As the old saying goes, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Tony Greenstein is something of a loose canon when it comes to talking about Jewish-ness and Zionism. Hated by my accusers, Greenstein’s petition to have Campaign Against Antisemitism investigated by the Charity Commission was quite a coup, although Greenstein himself was expelled from the Labour Party for – wait for it – “anti-Semitism”.
Greenstein’s latest post condemns my conviction on grounds of wishing to protect freedom of speech, at the same time covering his own back with the old obligatory mental health smear. The first of two notable quotations:
In my view Chabloz should not have been convicted. I also take the view of Raul Hilberg the most distinguished of all Holocaust historians that even holocaust deniers make us question our knowledge of the Holocaust.
Before detailing my recent experience of Jewish Chronicle (JC) editor Stephen Pollard’s refusal to grant my Subject Access Request (SAR), I would briefly like to return to last June and the day of my sentencing at Westminster Magistrates Court.
When I was called once more to the dock, I immediately recognised solicitor Mark Lewis, seated next to both my accusers from Campaign Against Antisemitism. I was able to quickly alert my barrister, Adrian Davies, that Lewis had sent me several death threats on Twitter, a fact which Mr Davies revealed during mitigation that same day.
During my second visit with the Probation Service in August, I produced screenshots of Lewis’ tweets along with several other examples of abuse sent to me on Twitter, abuse that is still ongoing today despite the obvious fact that I am unable to respond directly owing to my 12-month ban from social media. Shortly after my meeting with probation, Lewis’ prosecution by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority was quietly announced by the media.
With dates of my appeal against conviction and sentence fast approaching, I have recently submitted several Subject Access Requests (SAR) in accordance with the new GDPR and Data Protection Act. Results so far have been revealing. Let’s start with my SAR to the Edinburgh Fringe. The screenshots below are selected from an 89-page SAR concerning my 2015 EdFringe show Autumn’s Here. My annotations in red:
For the fifth time in 12 months, I walked free from court again yesterday – this time in a breach trial brought against me by the National Probation Service (NPS) for refusing to comply with the slave labour part of my Suspended Sentence Order.
First off, a brief explanation is necessary regards the difference between a Community Order (CO) and a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). As one District Judge commented in a research paper published in 2008:
‘Well, prison is an ever-present part of one isn’t it [the SSO], but not of the other, and that’s the difference in a nutshell. There’s a real threat. As I see it, a Community Order is – look, we’re trying to help you – and anything to do with imprisonment is – look, we’re trying to threaten you.’
Mainstream coverage of social media “offences” is highly dependent on who is the “offender” and who is the “victim”. Certain “racially-motivated” offences are hardly mentioned, whereas others earn swathes of column space and even prime-time TV coverage. Councillors and even members of the aristocracy are not spared the glare of negative publicity and my own case has generated plenty of interest. But for some reason, yesterday’s announcement by the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority that media lawyer Mark Lewis is to be prosecuted in a disciplinary court has not been mentioned by any mainstream sources at all. *
In a statement made following yesterday’s news, Lewis said:
It is a matter of great principle that one can respond robustly to intimidating racist death threats.
After briefly following me ca. 2011/2012 on Twitter, Lewis then blocked me; thereafter unblocking me to engage in what can only be described as abusive (on his part) spats.
Lewis’ robust responses culminated in his presence in court, seated next to my CAA accusers last June for sentencing, no doubt in the hope that I would be led down to the cells and then to prison.
So, let’s take a look at some of the history which led to this week’s turning of the tables.
Suzanne she goes down
Once more to Ealing cop shop
She makes an umpteenth statement
Falsely claiming she’s a victim
And we know that she’s half crazy
That her strings are pulled in Barnet
And the lies are fed from Finchley
Oh but she’s too blind to see it
Yet Suzanne does her duty
Carries out her orders
Just keeps on spreading nonsense
In the hope somebody answers
With angry words and menace
And again she runs for cover
Begging Mr Plod to nick me
But he only shakes his helmet
As she stands there
Playing victim with her lies…
(Sincere apologies to fans of Leonard Cohen – RIP).
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of “anti-Semitism” isn’t working. Firstly, the term “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer: “Semitic” defines a group of Middle Eastern languages including Arabic and Hebrew. Jewishness is neither an ethnicity, nor a religion. It is simply a mindset. Those whose mindset betrays adherence to the cult of Jewishness i.e. those Jews and non-Jews who consider “Jews” to be a race, are often the ones crying wolf when it comes to allegations of “anti-Semitism”.