By Karl Radl, first published by Semitic Controversies. Reproduced with kind permission.
Alison Chabloz – the heroic lady who poked fun at the great shibboleth of modern times aka the so-called ‘Holocaust’ – was convicted of uploading ‘three grossly offensive’ songs on YouTube by a Magistrates Court presided over by Judge John Zani. (1) Zani is himself the descendant of Italian immigrants to the UK. (2)
Despite the assorted hype being used by jewish publications like Jewish News – the Times of Israel’s UK subsidiary – claiming that Zani’s verdict was damning. (3) The fact of the matter is that ‘Chabloz was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 after District Judge John Zani found the material to be “grossly offensive”. There is no law specifically against Holocaust denial in the UK.’ (4)
While the Jewish Chronicle buried the following important observation at the very end of their article: ‘Because District Judge Zani’s ruling was at a magistrates’ court, it does not set a binding precedent.’ (5)
What the Chabloz trial marks is not the ‘criminalization’ of ‘Holocaust Denial’, but rather the revision of jewish tactics to suppress the discussion of uncomfortable facts relating to jews, Judaism and the state of Israel. All the way back to their ancestors in Imperial Germany; who tried – largely unsuccessfully – to prevent the criticism of the jews and Judaism. (7)
The jewish community wheeled all but one of their legal big guns to ‘take down’ a woman from a village in Derbyshire expressing her opinion on a historical event on the internet. We see Anthony Julius – Deborah Lipstadt’s barrister in her libel trial against historian David Irving – as well as other jewish community lawyers like Greg Callus and Adam Wagner weighing in. (6) The only one missing as far as I can see is Mark Lewis. (8)
This is hardly new in British history since the jewish community used similar tactics against Arnold Leese – a veteran of the First World War and noted veterinarian specializing in camel diseases – and his Imperial Fascist League (hereafter the IFL) in 1936. When Leese – along with his associate Walter Whitehead – wrote several articles for the IFL’s monthly magazine ‘The Fascist’, which argued that Jewish Ritual Murder was a real phenomenon. (9)
Similarly to Chabloz; the jewish community of the United Kingdom managed to get Leese convicted on a legal technicality for ‘causing a public mischief’, but this didn’t stop Leese’s activity and he published a book length defense of his views on Jewish Ritual Murder in 1938. (10) What stopped Leese’s activism the Second World War and the creation of Regulation 18B not the legal machinations of the jewish community.
The difference between Chabloz and Leese is threefold.
Firstly Chabloz is not a Fascist but rather a left-wing anti-Zionist and has a well-developed network of supporters within the pro-Palestinian community. This means that she is a less marginal figure than Leese was in the 1930s and since her trial has been covered in major media outlets like the liberal but fiercely pro-Israel newspapers: The Independent. (11) She has been given much more oxygen than Leese was. Since his conviction was only noticed by anti-fascist periodicals and local newspapers without any of the sensation that Chabloz’s trial has generated.
Secondly Chabloz has the distinct advantage that she is taking a public stand for an intellectual position that is backed up by some of the most detailed micro historical research that has ever been done by the likes of scholars by Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno. She also has the internet which allows people who have heard about her views to ascertain for herself why she ‘denies the Holocaust’ or ‘opposes Israel’.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly Chabloz has the distinct advantage that the jewish community of twenty-first century Britain is not nearly as careful or circumspect as that same community in the 1930s. The jewish community of Leese’s day did not dare to advocate the wholesale prosecution of their critics, but chose to pick their battles relatively carefully. The jewish community of today however has no such tact.
Most notably Gideon Falter of the pro-Israel lobbying group ‘Campaign against Antisemitism’ has made it very clear that he holds it to be the Crown Prosecution Service’s job to be to hunt down any and all critics of jewry and imprison them for daring to commit the cardinal sin of lèse-majesté. (12)
This is the difference because while Leese could only count on a relatively few supporters. Chabloz can count of hundreds if not thousands of activists. The clear injustice of convicting her on a legal technicality for an offence that is not in any way illegal according to the law of the land and then using that conviction to openly demand wholesale censorship is not going to de-radicalise Chabloz’s supporters.
In fact it is going to radicalise them and force them to ask uncomfortable questions about who is the real enemy of the Palestinian people.
Is it just the ‘Zionists’ or is it the jews?
That in turn is going to force the anti-Zionist left – as it has with jewish anti-Zionists like Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen – to re-evaluate their critique of the Israel Lobby to a critique of the jewish lobby.
Facts are facts and when you are confronted with a monstrous injustice on the scale of the Chabloz trial. Then it is almost impossible for a moral anti-Zionist not to see – as the old Cross Winds Collective did when they formed the late lamented ‘Jewish Tribal Review’ – that the Palestinians don’t have a Zionist problem.
They have a jewish problem.
Hence Chabloz’s conviction by an obscure District Court judge on a legal technicality could well become the point that future historians identify as the turning point in the struggle for a saner, safer world.
References
(1) https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/alison-chabloz-conviction-spur-private-prosections-1.464854
(2) https://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=zani ; http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U42244
(3) http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/alison-chabloz-case-the-judges-damning-verdict/
(4) https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/alison-chabloz-conviction-spur-private-prosections-1.464854
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Marjorie Lamberti, 1978, ‘Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany: The Struggle for Civil Equality’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 105-122
(8) https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-foremost-libel-lawyer-sets-his-sights-on-israels-enemies/
(9) Gisela Lebzelter, 1978, ‘Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: London, p. 82
(10) You can read this for yourself at the following address: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDFs/Jewish%20Ritual%20Murder%20JR.pdf
(11) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/auschwitz-song-nazis-alison-chabloz-antisemitic-jewish-theme-park-london-forum-a8369751.html
(12) https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/we-will-always-%EF%AC%81ght-to-enforce-the-law-alison-chabloz-caa-gideon-falter-1.464847
Alison Chabloz 
Well done, Karl Radl, and thank you for your fine insights and new perspectives. They, I’m sure, will encourage Alison herself, and us, her confirmed supporters. The appalling treatment of Alison by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and this court’s undisguised bias against her and in favour of the Prosecution, is a story yet to be told. That a court in England dares to behave in this way should be a cause of serious public concern. But, given the nature of our mass media, the public does not know about it.
And one point, re your ‘Chabloz’s conviction by an obscure District Court judge on a legal technicality …’ . There is no ‘legal technicality’ issue here. Rather, the point is that DJ Zani appears to lack the intellect that might have enabled him to address s127 of the Cumminications Act 2003, and the High Court scrutiny of it: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/40.html. Instead of addressing this, the pertinent law in Alison’s case, he indulged the whim of Counsel for the Prosecution to investigate Alison for ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ — despite the strong objection of Counsel for the Defence. And it was ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ that was (somehow!) Zani’s measure of the difference between ‘offensive’ and ‘grossly offensive’.
Thank you again for having raised your voice. I hope to hear more from you, especially in this matter.
Anyone who is taking an interest in Alison Chabloz Ridiculous Prosecution should read the above by Karl Radl .. Great Words of Knowledge and Wisdom: It is plain to see this is a Complete Abomination and Misuse of Power “An Embarrassment to the British legal system” Misusing section 127 of the Communications Act {technicality} which in reality has ZILCH to do with said so called holocaust: it is obvious this is not only Devious and Spiteful: it is Corrupt ! G/F When will you cease in dragging this sad history through the GUTTER as a sick edge to gain power (let it BE) John Zani step down whilst you can this is not going to go away “Wellcome to Merry Old England”
Quote.Karl Rad: Hence Chabloz’s conviction by an obscure District Court judge on a legal technicality could well become the point that future historians identify as the turning point in the struggle for a saner, safer world.
Speaks for itself “FACT”
Cornwall England: Supporting This Courageous Lady All The Way ..
Alison,
I just want to let you know that even though it seems as if the entire nation in the UK is against you because you dared to say how you feel about various things,
I am the exception because I don’t condemn you at all.
In fact, I want to say with all honesty that you have my whole heart support and I hope that things will work out in your favour.
Alison,
thanks so much for accepting my initial comment of support for your cause.
I would like to add to it by saying that I truly believe that the case that was brought against you by the CAA is socially unjust.
I hold that view because you merely expressed your opinion on an issue that is naturally contentious.
I am not aware of anything in the civil and common law that says that ”expressing an opinion” is a criminal offence.
I am ready to accept that what I deem to be an ‘opinion’ may not tally with what you may consider as a ‘fact’ but the fact remains that you are ‘entitled’ to express your thoughts or opinion and doing so to my knowledge is not a crime.
I argue (in your defence) and in the cause of freedom of expression,
that the CAA sought to take away that right by ‘choosing to take offence’ when the evidence suggests that was not your purpose.
I think that if you receive a custodial sentence,
that will go down in history as a shocking example of social injustice and people everywhere that believe in freedom to express one’s thoughts and opinions,
will surely see it a crime as opposed to justice.
I’m not Jewish, but even if I were, I would hope that I would not try to use my nationality to suppress other nations right to express their thoughts, feelings and opinions on may or may not have taken place in the past.
I, of course, acknowledge the fact that ‘the Holocaust’ is a contentious issue and that some people may consider it to be factual and others may not as in your case.
I nevertheless stand by my belief that you are entitled to speak your mind even if what you say causes others to feel offended.
I also believe that it is extremely unfair that you were prosecuted on the grounds that what you expressed in your songs on youtube caused offence to those that heard it.
I don’t overlook the fact that they have feelings like all humans
but the fact is they are all still alive and reasonably well and the chances are they will live to see another day.
The words you expressed in your songs were not welcomed by the CAA but they did not take away their lives and that, in my opinion, is the key point in this case which was clearly overlooked by the judge.
I am 51 years old and if I were to say to you that every word I said from childhood to the present day was agreeable to every person I have met,
I would be lying.
We all say things that with hindsight we may regret but in your case, I don’t believe that you intended to cause offence and effectively walk over the feelings of the members of the CAA.
I argue that they took offence because they don’t agree with ‘freedom of speech’.
If the CAA were able to take away your right to express your true feelings and leave you facing time in prison then that suggests to me that the right to express our selves without undue suppression in the country of our birth is quite frankly a shameless travesty.
I will conclude by reminding you that though there is little I can do to help you out of the heartbreaking situation you are in,
I nevertheless stand on your side and I mean that from my heart because I am a firm believer in fair treatment for all people.
I believe that you have been treated unfairly by the CAA and the CPS.
I say shame on them and I hope the day will come when they will look back at what they did to you and feel deep shame and regret treating you so badly.
I wish you all the very best for your future Alison and please remember that whatever takes place on Thursday,
I’ll always be on your side.
One more thing, I love your songs and I listened to one of them on youtube earlier and I think you have a rare ability to put your thoughts into words which strike a ‘positive’ rather than negative in the hearts and minds of our nation.
I am proud of you Alison and please don’t change
because you are a much-needed breath of fresh air in our troubled country.
The nation needs more honest, bold, thoughtful women like you to help reset the balance.
Thank you, Shyn.
It is a pleasure Alison and you are most welcome.