Implication of the Prosecution’s case is that Truths could be illegal

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

The background to the prosecution

Ms Chabloz denies three charges of sending obscene material by public communication networks and two alternative charges of causing obscene material to be sent. The case involves three songs which the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) claim are anti-Semitic: Survivors, Nemo’s Anti-Semitic Universe and I Like The Story As It Is.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute the case originally but after the CAA started a private prosecution and threatened a judicial review of the CPS’ refusal to prosecute, the CPS agreed to reverse their original decision and take over the private prosecution.

The events of the day

Alison Chabloz arrived with a healthy band of supporters (around 2 dozen) who filled the public gallery. There was a significant media presence outside the court and a sprinkling of reporters in the courtroom . Miss Chabloz’s song Survivors was played early in the proceedings and drew a round of applause which filled the courtroom. Judge Zani warned those in the public gallery that a repeat of such behaviour would result in those responsible being removed from the court.

Karen Robinson began the day by outlining the prosecution’s case. Importantly she made it clear in her opening remarks that the case was not about whether the holocaust existed or how many Jews died. Rather, it was the level of insult generated by Miss Chabloz ‘s songs which was the issue. Robinson allowed that material resulting in insult was within the law but gross insult was not. She offered no explanation of how an objective distinction between insult and gross insult was to be determined . Instead she merely baldly asserted that ‘ by the standards of an open and multi-racial society, they are grossly offensive’. This opened up a can of worms.

To begin with it is objectively impossible to distinguish between lesser and greater degrees of insult. Then there is the function of criticism in a democracy. The idea that there can be limits to insult in a democracy is chilling. Moreover, there is a long tradition in England of the most devastating political insults most notably in the cartoons of the likes of Gilray and Rowlandson. Take away the freedom to be as insulting as you like and British politics would become a constricted fearful business. Indeed, this is already happening for political correctness generally is being imposed through a mixture of the criminalising of opinions which oppose the dictates of political correctness and the non-legal penalties such as being driven out of a job.

It is also a fact that laws relating to “hate crimes” is rarely if ever applied to the politically correct. Indeed, the claim by the prosecution that ‘ by the standards of an open and multi-racial society, they [the songs] are grossly offensive’” is an unequivocal statement of politically correctness . It assumes that the standards of political correctness on the subject of race are shared by the vast majority of the UK population for unless they are shared by the vast majority they cannot be the standards by which UK society operates.

There is strong objective evidence that the standards of an open and multi-racial society are not the standards which the large majority of the UK population shares. Polls on immigration consistently show a solid majority of those polled concerned about immigration and its effects. This concern played a strong role in achieving the Brexit vote. Research by the think tank British Future published in 2014 found a strong majority for ending mass immigration and 25% of those questioned wanted the removal of all immigrants already in the UK.

The question of veracity

Truths are often “grossly insulting”. The implication of the Prosecution’s case is that truths could be illegal.

The accusations in Miss Chabloz’s songs of falsehood and misrepresentation by the likes of Holocaust survivor Irene Zysblat, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, and the teenage diarist Anne have substance as Adrian Davies showed during his efficient cross examination.

The prosecution witnesses

I found both the CAA’s witnesses unconvincing . Falter was simply feeble. Not only was he unfamiliar with texts which one would have thought he would have known, he gave signs of working from a prepared script, always a fatal thing for someone under cross examination because all the cross examiner has got to do it keep pressing buttons until the inevitable happens and the prepared script fails to provide meaningful answers.

Silverman was more assured and collected but his performance when being questioned by prosecuting counsel was giving evidence by numbers. He gave explanations for various words and phrases but they were for the most part obvious to any non-Jew. He didn’t add much to the evidence available simply by reading or listening to the song lyrics. His explanation of the word “goy” (plural goyim)was of interest because he falsely said it was a non-offensive word for non-Jews.

The difference between words in a song and words in a speech.

Miss Chabloz performances of her songs is accomplished . These are not easy songs to deliver not least because of the complexity and sophistication of her lyrics. Her enunciation is first class. That she executes the songs well and they are very lively and engaging musically may help her case. It is one thing to express sentiments in a speech, quite another in a song. When it is done in song and the song and performance are engaging, the emotional response of the listener will be first and foremost a response to an artistic act not a political one.

The case will recommence on 7 March (This is not a misprint, the next hearing is in March).


You can read more from Robert Henderson at these links:

Living in a Madhouse

England Calling


60 thoughts on “Implication of the Prosecution’s case is that Truths could be illegal

  1. La Fleur January 19, 2018 / 10:24 pm

    I heard you on the Richie Allen Show and want you to know how sorry I am to hear what the horrible fascist “Rothschild Zionist” group is putting you through.

    Many Jews (myself included) do NOT agree with this fanatic desire to stifle free speech. Even if there was a case for stifling discussion after WW2 (which is arguable), there is NO case now for not allowing people to openly discuss and debate this part of history now, just as they do all other received history.

    This awful rubbish is stifling Jews and non-Jews alike, and driving a wedge between those who are really all on the side of truth seeking.

    I hope this harassment ends for you soon.

    • Alison Chabloz January 19, 2018 / 10:46 pm

      Thanks very much for your comment, Fleur, much appreciated.

    • Sarah Sugarman January 19, 2018 / 11:00 pm

      Noone who is Jewish would know who Richie Allen is never mind tune in to his antisemitic rubbish. One can only deduce from this that this is another one of Alison’s aliases. Le Fleur indeed. Are times that hard that you have to comment on your own blogs Alison or is your narcissim out of control?

      • La Fleur January 20, 2018 / 1:31 am

        Shalom to you too.
        Actually I live on the other side of the world. And had never heard of Alison before today.
        I listen to ALL Richie Allen’s shows – he has very interesting guests and treats them with respect. I often don’t agree with his guests (or him) but I enjoy considering other viewpoints.

        • Sarah Sugarman January 20, 2018 / 6:28 am

          Ok Alison, Sophie, La Fleur….

      • sophiejo1 January 20, 2018 / 11:14 am

        ‘Noone who is Jewish would know who Richie Allen is …’. You are assuming that all Jews are thick bigots like you. And really: can you not find a theme other than that Alison’s friends and supporters are in fact she? Strain whatever little you have of brain power to consider the fact that even on a normal business day some 30 of Alison’s supporters come from all over the country to stand by her in court. What does that tell you about her support base? Oh, I know: all those supporters at court were really clones of herself?

        • Alison Chabloz January 20, 2018 / 3:33 pm

          Every time Sugarman leaves a comment on my WordPress site, I am notified by email of her email address and IP address. Despite blacklisting her on my admin page, the snake still seems to get through somehow.

          I have just trashed a comment in which this sad creature – a “self-respecting Jew” – sees fit to target my elderly parents.

          Sugarman’s comment has been added to my dossier of cases of ‘worst abuse’ and shall be forwarded to my lawyer and police, as stated in my previous post Statement to Derbyshire Constabulary

          • sophiejo1 January 20, 2018 / 7:32 pm

            Good! Noxious, nasty creatures like this ‘Sarah Sugarman’ have to be stopped.

      • SB January 23, 2018 / 7:34 pm

        ‘antisemitic rubbish’ = daring to tell the truth

    • Liberty4awl January 21, 2018 / 3:21 pm

      You don’t agree with stifling free speech? What is the result of the world coming to know the words spoken by your elite? Either your not a jew or your ignorant of what a jew is or more likely your part of the below realities WE are coming to see YOU as part and parcel of. The 110th is coming and i see an enlarging number of you crying “not all jews” when your all part of judaism.
      “If my son’s did not WANT wars there would be NONE”. Gutle Schnaper Rothschild wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild

      ‘Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.’ (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: ‘It was a Jew who said, ‘Wars are the Jews’ harvest’; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.’

      Excerpt from the book “The Birth of Israel” by Israeli author, Simha Flapan : “For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion…The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’…The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and
      world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.”Menachem Begin hailed the taking of Deir Yassin as a “splendid act of conquest that would serve as a model for the future”. In a note to his commanders he wrote: “Tell the soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest. Continue thus until victory. As in Deir Yassin and everywhere else, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.”

      “Some call it Marxism – I call it Judaism.” Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, in the American Bulletin of May 15, 1935

      “The revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution” The Maccabean (New York), Nov. 1905, p, 250

      “Jewry is the mother of Marxism.” Le Droit de Vivre, May 12, 1936

      “Judaism is Marxism, communism” Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 64

      “The communist soul is the soul of Judaism.” Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 143

      “We Jews cannot be called upon to denounce Communism.” The American Hebrew (New York), February 3, 1939, p. 11

  2. last unctives January 19, 2018 / 10:55 pm

    There have been thousands of these police state trials , in a country with no Constitution nor equality before the law , the judiciary like the police are complicit , in terrorism harassment , even murder of the victims. This problem will not be solved in courts .

  3. last unctives January 19, 2018 / 11:11 pm

    This is discriminatory far worse than anything suffered by Catholics in N. Ireland 1969-1998 It shows how advanced , globalist Colonisation ,of the former UK is. Really you have no real rights ,it is illegal to form a white only British only party, therefore any agency on behalf of British people ,is abolish ed . These are not really matters for the courts , but for the gun barrel, the obvious gelding of Brexit, another inevitable result of the dictatorship of Parliament which is only a proxy of globalism anyway.

    • John January 20, 2018 / 3:36 am

      “Hate is a one-way Jew Street. Only JEWS are allowed to hate.

      Jew-Hate is given a free pass on every media venue (JEWS own them all, and control Bezos’ WaPoop), to hate Trump, to hate whites, to hate America-Firsters, to hate anti-immigration Gentiles, EVERY form of Jew-hate.

      ONLY JEWS are allowed to hate.”

      Brother Nathanael

    • John January 20, 2018 / 3:39 am

      Truth is illegal to the Jews.

      Holocaust denial laws are against Truth.

      • La Fleur January 21, 2018 / 3:30 am

        Not really. Not to all Jews.
        Have you seen the latest video from Norman Finkelstein at ?

        In Israel there are large demonstrations AGAINST the prevailing regime – by Jews. It is just that Jewish dissent from the Zionist agenda is not often reported. But comments like John’s help dissuade dissenting Jews from speaking out around the world.

        It is a mistake to conflate “the Jews” with the Rothschild Zionist agenda.

        • John January 21, 2018 / 5:17 pm

          Indeed, there are jews who tell the truth.

          Bother Nathanael, Bobby Fischer, Henry Makow, Mordechai Vanunu.

          I deeply admire them.

        • Liberty4awl January 21, 2018 / 5:54 pm

          Tell us about Finkelstein’s “opinion” of the hollow cost? That easily debunked fallacy that is the jews best business outside of creating monies? Tell us about Makow’s “opinion” too. Both are shill’s doing their best to pepper the hollow cost lie with a smattering of truth but all designed to keep the main pillar of judaism’s perfidy alive and believed.

        • Liberty4awl January 25, 2018 / 2:13 pm

          Perhaps you can explain why jews were expelled over 100 times from almost as many countries all well before zionism was even thought of? Honestly ask yourself if zionism and not judaism is the issue why were jews so hated years, decadesand centuries before zionism became the latest ism of judaism?

    • Ross January 20, 2018 / 8:49 pm

      . “These are not really matters for the courts , but for the gun barrel”

      No! no, all supporters of Alison eschew violence completely. Our whole ethos is stop the violence within this world caused by the lies and deceit of our foes.

      We can win this with the dissemination of the truth and waking up the righteous mass of people to stand strong and true against our oppressors.

      I suspect you may be some kind of agent provocateur trying to beguile us into rash actions. Please believe me ,sir, we are too intelligent and streetwise for these tactics.

      • last unctives January 21, 2018 / 9:38 am

        Is Alison in a Constitutional court? No .Is Alison in court based on the common law? No. She is in a parliamentary police Court for a political crime, with no jury .( A suspicious collusion) The degeneration of the British law , under the supremacy , dictatorship of Parliament this is the real crime terrorism, and is systematic, you are living in a police state.These are de facto political prosecutions, under political judges, who’s oaths of allegiance are a sick joke. The courts and Parliament are now fully merged, the idea that the common law is separate from statutes of Parliament is dead.No I am no provocateur , except for the best theory of our present impasse.May be you need some jail time to see the only provocation is the British Police state! These are mass systematic state crimes.

        • last unctives January 21, 2018 / 9:43 am

          These are MPs courts not the people’s.

  4. John January 20, 2018 / 5:37 am

    2017 was the year the word “racist” lost all power.

    2018 will be the year the word “antisemite” will lose its magical powers.

  5. Philip January 20, 2018 / 8:23 am

    Best wishes to you, Alison, you are fighting a lone battle in a war we are all engaged in. Don’t give in, you have more support than you could possibly imagine, and in Robert Henderson you have a very staunch and enduring ally.

  6. J Scott January 21, 2018 / 12:06 pm

    Incredible circumstances! Incredible times indeed.

    “When did ‘sticks and stones make break my bones’ stop being relevant?”
    Steve Hughes

    Keep up the good fight Alison!

  7. last unctives January 21, 2018 / 2:24 pm

    But in general it’s over for the British race , ultimately the British character its legacy is proven rotten , not worth saving, A certain smell , that always lingers . I can’t waste my time with such inferiority, you may as well join the fucking synagogue! No wonder Hitler put a curse on this former nation. The mass suicide of this country , is ultimately irrelevant. Leave the EU ? couldn’t leave a paper bag !

    • Philip January 22, 2018 / 7:26 am

      Put more water with it.

    • J Scott January 22, 2018 / 9:54 am

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing! Pointless giving up just because the odds are stacked against, that should be the very reason we strive.

  8. SB January 23, 2018 / 6:52 pm

    We are facing a war against our hard won rights to free speech and no one in the mainstream media or among the cowards of Britain First and their ilk have the backbone to utter a single word in protest. Spineless gutless wimps.

    • Alison Chabloz January 23, 2018 / 6:57 pm

      They are perhaps doing themselves a disfavour by selectively approving freedom of speech issues? Insightful members of the public will be aware of these double standards. Thanks for your comment.

    • Philip January 24, 2018 / 9:43 am

      What do you mean ‘the cowards of Britain First and their ilk [do not] have the backbone to utter a single word in protest’? The two leaders of that organisation are being put on trial for uttering several words in protest.

      • Alison Chabloz January 24, 2018 / 9:46 am

        I’ve asked Fransen several times if she would be prepared to publicly support my right to freedom of expression – as I do hers – but never received any response.

        • Ciaran Goggins January 24, 2018 / 4:45 pm

          My reading of Britain First is that they pro Israel and anti Islam.

        • Philip January 28, 2018 / 11:22 am

          I have now sent a number of messages to Britain First, asking for their views and policy towards Israel, and have not received a single reply or acknowledgement.

  9. Philip January 24, 2018 / 4:49 pm

    Are you sure that she received the message, Alison?

    If she hasn’t responded that’s one thing – and wrong, of course, if she did get it – but I don’t think either of them can be accused of lacking courage. Paul Golding was imprisoned for a short spell last year and both have had a torrid time of late. Perhaps they see their cause as somewhat distinct from yours. I support them as much as I support you, but I shall be careful from now on to watch out for their attitude towards the ‘you-know-whos’.

    • John January 27, 2018 / 8:57 am

      Some people see Islam as the no. 1 enemy, so they view Israel in the Middle East as a thorn in the Arab countries side, meant to destabilize the area.

      Imagine what would happen in a Middle East where Israel does not exist, and all the Arab Countries are prosperous from oil profits and they can Unite and get Atomic Weapons. Do you think they will not launch an attack on the West? DO you think they will show mercy?

      So some people who support Israel see it as a pawn to destabilize the Arab menace.

      Not because they support the Jews in the USA, they just see the Arabs as the greater Evil.

      This is the blindspot of some Jew woke people. There are some people who support Israel because they aren’t jwoke, and they see Arabs as a bigger threat.

      Not because they are Jewish shills.

      To me, Arabs and Jews are equally dangerous. Jews are more dangerous because they have power in our countries.

      But Arabs are just as bad. Israel is a necessary evil in the Middle East. If Arabs had oil and atomic bombs…. just think of It.

      I think a lot of people who have a common sense view (albeit underestimating the Jew influence) – that Israel is good in the Middle East to undermine the Arabs…. are NOT JEWISH SHILLS.

      Jayda Fransen looks a bit Jewish to me, to tell you the truth.

      • Dissident X February 1, 2018 / 4:05 pm

        John: I reply to you, but hope a wider audience may encounter this.
        The entire vilification of Arabs/Muslims has been a program under the “Hasbara” for many years, coming from all aspects of media.
        One can see a similar campaign, now working at an accelerated rate (with all the learnings, and new technology, i.e. the internet, and what not), in the criminalization of biologically-rooted male masculine behaviours, and generally the war on men.
        Of course, these similarities are NOT a co-incidence; more on that, further on down.

        On Muslins and ‘Jews’
        In fact, in the religion of Islam, the same as the various ‘Christian’ religious teachings, all people, ALL PEOPLE, are equal under the … ‘supreme being’, and the teachings explicitly promote this universality of men under the supreme being.
        In the Torah-Talmud… ideology (commonly misnomed as ‘judaism’), adherents are self-recognized as “chosen” and strictly kept isolated from the rest of humanity, considered ‘beasts’ and only ‘looking like the ‘chosen” so as to be better servants for the ‘chosen’. The teachings from the Torah-Talmud definitely direct adherents/members of the collective, to ‘debase’ and ‘denigrate’ out-group members.

        Of course there are people, calling themselves ‘Muslims’ who profess and promote an extreme ideology, which seems much more consistent with the abject hatred expressed in the Torah-Talmud. But the origins and objectives of such groups, considered heretical by the leading Shia clerics, incidentally, are clouded in enigma, and one might well be suspicious of their agenda and who has promoted them.

        Back to the criminalization of men:
        It would be wise, if a group was intent on assuming complete domination of the planet, and it was getting obvious, despite the billions spent on propaganda/perception management, to disempower the demographic most likely to rebel against the oppression, i.e. the testosterone criminals, men.

        One last thing, there is no such thing as ‘race’. Perhaps in neolithic societies, there was some genetic commonality in isolated geographic environments, but across 5000+ years of human mobility and migration, we are all mutts, including those who self-identify as ‘chosen’.

        Have a nice day.

  10. SB January 25, 2018 / 11:05 am

    Britain First, Yaxley Lennon and Waters and the like I consider to be Zionist puppets. I wonder if their Israel flag waving fan clubs know about the hundreds of British soldiers murdered by Irgun. Their function seems to be to keep the hate for Islam at boiling point while Israel completes it’s expansion project, no matter how many millions of refugees and deaths this creates.

    • Philip January 25, 2018 / 1:43 pm

      Well I don’t think it was hundreds but certainly a few. I have now sent a message to Paul Golding asking for his/Britain First’s policy and view towards Israel. So far no reply. To me support for Israel is incompatible with British nationalism.

      • Alison Chabloz January 25, 2018 / 2:22 pm

        Also, the death toll of British service personnel killed by Jewish terrorists in the last years of the British Mandate in Palestine before creation of Israel is well into the hundreds. Can’t find the exact numbers, but it’s over 700 killed at least.

        See ‘Forgotten Heroes Campaign’ on The London Forum YouTube channel for several speeches given last summer in Bristol.

        • Philip January 25, 2018 / 3:24 pm

          It is very difficult to find the exact numbers, as you say – however, having looked it up, it does seem to be a lot more than I thought. If it is true that Paul Golding and Britain First do stand with Israel, then I shall support them no more.

          • Sarah Sugarman January 25, 2018 / 8:25 pm

            Sure they will be gutted

  11. Philip January 25, 2018 / 8:40 pm

    No, I’m sure they won’t be, my little hasbara friend But I have made several contributions over the last year to their ‘fighting fund’, and they won’t get any more of that.

  12. Jim January 26, 2018 / 2:42 am

    FROM THE GUARDIAN UK – “Facebook and Google have become “obstacles to innovation” and are a “menace” to society whose “days are numbered”, said billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.”

    Someones days are numbered, that is a certainty. Sorry Soros, The ole Cat is out of the bag. Facebook or not, you will not stop the truth from spreading and soon – we shall have a wee “regime change” of our own. TA!

  13. John January 27, 2018 / 9:01 am

    Evil Mark Zuckerberg wants us to connect with family friends on facebook and exchange cat photos….

    instead of sharing evil political content.

    The cat is out of the bag.

  14. Larry Lahr January 31, 2018 / 6:32 pm

    I live in Brazil and I had never heard of you, Alison, until today, thanks to the IHR newspaper clippings. You have my support. You are fighting a battle like David and Goliath and the philistines are the current zionists.I admire you, just like Robert Faurisson.

  15. Another Ross February 2, 2018 / 10:20 am

    Have you heard about that Alison Chabloz?
    She’s really the most awful woman, you know.
    At the drop of a hat she’ll break into song,
    The problem is the words are all wrong.
    Humour and satire designated as ‘hate’
    Is the air that’s breathed in a totalitarian state.
    Take care what you think, watch what you say
    ‘Cos the enemies of freedom will make you pay.
    The unholiest shibboleth you must not impugn
    Even if accompanied by a jaunty tune.
    An unchanging narrative set in stone,
    History’s lies must be left well alone.
    It’s a crime to suggest that people have lied
    Or ask ‘if so many survived, just how many died?’
    Recycled ice and lupine care,
    Deny the absurdity if you dare.
    There’s a well-funded hate group waiting to pounce,
    Your life and your work to psychotically denounce.
    When I was a lad I was told that we
    Had fought a war to keep us free.
    Free to say whatever we please,
    Free to mock, free to tease.
    Whether spoken or whether written,
    It’s fundamental to being a Briton.
    What alien force seeks to proscribe our birthright?
    What alien force seeks to impose their dark night?

    • Alison Chabloz February 2, 2018 / 11:06 am

      Marvellous Ross! Love it. Thanks so much 🙂

      • Another Ross February 9, 2018 / 10:34 am

        Hi Alison,

        It’s a bit of hotch-potch – I’ve got a few poetic efforts on the go at the moment but just wanted to put up somethiing in support. Actually I have an idea that I would like to discuss with you – could you email me? I presume you can get my email address from this posting (please note, I have very limited internet access at present – a couple of times a week at a library – so will be a bit tardy replying).

  16. Felix Culpa February 3, 2018 / 10:48 pm

    The Court wants to determine the level of insult generated by Chabloz’ songs’ subject matter. But the prosecution maintains that the subject matter of Chabloz’ songs is irrelevant to the case.

    Consider: What is the songs’ subject matter? Is it not the songs’ position that to weaponize the terms ‘Holocaust’ and ‘anti-Semite’ is grossly insulting to everybody– and that would include wthe one offering the insult– in society?

    So Chabloz (in song, mind you) has charged certain Jews with gross insult to society. And certain Jews have answered her charge by making it their own: they have charged Chabloz (criminally, mind you) with gross insult for doing so. And they hold that because Britain is multi-racial (factual on its face) and ‘open’ (what is meant by this term, they do not tell the Court) this must be so. This last point is what is known as a non-sequitur: it simply does not follow that Chabloz is guilty of gross insult for objecting to the weaponization of the terms ‘Holocaust’ and ‘anti-Semite’ if Britain’s population is composed of more than one race! And is ‘open’ meant to suggest that these races are willing to accept this weaponization as a good thing? The plaintiffs do not tell us.

    So, where is the evidence for the charge of Chabloz’ accusers? It is in her songs’ subject matter which the plaintiffs want the Court to ignore. Where is the evidence for Chabloz’ charge of gross insult against certain Jews? Again, it is in her songs’ subject matter which she has not asked the court to ignore.

    To repeat, is it Chabloz who has asked the Court to forego a scrutiny of her lyrics?

    What we have going on here is a criminal trial wherein the defendant and the plaintiff are making the same claim–Chabloz, implicitly, in song and her accusers explicitly, in court. The startling difference is that the defendant has backed her charge with evidence–evidence the plaintiffs want ruled irrelevant to the court proceedings — which can be scrutinized for veracity, and the plaintiffs have backed up their charge with the truly irrelevant observation that Britain is multi-racial in composition and the definitionless descriptor of ‘open.’

    I say nothing of Chabloz’ accusers also trying her in the court of (mass media) public opinion where, there too, the airing of the evidence of the charge against her is simply a re-stating of the charge.

    Is Chabloz to be found guilty along the lines of an argument which runs: “If she were not guilty, we would not have brought her before the Court?” Put precisely, does the charge itself suffice for evidence of the crime?

    So, how can the Court know which is truly guilty of gross insult? Could not the court exercise the wisdom of Solomon to reveal the guilty party? Of course the Court can, it need only the will to do so.

    Solomon that wisest of judges, when presented with two women claiming to be a certain child’s mother, knew the real mother by her who would rather give up all rights to her child than see him divided in two. The Court can recognize the real victim in this case by identifying the party who would not scruple to divide a criminal charge from the investigation of the evidence for it.

    That party is not Alison Chabloz.

    Denial and projection is an argumentative sleight of hand, not a means by which justice may be delivered.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s