitted appeal. In the meantime, Wikipedia’s article on music censorship may need an edit or two, for anyone who feels up to it.

It’s best if I don’t share the actual link to my video. Anyone interested should visit Campaign Against Antisemitism website and search for their article published last December which contains the live link. Thoughtful of them to share! Although based on prosecution witness statements as well as on this week’s indication by Judge Zani, surely this sharing of my video constitutes sending or causing to be sent allegedly grossly offensive matter?

In fact, since when did electronic signals made up of electrons constitute matter? Furthermore, sound waves – and therefore music – also cannot be defined as such. Yes, the transmission of sound waves or of electronic signals requires the presence of matter (e.g. air molecules) but they do not have volume and do not take up space.

Ergo, sending or causing to be sent matter over the Internet would be a physical impossibility. If I had sent a DVD or a hard copy libretto of my songs through the post to one of my accusers, then the wording of the charges brought against me would be more appropriate. “Ah yes, but..,” come the cries from my detractors, “the Communications Act applies to obscene or threatening telephone calls and hasn’t been updated to take into account the Internet.

Well, the original legislation on which the Act is based existed before the telephone was invented, which rather cancels out this argument.

Of course, it is the censorship issue which is at the heart of the matter. Do we really want to regress to a time when political satire was banned? No, of course not. And if the general public were made aware of the facts surrounding my case, it’s highly likely that there would be considerable concern regards the implications for free speech. Predictably, UK mainstream press is silent. Rather than inform the British public, they prefer to dissimulate and carry on giving us The Treatment as described in the introduction to this blog post.

Many thanks to all who continue to support me via PayPal and Hatreon. Now on bail for more than a year without any real possibility of being able to upload edgy new songs or share my previous work for fear of being reincarcerated for my heretical ways, your donations brighten my existence and strengthen my determination to fight on.

Love and blessings to all.

Alison. X x

21 thoughts on “Matter of Censorship should be a worry to us all

  1. Paul sturdy November 22, 2017 / 1:38 pm

    Standing with you all the way.

  2. karenhoffen November 22, 2017 / 1:55 pm

    Interesting read. I wasn’t aware this level of censorship existed. Thanks

  3. Sarah Sugarman November 22, 2017 / 1:57 pm

    Your songs are not satirical. They are antisemitic and inflammatory in nature and are written and performed to deliberately upset. Satire is what you find in Punch or on Have I Got News for You. Your songs are hateful – nothing more. You are not being persecuted, you are being brought to book because of your hateful views – you are not a victim except in your own mind. I think you need to assess your behaviour.

    • Alison Chabloz November 22, 2017 / 2:11 pm

      The speed of your reply along with its content clearly illustrate the predatory characteristics which lie at the root of why Jews have been banished so many times from so many countries. Your reply also clearly illustrates your IP address as well as giving an indication of how many times per day you track my blog. Do give my regards to Leeds.

    • Sophie Johnson November 22, 2017 / 3:22 pm

      Your attempt at identifying the nature of satire, Sarah Sugarman, is a failure that elicits the pity of the kindly reader but the contempt of the present writer. It is not that I doubt that, for you, ‘[s]atire is what you find in Punch or on Have I Got News for You’: yours is all too obviously the straight-jacketed lumpen sensibility that is incapable of distinguishing satire from the horse-play that satisfies berks. And you clearly do not even suspect that your bellowing coarsely at Alison Chabloz, a woman of fine intellect with a rare capacity for its musical expression, shows you and your kind to be the present-day incarnation of the miserable crones whose lust for the heads of their superiors was the obscene music of the Paris Commune.

      Let me assure you, Sarah Sugarman, that Alison has a wide audience that celebtates her, the talented chanteuse with her finger on the quick of the political climate that will no longer tolerate the lies born at Nuremberg and perpetuated by the lugenpresse. To put this so you will understand:

      Only you and yours are throthing at the mouth and spitting the ‘hateful, hateful’ bile. No, no. There is nothing ‘hateful’ in political satire. Rather, there is insight, wit, and an audience hungry for it. There is your lot too, of course. But you are gormless, witless and deadly dull. So spit away, golum-ites. We know that truth is painful for you.

      • Tom Rogers November 26, 2017 / 4:55 pm

        If, as you claim below, several Jews support Chabloz, then I really hope you are lining them up to give evidence in this case. I think Alison Chabloz is a total fucking idiot, BUT…we really need an acquittal. Anything other than a Not Guilty verdict will be a defeat for free speech in this country. I do, therefore, hope that her lawyers are on the ball.

        • Alison Chabloz November 26, 2017 / 7:04 pm

          Interesting that Tom Rogers sees fit to compare the racist rantings of a constituent (over the telephone to an MP) with satirical songs posted online (which no one was forced to listen to), sung by a middle-aged, educated woman who Mr Rogers then goes on to describe as a ‘total f*cking idiot’ – on this very same middle-aged woman’s own blog!

          Wonders never cease! Go for it, Sophie. Xx

          • Alison Chabloz November 26, 2017 / 7:13 pm

            It is my suspicion that Mr Rogers’ agenda, if investigated, would involve the gross betrayal of white European customs and tradition in favour of a certain, so-called ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ which in fact imposes, by way of massive land grabs, race laws and ethnic cleansing, its own supremacist ideology on the actual owners of the land and – by extension via its diaspora (of which Mr Rogers, notwithstanding his nationalist pretenses, is a fully paid-up and most loyal member), also on the rest of humanity.

    • Ciaran Goggins November 22, 2017 / 8:30 pm

      Sarah, would you be as outraged if Alison hated the Ummah? She is allowed her opinion, you are allowed yours. Shalom Sala’am.

      • Sophie Johnson November 23, 2017 / 1:22 pm

        You know Ciaran, I don’t think Alison hates any people collectively. Remember that several Jews are her close friends and supporters. There are also the Sarah Sugarman types, of course. But frankly, I doubt that Alison loses sleep over those. And they are hardly worth a strong emotion like hate.

    • alemild November 23, 2017 / 9:57 pm

      hateful? Since when in English law did it become necessary to like you and your little gang before being allowed to speak?

  4. Alison Chabloz November 22, 2017 / 2:19 pm

    Notable that whilst little people such as myself and Jez Turner are being hauled through the courts for thought crime, others are left relatively unscathed. Nigel Farage, Gilad Atzmon David Icke and even Prince Charles have all been recent targets of CAA’s latest spoiled brat-type demands for an apology. Who do they think they are?

  5. Sophie Johnson November 22, 2017 / 4:12 pm

    Alison, you illuminate these themes brilliantly: ‘my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a “Holocaust’ denial law” ‘ and ‘of course, it is the censorship issue which is at the heart of the matter’. But I confess myself very puzzled by the pigeon-toed amblings around the jurisprudence of ‘sending or causing to be sent’. Is this the ‘complex legal arguments’ we’ve been hearing of?

    I am aware of the sniggering that meets many outputs of jursiprudential reasoning, but I did not know that it can get quite so silly.

    Quite obviously, your own point that sending/causing to be sent necessarily involves bulk/a masse is incontrovertible. Also, I do wonder how visual-and-aural media products (i.e., films of all kinds) can possibly be construed as being ‘sent’ to a member of the public. Did Steven Spielberg send me his Shoah? No: I either went to a cinema to see his film, or I turned my on TV and went to the Channel my programmes list said it was on. The Spielberg film was not sent to me by my programmes list, nor by the person who composed it.

    The URL that takes a person to a web site: its pre-Internet parallel is surely walking through the door of a cinema/theatre with the intention of facing a screen/stage to see what is on it. No ‘sending’ associates with this instance of walking through a door. And the concept of ‘sending’ cannot associate with the click on a URL with the intent of seeing what is on a web site any more than it can associate with an instance of walking through a door with the intention of looking at something on a screen or stage.

    Finally: This ‘playing silly buggers’ (I picked up this expression from a South African just today) in court bodes well: The claimant has no case, and is trying to concoct one. The judge must be aware of this. And he must be aware of how this sort of legal argument will make him look in a higher court, should you have to appeal his judgment. This cannot but end well, Alison!

    • Alison Chabloz November 22, 2017 / 5:10 pm

      Your optimism is a tonic, Sophie. Thanks so much for your comments. Yes, the legal arguments (those submitted by the CPS barrister have been provisionally accepted by the judge as being satisfactory). Two points of law: 1) Whether under the Act, the Internet can be considered a Public Communications Network and 2) Whether sharing or uploading digital information via the Internet is sending or causing to be sent a message that is obscene, threatening or, in this case grossly offensive. Important to note that the Act stipulates that the offence is committed at the time of sending and does not need to be received by any intended recipient.

      We are yet to hear the judge’s reasons for accepting the Crown’s submission – a tactic meant to avert an early appeal and further hearings. Perhaps the judge has ensured the best of both worlds in that the verdict will be submitted on both points of law as well as the facts. The Crown has already admitted in its own submission that denial of the “Holocaust” is not a criminal offence in the UK. Likewise, there is no legal definition of grossly offensive as opposed to offensive. In short, a legal precedent would chill freedom of expression to unacceptable levels.

  6. Ciaran Goggins November 22, 2017 / 4:46 pm

    We used to have something called “Speakers corner” it has moved to Budapest.

    • Sophie Johnson November 22, 2017 / 4:59 pm

      Really? Do you know where in BP?

      • Ciaran Goggins November 22, 2017 / 5:11 pm

        Satire, apparently the Hungarians are standing up to Brussels, Soros cost me and others money.

  7. John Nada December 17, 2017 / 9:48 am

    I really cannot believe that only a year ago I was a liberal.

    In the mean time, prompted by the incessant attacks of the (((Media))) against Donald Trump, I started to do my own research on the internet.

    At first I was shocked. Could it be that everyone was lied to for 70 years?

    As I started fact-checking everything I read on Wikipedia, I had a rude awakening.

    I started reading History, as far back as the Roman Empire, and the Rotschild banks in the Middle Ages.
    I found out that the ((Tribe))) are not victims of persecution, but they control banks, media, government, the music industry… everything.

    They are relentless and evil… but also “masters at lying” – like Schopenhauer described them.

    I was also shocked to find out how many people were killed, (yes, I said killed), imprisoned or their lives destroyed for a small joke or criticism of ((the tribe))).

    Needless to say, and I have to state this: I am a very loving tolerant and kind human being, who has wants

    And I continue to consider myself a loving person.

    But we are under attack now, it is a war, America and Western Europe are under attack and being dismantled.

    So, I am now at the phase “gas the kikes”. Only a year ago I was a very tolerant liberal (and I still am to some degree)

    But now I have gone in the mode of “the Jews need to be exterminated”. I have read in history, how every war in the last 300 years was instigated by Jewish bankers on behalf of their tribe.

    This is serious now. Our own survival is at stake.

    And I really really really hope the Jews continue on this path of internet censorship and prosecuting people…. because this will eventually stir a backlash against them that will result to the kikes being gassed.

    If any Jewish trolls are reading this.

    I have never hated anyone in my life as much as I hate you.

    WE SEE YOU NOW!

    And every person who wakes up to the Jewish control of the US will have the same feeling: immeasurable ANGER.

    Anger that we’ve been lied to. Anger that we’ve been plundered.

    And I have to repeat: I was a liberal not long ago, I practice meditation, buddhism so I was a very peaceful liberal person, not even interested in politics.

    So beware… you Jews are stirring up the pot of anger for your own demise.

    You really think you can silence all of us?

    Try it! Please Try It!

    As I mentioned, I was a New Age, meditation, Aum chanting liberal person who was not even interested in politics.

    I never thought I would do this: but I have started to work as a soldier in the war against the Jew mafia.

    I post comments such as these on the internet, trying to wake people to the fact that The Jews own the United States of America, and we pay rent to them.

    I was never a militant, for any cause: but this is SERIOUS, and if we want Western Civilization to survive, we all have to fight.

    Because the Jews are working fast to have us all silenced.

    The countdown has started: your days are numbered Jews. Only a matter of time before people wake up.

    And the more you try to censor us, the more we become AWARE that we are being CENSORED.

    So Alison Chabloz

    I admire you for your courage, you are a hero. Do not underestimate these vermin, they have assassinated people before.

    Keep up the good fight. I have started fighting, online for now…. but I am willing to go to the streets.

    And Jews,

    Yes, I’m talking to you Jews.

    You think you can play this game of divide and conquer, Blacks against Whites, Hispanics against Whites.

    But the day will come when Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Whites will come together in one big Revolution and kick all the Jews out of America.

    When they find out who owns the building, and that who we are debt slaves to.
    They will all Unite and rise, regardless of skin colour.
    They will unite against the Satanic hook noses.

    Amen.

  8. last unctives January 3, 2018 / 9:47 am

    To the Talmudic being or anti being the criminal is normal this is why all arguments against them are useless , even a psychopath has reasons for his behaviour , not so with the Talmudic , reasons logic objectivity, they are not needed. Practising Talmudic Sabbatian ( Satanic) racism , as a systematic crime for 2000 years is not for discussion . They accept total ontological evil as their birth right . The fact the Jews ceased to exist centuries ago, and that they were nothing to do with Isreal in the first place is also irrelevant , even their name is a criminal lie , in the sense of having no claim to Isrealite decent, and being descended from long extinct Jews ,neither is true both are obvious crimminal lies . The standard default Academic position is that the Israelites never existed either , nor does of course the Semitic race exist , another lie of 19th century Zionism. Their are no Truths or lies in the Talmudic ontology , white is black , and black is white in their mongering of total obscenity the absolute nth magnitude of the non human filth . That’s why they run the world , and the white race is half extinct, the lesson of evil , and it’s practice. Even their own devil god Yahweh found them repellant , and cursed them as the satanic whip, against Israel. We are totally doomed , and in denial . In denial of total evil, even now as we go to are graves . prepared by the non human. In Aramaic the noun Jew means thief and liar, it has no etymology to the tribe of Judah. It was a derogatory term used for non Isrealite mercenaries Edomites used during the Maccabean wars. Later they usurp the temple ect . The Devil’s own.

Comments are closed.