Her new song, ‘Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine‘ –   or here.

On January 10th, British minstrel Alison Chabloz attended trial (Marylebone Magistrate’s Court), charged by the Crown Prosecution Service. At stake here is the future of British satire. 

The police have already held her in custody for two days and two nights. 

She is incredibly courageous on this matter, not backing down. 

Singing a song is not and cannot be a crime.

This will be one of those daft modern trials where somebody alleges their feeling have been hurt. 

The person(s) alleging this is/are the prosecution!

Do get a copy of her ‘Songs of the Shoah.’ 

At stake here, is the question of whether God’s Chosen People have the right to summon a British court just to whine about their allegedly hurt feelings. 

At stake here, is whether this Court can remember and apply the meaning of the word ‘crime’ which primarily means the causing of unacceptable harm or loss to another. The more the Law is prepared to accept victimless crimes, the more disrespect it will bring upon itself.

Alison: ‘As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.’

 Section 127 of the Communications Act is designed primarily to limit what commercial companies can get up to. I suggest it is not relevant to somebody singing a song. See https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127 

But NB, The Director of Public Prosecutions‘ ‘interim guidelines’ (December 2012) for social media prosecutions include the use of Section 127. These attempt to limit the usage of Section 127, to cases which go beyond those which are “offensive, shocking or disturbing; or satirical, iconoclastic or rude; or the expression of unpopular; or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it”.[1]

‘Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016′: Breitbart  http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/10/14/british-police-arrest-at-least-3395-people-for-offensive-online-comments-one-year/.

NB  ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ commented on Alison’s song ‘Survivors: “I have watched the video below at least ten times, each time with mounting admiration. I have no hesitation in pronouncing this a work of satirical genius” The video itself has been deleted, of course. But no wait, here is is!

For earlier comments see here.

the trial – Day One

34 year old Gideon Falter in the dock, grilled by Alison’s excellent lawyer Davis. Her songs ‘spread anti-semitic hatred’ averred Falter. His CAAS had ten or twenty ongoing prosecutions it was currently involved in. Only 21 ‘anti-semitic hatecrimes’ were prosecuted last year and that was not enough he said. The Court spent all the afternoon in analysing two of Alison’s songs, ‘(((Survivors)))’ and ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe.’ The first was satirising Irene Zisblatt the ‘Aushwitz-Survivor’ who kept swallowing her diamonds while in the camp. Lawyer Davis pnted out that her book was widely viewed as fraudulent, even on the Yad Vashem website, Falter said he had not read it: Falter admitted he was no historian just a lawyer.  

Throughout all this cut-and-parry there was no hint of anything resembling a crime. Other people in the visitor’s room agreed with me on this. The discussion moved onto Anne Frank’s diary. The judge stated that we accept that Alison’s songs were ‘offensive’ but maybe not ‘grossly offensive’? That was about his only contribution to the afternoon!  Davis alluded to ambiguity of the Crown’s case, and how it was not the Court’s business to determine if the ‘Holocaust’ happened. Has AC done something wrong by ridiculing people like Elie Wiesel, and if so given he is no longer alive, who is offended? Davis asked. 

We’ve heard a lot of the ‘personal emotional reaction’ of the witness (Falter) but this was ‘entirely irrelevant’ Davis stated.  Davis explained how AC’s fervent pro-Palestinian sentiment in her songs was fairly standard Arab nationalist rhetoric. In that case why was Falter ‘determined to silence her?’ Otto Frank (Anne Frank’s father) died in 1980 and so was in no position to be offended, he pointed out.   

Next Mr Silverman was called in, the CAAS ‘Director of Investigation and Enforcement’ He was more skilled in using the mighty incantations ‘Auschwitz’ and ‘Holocaust’ and thereby seemed to reduce Defence Lawyer Davis to a rather supine condition, of having hardly any questions. But, Davis did at least bring out that the online pro-Israel blogger ‘Nemo’ had threatened Alison, ‘Even if you are acquitted, we will still go after you’ on her website.

It is clear that Alison has not harassed or intimidated anyone, nor has she sought to ‘communicate’ anti-semitic propaganda (whatever that might be) because to watch a video you have to click it to play – nothing will happen until you do that. Whereas she has been severely harassed, intimidated and bullied by persons associated with the CAAS.

Alison’s lawyer has a mild, low-key approach which might just work – we’ll find out on March 9th.   

Usually complaints about Youtube are dealt with by them , and they will remove offensive material. Thus (((Survivors))  is no longer viewable on Youtube, nor is ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe.’ Its hard to see what the offense is here supposed to be. No-one is obliged to view what they don’t want to.



A shrewd view of the trial by A.L. who was there with me: 

For those who were unable to attend Alison Chabloz trail held at Marylebone Magistrates Court 10/1/2018, it was a case of watching a Tax Exempt NGO organisation with links to the Police, Home office and CIA take umbridge on behalf of DEAD PEOPLE.

This young man of 34yrs Mr Gideon Falter who’s chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, has a law degree and the organisation he represents decided to take Alison Chabloz to court. He admitted that his organisation trawl through twitter and youtube to find individuals to prosecute for anti-semitism.  When cross-examined this guy displayed incredible arrogance and had not even read the book from a dead person that was cited in his 1-5 complaints. 

Giddeon Falter gets a lot of air time via news channels, which permit him to state his mantra of CENSORSHIP and CONTROL. If you go on youtube he comes up quite often as a fame hungry desperado. Will he be in next years Celebrity Big Brother?
He told the Court that he felt “Sadistically wounded” by Alison’s song. Now since when has that phrase been used to describe a crime?
Another phrase he used often was “My Understanding is……………..”-used 4-5 times under cross examination. Everything you do must be passed through the GIDDEON FALTER filter otherwise you are offending him by your sarcasm it seems.
My wider question is should an organisation registered as a Charity be taking out private prosecution orders? Has anyone seen their payments in and out via the Charity Commission in which they have to register?

This guy and his organisation need further investigation as he claimed that he has a lot of clout and regularly sits on police panels and advises government bodies. That sounds like undue influence from an organisation that doesn’t pay taxes.

Social networks must cooperate in the fight against antisemitism: Gideon Falter on Sky News