For those less inclined to wade through pages of text and case law quotations, certain paragraphs have been selected and reproduced below, with emphasis added.
18. […] We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged. That is not however the same as asserting that the Holocaust is not an appropriate subject for historical enquiry, debate or artistic treatment. Nor do we ignore the fact that, as with any aspect of history, new evidence will inevitably emerge, and historical judgments will alter. We also acknowledge that many commonly held ideas or assumptions about the Holocaust do not have a firm historical basis. We further acknowledge that the recollections of individual witnesses as to their part in the events of the Holocaust may [as is the case with any witness to an event or circumstance] be unreliable, exaggerated or even deliberately untruthful.
The above acknowledgements do not form the same basis for the ideas being put across in my songs?
22. We have reached a number of general conclusions about the appellant, having listened with care to her evidence. As already noted, she is a Holocaust denier. While not a historian, as we recognise [she describes herself first and foremost as a musician], she clearly has an extensive, albeit highly selective, interest in history. During her evidence she made rapid-fire reference to a bewildering array of sources, although it was striking how dismissive she was of anything that might contradict the narrative to which she subscribes. Furthermore she is manifestly anti-Semitic, and utterly obsessed with what she perceives to be the wrongdoing of Jews and their disproportionate influence in politics, the media and banking in particular. In relation to questions involving the Holocaust in particular, and Jews more generally, she appears to us quite simply to have lost all sense of perspective. While that is neither attractive nor to her credit, we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.
The judge made at least as many selective references to sources as I did. He believes the orthodox view as narrated to us on a daily basis by the Zionist-owned media, Hollywood, BBC “documentaries”, etc., etc. (Interestingly, the prosecution tried and failed to have the holy “Six Million” written in stone, perhaps in part owing to my mention of Hilberg (five million) and other orthodox historians who have disputed the magical figure?)
Jewish power and influence is in no doubt whatsoever. Why does pointing this out lead to accusations of being a JEW-HATER? At one point on Monday, the judge made a sarcastic reference to people who would choose to believe that Jews somehow control Greenwich Meantime. His Honour’s palpable bias was evident from day one, most clearly shown in the defamatory statements made by him and lay magistrate Rego in this week’s ruling.
In order to keep the “Holocaust” myth alive, “deniers” must be defamed as mentally deficient. The same is happening in Austria to the longest-serving revisionist thought criminal, Wolfgang Fröhlich, in prison now for over a decade. One must be insane to question the lack of evidence of homicidal gas chambers, to laugh at the fictional accounts of certain survivors who were lucky enough to have survived, escaping said gas chambers without any of these survivors actually having seen any such gas chamber!
26: […] We unhesitatingly reject the appellant’s evidence that this song [I Like the Story as it it – SATIRE!] was at least in part motivated by a benevolent desire to free Jewish people from the shackles of “atrocity propaganda”. We are sure that she wrote and performed it because she hates Jews […]
In short, I am guilty of refusing to worship Jews and their lies. Indeed, my sentence was far too lenient – an opinion currently being aired on various social media platforms: I should be locked up, flogged, sent to Auschwitz, etc. The Zionist Daily Mail has again pulled out the old “her family and friends all hate her” angle. Pure lies.
Zionists lie. It is their religious duty. They consider themselves to be God’s Chosen Elite and therefore untouchable. It is even said that they offer their lawyers pro bono to the cash-strapped CPS. On the other hand, it is ironic and amusing to see these powerful Jew-Zionists running in all directions, complaining and playing victim over a silly song; this entire farce of course also being played out in the English court system, with compliant judges simply parroting the usual insults and ad hominem.
27. We turn finally to the appellant’s mens rea. We are sure, in relation to each song, that the appellant positively intended it to be grossly offensive to Jews. We are further satisfied that, although part of her intended audience on YouTube was persons sharing her own warped outlook, she embedded the hyperlink [Charges 1 and 2] and uploaded the video [Charge 3] in the hope that those who saw and heard the songs would include Jewish people who would be grossly offended by them.
Anti-Semitism not a crime. “Holocaust” “denial” not a crime. Offending Jews is.
Remember that, you warped Goyim!