She who laughs last laughs longest

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.

As previously mentioned in one of my recent posts, it would seem perfectly kosher for a Jew to sing Throw The Jew Down The Well. OK, so let’s admit for argument’s sake that this is acceptable – confirmed recently by Larry David’s monologue which mocks Jewish stereotypes following the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the Goyim daring to step into such territory, it would appear that certain mischievous culprits are granted a kind of deferential immunity whereas others – yours truly, in particular – are not. Take Ricky Gervais. Back in 2012, Gervais made headlines with a comedy routine about Anne Frank. I won’t go into too much detail here, only to say that there was the all-too-predicable outcry from certain quarters along with the usual demands that Gervais apologise and show reverence to our rulers.

To Gervais’ credit, he did not apologise, although he did make a half-hearted attempt in the Jewish Chronicle to claim that his own ignorance was in fact the butt of his Anne Frank jokes. In the same article, as well as on Twitter, Gervais says that it’s fine to joke about any subject:

171123 gervais joke about anything

 

Is it significant that since 2012, Gervais seems to have booted out references to Anne Frank from his routine? Indeed, Gervais also seems keen to reassure his paymasters that he won’t be touching certain subjects in future, which is a shame, especially following last year’s scoop – as cited in my song (((Survivors))) – that Anne’s father, Otto, would have co-authored his daughter’s famous diary.

171123 gervais evolution holocaust
More of Gervais’ ostensibly grossly offensive moments came in 2011 with his Father and Daughter sketch, as with Liam Neeson’s guest appearance on Life’s Too Short. Almost eight years down the line, Gervais still rightly observes that apologising is simply not an option:

 

171123 gervais fan more H jokes

 

But hang on! A Gervais fan hungry for more? I’m ready to wager that this fan risks disappointment. Maybe someone could direct @Europids to my songs? Doubtful Gervais would oblige. He knows on which side his bread is buttered

So, the six million dollar question: how come Ricky Gervais hasn’t landed himself in court for jokes about Anne Frank and the ‘Holocaust’? Is it because he has 12.9m Twitter followers? Is it because my detractors realise that targeting a celeb like Gervais would hinder their objective?

Imagine the public outcry if Gideon Falter went after someone like Gervais. Falter wouldn’t last a nano-second before being metaphorically hung, drawn and quartered in the name of Good Old British Satire And Freedom Of Artistic Expression. Imagine the press coverage – a celeb dream come true, with the guarantee of yet more sold-out shows, triple-fold merchandise sales, not to mention becoming a legendary folk hero.

Does Gervais have the guts to come out and support me – persecuted and prosecuted for singing satirical songs about Jews, for which I will never apologise? My guess is that he will not. As with Joan of Arc, it will take the courage of a lone woman to bring down the House of Cards. When that happens, I will surely have the last laugh.

13 thoughts on “She who laughs last laughs longest

  1. Paul sturdy November 23, 2017 / 7:03 pm

    Your courage is an inspiration too us all Alison. Steadfast as the bowmen at Azincourt

  2. Ciaran Goggins November 23, 2017 / 7:16 pm

    Any parallels with your arrest and that of Jayda Fransen?

  3. Sophie Johnson November 24, 2017 / 3:51 pm

    You will certainly have the last laugh, Alison. The law on which your case can be decided is perfectly clear: the Crown has to prove that you have sent a message on a publicly funded electronic facility that ‘the reasonable man’ would consider grossly offensive by the standards of our multicultural society. There is a House of Lords ruling that the sole yardstick for determining what is ‘grossly offensive’ is the opinion of the aforesaid ‘reasonable man’. See:

    Director of Public Prosecution-v-Collins [2006] 1 WLR,

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/40.html. (Briefly, ‘grossly offensive’ is things said in ways that the ‘reasonable man’ thinks unacceptably offensive by the standards of a multicultural society.)

    In DPP -v- James Macconnell,

    https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2016/%5b2016%5d%20NIMag%201/j_j_2016NIMag1Final.htm

    a magistrates’ court decided in favour of the accused on the basis of the above House of Lords ruling. In that case, Macconnell’s Articles 9 and 10 right to condemn Islam were upheld, even though he had called Islam satanic, evil, etc., and his message was not held to be grossly offensive even though he said he trusts no Muslim to not do us harm (explaining later that he means Muslims no harm).

    You have not said anything about the ‘holocaust’ or Jews or Judaism, let alone anything grossly offensive. All you did was say amusing things about people known to be holocaust liars, remind of the glories of the Havara Agreement, etc., all of which is political satire perfectly legit. under Article 10.

    You do tell Nimmo (not even his real name!) that he is a nasty little creep. But the ‘reasonable man’ would certainly not think that grossly offensive. That is a very mild piece of ticking-off for his own mean antics against you.

    You are probably sick of hearing this from me, Alison. But I am ever more sure that the ACC creeps would not have taken you to court if they had known that the IHRA definition of antisemitism will not succeed to sneak a prohibition of ‘holocaust denial’ into this jurisdiction. They need a holocaust-denial law so that they can, like the HUDOC judges, use Article 17 to deprive you of the Article 10 guarantee of the right to free speech. But they can whistle for that.

    Loved your lengthy giggle at Gervais! 🙂

    • Tom Rogers November 26, 2017 / 4:51 pm

      The Macconnell case in Northern Ireland is not a binding precedent; the Collins judgment is, and it is not auspicious. In fact, the reasoning of the judges in Collins is really quite disturbing. They afford considerable ambit to the “grossly offensive” requirement.

      And the scope of Chabloz’s songs is broader than just criticising dishonest Holocaust survivors. There’s the problem. I do hope that this case is not going to give legal and moral succour to statutory attacks on free speech in this country. If it does, I would have to question what is being achieved here. Our free speech is more precious and important than your silly songs.

      I agree that the CAA’s strategy is to try and bring in a Holocaust denial law by the backdoor. That much is obvious. That being the case, we must hope the outcome is a Not Guilty verdict – for our sakes, as much as for Alison Chabloz’s.

        • Tom Rogers November 29, 2017 / 8:18 pm

          @ Alison Chabloz

          I accept that my reference to you was unnecessary vitriol. I didn’t mean it and I apologise.

          Regarding the comparison you refer to: I didn’t make the comparison. The appellate judges did, in what is considered the leading case on the statute under which you are being prosecuted! In my comment, I noted from the judgment that the judges are quite expansive in how they apply the statute. Not only is that less than auspicious for your case, it also worries me generally – and it deepens my annoyance at yourself that these circumstances should arise. You’re not just somebody who’s lost his temper online. You’ve goaded them into this.

          You do understand the consequences for the rest of us if you lose this case? I’m not convinced that you appreciate the magnitude of this.

          • Alison Chabloz November 29, 2017 / 8:30 pm

            You’re not just somebody who’s lost his temper online. You’ve goaded them into this.

            If you wish me to take seriously your rather pompous and condescending remarks, perhaps it would be wise to begin by using the correct pronoun?

            I trashed your earlier response to Sophie Johnson. This is my blog and I get to decide who comes on here to leave comments. Please feel free to copy and paste comments on your own WordPress blog. Hopefully, you’ll get a few views.

            Composing satirical songs is now comparable to losing one’s temper online?

            As opposed to e.g. calling someone a ‘f*cking idiot’?

            Don’t make me laugh.

            Future comments will be pre-moderated.

          • Alison Chabloz November 29, 2017 / 8:53 pm

            PS Most extraordinary of all, Tom, is that you come here with your unpleasant, patronising tone rather than actually tackling the cause.

            I have a stalker. Stephen Applebaum. Why do you seem to prefer bothering me – a lone, middle-aged singer – rather than taking up the issue with the persons who, contrary to your claims, are the ones who love to goad? The evidence is plentiful – and makes you look an utter fool. Go and talk to Applebaum, if you have the balls (which I seriously doubt):

            And for good measure, here’s his email address. Do let me know how you get on. stephenapplebaum64@gmail.com

            • Tom Rogers November 29, 2017 / 9:50 pm

              You don’t have an “online stalker”. There is no such thing. That’s just a made-up term for drama queens and attention-seekers who want to play at being victim. It’s all in your imagination. You have a craving for attention and drama – that’s the real problem – and Nationalism or whatever you call it is the theatre that provides it for you.

              My frustration is rooted in the simple and obvious fact that Nationalism in this country is not politically effective.

              You are a case in point. You give us “funny” songs about Holocaust survivors. There must be something wrong with my sense of humour, because as much as I oppose Jews, I simply can’t muster a laugh. It’s not funny. Maybe it’s something about you? My first thought on watching one of your videos was that you are in need of psychiatric help, and that’s not funny either. In any event, this stuff is just demeaning. I wouldn’t feel any pride in supporting it.

              It’s not that I much care about the so-called Holocaust. It’s more the concept of laughing at it, or laughing at survivors of it. There’s something a bit low and grubby about that, even when it’s your putative enemy, because we know that, regardless of the other facts, innocent civilians did die and suffer, and we also know that the German soldiers and officials involved will have suffered too and, whatever the truth of what they did and what precisely happened, they were undertaking a grim and serious duty. To me, there’s just ‘something’ wrong in making light of it. Whatever you believe occurred, the subject warrants seriousness.

              Turning again to the legal case, you flatter and deceive yourself if you think you are important to these people or that this is personal. You are purely a means to an end. They are playing you like a fiddle. This is the case they’ve been waiting for, and you delivered it to them. Your endless Twitter sagas, in which you update followers of this blog on what such-and-such a person said to you on Twitter are just embarrassing. You’re supposed to be an adult. Who cares what idiots do on Twitter? It’s not the real world. In so far as it’s useful, it’s merely as a tool for communication.
              This isn’t really specific to just you either, it’s a general pattern in which it seems that a bunch of immature baby-boomers are living out some sort of right-wing version of a Monster Raving Loony fantasy. That’s nice for you, but while you fiddle, have fun and play the hero, Rome burns.

              Nationalists aren’t supposed to be loonies and eccentrics. Nationalism is meant to be the normative position in society. It’s supposed to be the broad view of the average Joe and Hilda Bloggsworthy, not the weirdo who lives in a basement in his Mam’s house at the end of the next street with a private library of Holocaust books saved on Kindle.

              I’m as “extreme” as anybody. In fact, I’m probably the most extreme National Socialist commenting on here. But there’s a need for a sound methodology involving pragmatism and communicating principles through real issues.

              I see no future in what you and the rest of this ‘Movement’ is doing and I refuse to join in with any of your activities. I think that – for now – we have lost. I think we will recover when ‘normal people’ (for want of a better description) start wanting to take back their country and do something about it.

              I will comment on this no further.

              • Alison Chabloz November 29, 2017 / 10:16 pm

                In my view, Tom, it would have been better to refrain from commenting further before posting the above. All it does is confirm that, as well as having no balls, you’re also lacking in the sense of humour department.

                Personal abuse is no argument. Mental health smears and ad hominem make you sound exactly like my accusers. Shame.

                Revisionism lies at the heart of our Struggle for Freedom and any so-called nationalist who disputes this is either deluded or is a liar.

      • Sophie Johnson November 28, 2017 / 5:35 pm

        ‘The Macconnell case in Northern Ireland is not a binding precedent.’

        Wow, Tom Rogers! You worked out that a magistrates’ court does not bring down binding precedents! Did that mental effort strain you badly?

        And you, you ‘fucking idiot’ (quoting you on another thread of Alison’s blog that you polluted), might have noticed, had you been a little less short of brain cells than you are, that the judgment in the Macconnell case leaves even Macconnell’s racially insulting discourse out of the catchment area of what the ‘reasonable man’ would find ‘grossly offensive’. So really, sunshine, you need not burden your hairy little heart with concern about the ‘scope’ of Alison’s songs. No matter how hard your ‘concern’ labours, you will not succeed to fit anything of Alison’s songs into the parameters of the ‘grossly offensive’ that the House of Lords has established in its review of the Collins case.

Comments are closed.