During my three-day appeal last February, the prosecution’s main argument regards the facts – i.e are my songs “grossly offensive” under S. 127 of the 2003 Communications Act – relied on Judge Charles Gray’s 2000 ruling in the Irving vs Lipstadt case. According to both James Mulholland QC and Judge Chris Hehir, Judge Gray’s ruling provided the appropriate benchmark by which to (a) define “Holocaust denial” and (b) prove that the Holocaust happened according to the standard narrative (six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers as part of a pre-planned mass-extermination of Jews by the Nazis).
In response to the court’s decision to uphold my appeal, I wish to cite a passage from the end of Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust – A New Look At Both Sides that deals with Cambridge historian Richard Evans’s 2001 book Lying About Hitler. Evans acted as Lipstadt’s expert witness; his book describes his impressions of the case.
Dalton’s scathing treatment of Evans’s chapter on the Irving vs Lipstadt trial raises serious concerns not only regards Evans’s intellectual capabilities; Dalton’s appraisal also calls into question Judge Gray’s ruling and its consequences for further revisionist witch trials here in England. The passage comes at the very end of the book, in the Epilogue, on pages 293 to 294.
Dalton’s work is highly recommended reading. It can be found here where you can also download a free PDF “peek” preview. Here’s the relevant passage:
6. The anti-revisionist response is highly revealing
Since the year 2000, there have been only a few attempts by orthodox historians to respond directly to revisionist challenges. […]
Today, I watched Vincent Lapierre’s EetR report on last week’s hearing at the court of appeal in Paris where patriot and author, Hervé Ryssen, stated his case against a 17-month prison sentence demanded by the state procurator and usual anti-racist [sic] busybody organisations (LICRA, SOS Racisme, Jewish Students Union, etc.)
Over the past few days, seven opinion pieces have been published by lamestream media. With the possible exception of Spiked’s Fraser Myers, all are penned by Jews, with two written by Gideon Falter, chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), the man who originally brought the private criminal prosecution against me which led to last week’s guilty verdict for causing offence by uploading songs to my Tell Me More Lies blog and to YouTube.
My YouTube channel is now no longer available in the UK – presumably the same applies in other European ‘free, democratic’ states. I’m told that a well-meaning message appears when trying to access my videos: ‘This channel is no longer available, you can unsubscribe here’.
Ah well. I guess I should consider myself lucky that my channel does at least still exist everywhere else – unlike Richie Allen’s.
My critics are certainly spending vast amounts of time, energy and money trying to silence me.
But not all of them!
Above: the famous Schwarzbadturm, Nordpier mit Sonnenrad
Looking back over the past 12 months, it’s hard to describe my year as being anything other than eventful. Thank you to all my followers, readers and donors – your support has enabled me to continue the fight and remain strong in the face of ever-increasing adversity.
In the past, – asides those contracts on cruise ships where I entertained live audiences daily – my musical performances were more often than not part of some folk gathering or open mic session. Of course, most artists desire a live audience and such events were always enjoyable, giving me the opportunity to meet other musicians playing the local circuit in the North West and Derbyshire.
There’s no denying that I sometimes feel great sadness about having lost this part of my life. Many of those closest to me now are understandably concerned for my safety and believe that appearing at open mics elsewhere is simply not worth the risk.
Continuing from my previous post, as well as from the main topic of my recent videos, i.e. YouTube censorship, I feel it is necessary at this point to dwell somewhat on the double standards imposed by certain countries regards freedom of expression, especially when it comes to one particular historical event, namely, the ‘Holocaust’.
According to Wikipedia, 22 nations have laws which forbid either explicit denial of the ‘Holocaust’ or else denial of genocides in general. Although the list in part mirrors YouTube’s censored list, there are several notable exceptions: Russia, Spain, Portugal, Liechtenstein and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why are these nations resistant to YouTube’s legal complaints? And how come Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia and the United Kingdom figure on the list when these countries do not have any anti-revisionist laws?