The Subject Access Request dealt with by Edinburgh Fringe was the first and, to date, the most helpful of all SARs submitted. The 2016 EdFringe SAR contains much the same sort of complaints made against me as in 2015. Revealingly, even EdFringe staff admit that one particular Twitter account, RTingBot, is focused on me and is attempting to get me prosecuted.
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.
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”.
During the years I spent teaching in Swiss secondary schools, in-training days were often orientated towards how to motivate a class of musically mixed-ability teenagers to sing together tunefully and with conviction. One of these training days I remember in particular, given by a male colleague who, during a football World Cup championship, had filmed all the participating teams singing their respective national anthems. The lesson was clear: more often than not, teams who sang with passion and heartfelt conviction went on to gain satisfactory results.
International sporting events have long been one of the subtle ways by which Globalists have been able to implement their agenda of mass non-white immigration into European countries. Most noticeable in football, cricket and athletics, multiracial “national” teams have in recent decades become increasingly present on track, field and pitch. Can a cricketer, for example of Pakistani origin born in England, truly harbour the same patriotism for his adoptive country than an Englishman born and bred in England whose northern European genetic makeup is an integral part of his origin and identity?
Sporting professionals who happen to be British citizens born of foreign parents have the choice whether they compete for Britain or for the country from which their parents originated. Is this fair? Does this not raise questions of possible conspiracy? Would this be one reason why English national teams in so many disciplines tend to produce disappointing results?
By Robert Faurisson.
On January 16 of this year Henry Herskovitz spoke out against the persecution by Jewish organisations of the Briton Alison Chabloz and the Canadian Monika Schaefer (the latter has now been imprisoned in Germany for nearly 200 days). Both women had expressed, particularly in videos posted on the internet, their revisionist convictions.
H. Herskovitz is a retired engineer living in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was a friend of the late Ernst Zündel. He is Jewish, a revisionist and has long been active against both the policies of the State of Israel and international Zionism; he defends the Palestinian cause.
Six months ago he was able to read aloud the text of his statement in support of the two brave female revisionists before Ann Arbor city council (see the video above running 3 m. 47 s.).
Today the names of the Englishwoman Michèle Renouf, the grand German lady Ursula Haverbeck, the Frenchwoman Maria Poumier and several other representatives of the allegedly “weaker” sex are associated with theirs.
Click here to view original article which includes video footage of Mr Herskovitz’ speech.
First off, thank you for all the wonderful messages of support and for the donations. My apologies for not yet having replied individually to everyone – I have spent the past week answering emails and have still not managed to clear my inbox. If I may ask those waiting for a reply to exercise a little patience, I will do my best to respond as soon as time permits.
Two nights ago, I watched a BBC Newsnight report on an exhibition about censorship of music in Stalin’s Soviet Union, currently doing the rounds in Tel Aviv(!) before coming to London. Stalin banned all genres of music which he found ‘un-Soviet like’ – not just rock ‘n’ roll, but also traditional Russian folk tunes. Dissidents found a way to record songs on x-ray film: the exhibition features these medical scans of human bones, engraved with ‘Rock Around the Clock’ and other classics. But for me the most interesting part of the BBC report concerned a Haifa-based Palestinian Arab musician, Jowan Safadi, arrested and charged for incitement because of a song performed at a music festival in 2010.
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)