Footballer and ‘rapper’ find out whose lives really matter

Tom Pope (above left) scoring for Port Vale against Manchester City in January 2020

Footballer Tom Pope has been banned for six matches by the Football Association – not for any offence committed on the field, nor for misuse of drugs, nor for anything remotely criminal.

His offence was to post something deemed ‘anti-semitic’ on Twitter.

Readers should understand that Tom Pope is not one of the multi-millionaire class of Premier League footballers. He has made his career at humbler levels of the English game, with 274 appearances for his present club Port Vale, in League Two – the old Fourth Division – scoring 90 goals and three times voted Port Vale’s Player of the Year.

Tom Pope is a long way from being a ‘famous’ footballer, but he has a cult following within a tiny subculture of the game – mainly among Port Vale fans, who are not numerous.

In January this year Tom Pope scored in one of Port Vale’s few ‘glamorous’ matches, an FA Cup tie against England’s wealthiest club Manchester City, who predictably won 4-1.

A jocular Twitter exchange after the match led one fan to ask him to “predict the World War III result”, to which Pope replied: “We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds (sic) are crowned champions of every bank on the planet.”

Tom Pope’s offending ‘tweet’ for which he has now been fined and banned by the English Football Association.

The circumstances (and the typing error) showed that this was semi-jocular banter rather than premeditated ‘anti-semitism’, and indeed nothing about Jews or Judaism was mentioned.

However the thought police were soon on the case. This week an FA disciplinary panel convicted Pope of an “aggravated breach” of FA Rule E3 – “bringing the game into disrepute”.

One “aggravating” factor was that Pope had failed to accept that his post was “anti-semitic”. In his defence he had told the panel that he had watched hundreds of videos about 9/11. “He explained that he found the videos convincing in predicting the invasions of four countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. He believed, based on those videos, that the Rothschild banking business had funded the invasions of those eight countries so as to be able to take over their banks.”

Though the FA has never claimed that Pope held “anti-semitic beliefs”, its judgment argued that “the ordinary reasonable person knows very well that the Rothschild family have been used for centuries as a synecdoche for the Jewish people – maligning the family in discourse in order to malign all Jewish people.”

They added: “It is of particular concern that even now Mr Pope does not acknowledge the antisemitic message that is conveyed by the Statement. It is also of concern that he has not seriously questioned the conspiracy theories that he has allowed to inform his views.”

Consequently in addition to his six-game ban Pope was fined £3,500 and ordered to complete an “education course” – i.e. at the age of almost 35 he is being forced to undergo a brainwashing course in establishment definitions of ‘antisemitism’.

In a now-deleted ‘tweet’, Jeremy Corbyn thanked ‘Wiley’ for supporting Labour during last year’s election campaign.

Also in the news this week for Twitter ‘anti-semitism’ is the rapper known as Wiley (real name Richard Cowie), whose art will be little-known to H&D readers but who is “considered a key figure in London’s grime music scene”.

This acclaimed “Godfather of Grime” was awarded an MBE for his “services to music” in 2018 – perhaps a desperate effort by Theresa May’s Conservative government to win some credibility among young urban blacks and their fellow-travellers – though he endorsed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in last year’s election.

During recent weeks ‘Wiley’ has made several posts to his now-suspended social media accounts, comparing Jews to the Ku Klux Klan (on the basis that both Jews and the KKK supposedly exploit blacks), and calling Jews “cowards” and “snakes”. So far as one can make out, his politics seem to be a version of the usual ‘victim game’, by which everyone else in the world – Europeans, Arabs and Jews included – is responsible for Africans’ misfortune.

What ‘Wiley’ fails to recognise is that in this ‘victim game’, one set of people (not blacks) will always hold the ultimate trump card. He has entered an auction that he can’t win, but where he will nevertheless have to pay.

‘Grime artist’ Wiley is in trouble for ‘antisemitism’.

Unlike Tom Pope, it seems that there is a prima facie case against ‘Wiley’ under Britain’s race laws, and police are investigating. The Zionist lobby group Campaign Against Antisemitism (who were behind the prosecution and jailing of London Forum founder Jez Turner) are petitioning the government to withdraw the rapper’s MBE, and he has been dropped by his management company.

Needless to say, even this is not enough. Leading Zionist campaigners including Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard are staging a 48-hour boycott of Twitter this week, writing: “You refuse to act against Jew hate. You enable the likes of @WileyCEO to spread their poison.” The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis also joined the Twitter boycott.

Even the Home Office and the Prime Minister’s office have joined in the kvetching, with Downing Street spokesmen saying this afternoon that social media companies must “go much further and faster in removing hateful content”.

And here of course is the real issue. While mainstream conservative parties on both sides of the Atlantic depend heavily on Facebook (in particular) to manipulate voters’ minds – including playing subtle games with racial politics – they are determined to censor anyone using social media to ask radical questions. Hence they seize on the likes of Tom Pope and ‘Wiley’, so as to justify a broader purge.

Generation Identity targeted in latest Twitter purge

The international ‘Alt Right’ group Generation Identity – which grew eight years ago out of the French Bloc Identitaire and its Scandinavian allies but now has branches in many White countries – has been targeted in the latest social media purge.

During the last 24 hours accounts belonging to several GI linked groups have been banned from Twitter, as has GI’s highest-profile leader Martin Sellner. NBC News claims that around fifty accounts have been removed following a hostile report by an ‘anti-racist’ group.

So far Mr Sellner’s American wife Brittany (née Pettibone) has escaped the purge, but is likely to be caught in a further wave of expulsions from Twitter during the next few days.

GI leader Martin Sellner and his wife Brittany Pettibone

Defenders of European values – ranging from the ‘non-racist’ ‘Alt Lite’, through varying shades of civic nationalist, identitarian, Islam-obsessed, racially conscious and fully racial nationalist – have been removed from social media channels (notably YouTube, Twitter and most recently Facebook) at different stages during the past year.

(Generation Identity was analysed in H&D Issue 83 by Tony Paulsen.)

TERMINATED: Lowles leaves Hope not Hate

The CIA’s favourite anti-fascist, Ruth Smeeth lost her seat at the General Election in December. Could she fill Nick Lowles’ editorial chair at Hope not Hate?

Earlier today one of Britain’s most infamous ‘anti-fascists’ mysteriously quit as a director of the organisation he founded. According to documents filed at Companies House a few hours ago, Nick Lowles is no longer a director of Hope not Hate.

This adds to the mystery of Matthew Collins’ disappearance. Collins, once proudly described as HnH’s ‘head of intelligence’ but whose greatest exploit was to have poisoned the fish in a school fish tank some years ago, has not been heard of since before Christmas.

Is this a Griffin-style fallout over money; is at about jobs for the boys – or bearing in mind the recent election result in Stoke North, is it about jobs for the girls?

Watch this space for further news from the ferrets-in-a-sack world of ‘anti-fascism’.

Good news from the courts!

Long delayed justice was achieved yesterday for Lawrence Burns, who had been imprisoned since January for the ‘crime’ of attending last November’s National Front’s Remembrance Day march to the cenotaph in memory of Britain’s war dead. (This is misleadingly described by a local Cambridge journalist as a “National Front rally”.)

This was deemed a punishable offence because Mr Burns was under a ‘Criminal Behaviour Order’ (CBO), despite having been released at the end of an earlier prison sentence.

A CBO means that one is obliged to notify the authorities before attending even a perfectly lawful and respectable political event.

The good news is that after representations by Mr Burns’s barrister Adrian Davies, Judge Jonathan Cooper at Cambridge Crown Court agreed yesterday to impose a sentence that means in practice Mr Burns will be immediately released from Peterborough prison.

A further report on this case will be published by H&D soon.

Corbyn in trouble again – media discovers Edwardian “anti-semite”

The reissue of J.A. Hobson’s classic book Imperialism, with a Foreword by Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is again in trouble with Anglo-Jewry, after prominent Jewish journalist and Tory Lord Finkelstein (formerly Daniel Finkelstein) wrote an article for The Times this morning denouncing the Labour leader for having written a Foreword eight years ago to a book originally published in 1902!

This was the classic tome Imperialism by J.A. Hobson, well known to all serious students of British politics but apparently new to many Fleet Street scribblers.

Hobson was among the most prominent critics of the British Empire’s war in South Africa – the Boer War – in which among other outrages the British Empire pioneered the use of concentration camps to intern Boer civilians.

In the build-up to the war prominent Jewish financiers plotted with the gentile and Rothschild ally Cecil Rhodes to stage a “false flag” incident known to history as the Jameson Raid. This conspiracy failed, but it was not long before some of the same characters had successfully provoked a brutal war. There were almost 50,000 civilian casualties, including more than 26,000 Boer civilian women and children killed in British concentration camps.

Alfred Beit, one of the Jewish tycoons who plotted the Jameson Raid

Before, during and after the conflict, several leading opponents of the war – ranging from Marxists to Labour Party founders to Liberals – explicitly denounced what they saw as the Jewish influence in provoking and sustaining the conflict.

British Marxist (and first-class cricketer) Henry Hyndman attacked Jewish newspaper owners as “poisoners of the wells of public information”; he went on to condemn “this shameful attempt of a sordid capitalism to drag us into a policy of conquest in tropical regions which can benefit no living Englishman in the long run, though it may swell the overgrown fortunes of the meanest creatures on the earth”.

After the failure of the Jameson Raid, Liberal MP and journalist Henry Labouchère wrote of the plotters arrested by Boer leaders: “Many of the prisoners bear English names but are nonetheless mostly of foreign Hebrew origin, the kind of people frequently having a penchant to Anglicise their names”.

British Marxist and anti-war activist H.M. Hyndman

Socialist journalist Harry Quelch (later a friend of Lenin) wrote: “The Jew financier is the personfication of that gold international which today dominates the government and the jingo press of all countries.” Quelch later added: “We have denounced this as a Jew-Capitalist war, and seeing the prominent part Jew-capitalists have taken in the Johannesburg agitation, and seeing their intimate relations with Cabinet ministers here at home and the vituperative fury of their organs in the press, we consider the terms fully justified.”

In September 1899 the radical editor of Reynolds’s Newsapaper, W.M. Thompson, wrote: “The Transvaal policy of the present government is undoubtedly controlled by Jews so that England too is passing under the dominion of the foreigners from the East.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie concluded in 1900: “Modern imperialism is really run by half a dozen financial houses, many of them Jewish, to whom politics is a counter in the game of buying and selling securities.”

Even David Lloyd George (who as Prime Minister seventeen years later was to preside over the first official British backing for a Zionist homeland in Palestine) denounced the Tory government’s Boer War policies, sarcastically noting that “all our righteousness, all our hatred of wrongs was reserved for a community of Jews six thousand miles away in Johannesburg who ran away when the fighting came for their own cause.”

Labour Party founder Keir Hardie was among the many pioneer socialists who took an anti-Jewish line

One of the most explicitly “anti-semitic” interventions by an opponent of the war was a speech by trade unionist and MP John Burns in February 1900. Burns told the House of Commons: “Wherever we examine, there is the financial Jew, operating, directing, inspiring the agonies that have led to this war. …The trail of the financial serpent is over this war from beginning to end.”

Partly inspired by Burns, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution at its conference in September 1900 opposing the Boer War as having been waged “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews most of whom had no patriotism and no country”.

So the author at the centre of the latest Corbyn controversy – J.A. Hobson – was by no means out of line with the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of Boer War opponents. He had first been sent to South Africa to report on the brewing conflict by the liberal Manchester Guardian in 1899, and a year later his Guardian journalism was collected into a book. Writing to Guardian proprietor and editor C.P. Scott, Hobson described how he had begun to perceive the Jewish role in South African events: “Many of these men have taken English names, and the extent of the Jew power is thus concealed. I am not exaggerating one whit. I think I can prove it.”

J.A. Hobson

Hobson continued in his letter to Scott (whose family trust still owns today’s Guardian newspaper): “They fastened on the Rand …as they are prepared to fasten upon any other spot on the globe in order to exploit it for the attainment of huge profits and quick return. This small confederacy of international financiers …chiefly foreign Jews, are the economic rulers of South Africa.”

Unlike those who have so keenly jumped on the bandwagon to atack Corbyn for publishing a Foreword praising the “anti-semite” Hobson, H&D actually knows a bit about British imperial history, including the Boer War. The question should not be whether Corbyn, Hobson and others are anti-Jewish. The question should be: are they telling the truth?

Nationalists banned from Facebook

The following is a statement by long-standing nationalist activist Richard Edmonds, taken from from the National Front web-site:

Richard Edmonds – a Directorate member of the National Front, a party now banned from Facebook

The private company that manages the social-media site Facebook, has just announced that the National Front and its chairman, Tony Martin, together with a number of other nationalist spokespersons and nationalist organisations, BNP, etc. have been banned from the social-media platform.

The pretext given by Facebook is that the Nationalists named and their organisations have spread “hatred”, and have proclaimed “a violent and hateful mission.” This is all lies. It has always been a criminal offence to incite violence and for the last forty years, ever since the Race Act, it has been a criminal offence to promote racial hatred. If any of the individuals named were guilty of either offence then they would have been charged by the judicial authorities, which is not the case. And if any of the nationalist organisations, NF, BNP, etc, had been found to promote violence then they would have been closed down as was National Action, But none of the organisations named by Facebook have been closed down by the Authorities.

Tony Martin (right) – the NF Chairman now banned from Facebook – at a recent event with former chairman Andrew Brons (centre) and present deputy chairman Jordan Pont (left),

This action by the private company which owns and manages Facebook, and which has a near monopoly of the social-media, represents a tyranny answerable to nobody. The older ones of us can remember a time when we were told that Britain fought two world wars to guarantee Freedom of Speech. Not any more.

But friends, take heart. This banning is a form of back-handed compliment. Clearly it is recognised that Nationalists and only Nationalists are the true and only opposition to Mass-immigration and to the multi-criminal nightmare-society being forced onto us.

H&D comments:

Apart from the NF and BNP, Facebook have also banned (yet again) former BNP leader Nick Griffin, and his former young friend Paul Golding (now leader of the tiny Britain First group), and Paul’s former girlfriend/deputy leader Jayda Fransen; Paul Ray, a founder member of the a nut-group called Knights Templar International; former fundraiser for the BNP and Britain First Jim Dowson; Jack Renshaw, a former BNP Youth leader, who was linked to the proscribed NS Youth organisation National Action (although how young Jack can get onto Facebook to chat to his young friends from solitary confinement in HMP Belmarsh is not known!) and last but surely not least former BNP member and EDL leader Steven Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

Nick Griffin modelling Knight Templar merchandise – both Griffin and the Knights Templar have now been banned from Facebook, whose policies mirror Griffin’s own attempts to silence racial nationalists more than a decade ago.

All very sad – right? But why on earth should this come as a shock to nationalists? Facebook is well and truly part (and a big part at that) of the liberal, multi-racial liberal establishment, who are our enemies, they are against everything we stand for and hold dear, so why would they give us a platform on THEIR social-media?

Although most nationalists will probably not agree with us now, these bans may be a good thing – in the long term anyway – if they get our young (and not so young) would-be activists away from their bedrooms and their computers, laptops and smart phones, where they spend so much time on social-media, talking to people who all agree with them anyway, and back onto the streets to do some real political work. Work rebuilding the former nationalist strongholds on the council estates of Burnley, Blackburn, Stoke, Sandwell, Essex and many others, which Griffin and co destroyed ten years ago.

One last interesting point regarding Facebook’s statement of the bans on British nationalists – and I quote:
“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence. The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram. Posts and other content which expresses praise or support for these figures and groups will also be banned. Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our community standards.”

If this is the case, then why has Facebook not banned the pages of Sinn Fein – the political wing of the terrorist IRA? Or the Irish Republican Socialist Party – the political wing of the terrorist INLA who murdered Tory MP Airey Neave amongst many others; the 32 County Sovereignty Movement – the political wing of the terrorist group Real IRA – and dozens of other Irish Republican/Marxist hate groups?

Members of the Real IRA – whose political front the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not banned from Facebook

Why indeed, we may well ask. These are real hate groups – groups who hate everything British and English. Groups who hate with a passion our Ulster-Scots cousins and have carried out a murderous campaign against them and us since the late 1960s. These are hate groups who still carry out real acts of violence (as was seen in Londonderry yesterday).

Yet just like with the many hateful Wahhabi Muslim / Jihadist pages that Facebook lets continue without any problem, they refuse to ban any of these Irish Republican terror groups. It makes you think, don’t it.

Farage party leader quits over ‘racism’ – despite being married to a Jamaican!

Catherine Blaiklock, who resigned today as nominal leader of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party

The latest weird development in post-UKIP politics involves Catherine Blaiklock, a former UKIP economic spokesman who is the official registered leader of the ‘Brexit Party’.

It has been widely assumed that this party was created as a vehicle for Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics, following Mr Farage’s resignation from UKIP and on the assumption that he might need a party of his own to contest European Parliamentary elections in the event of Brexit being postponed or cancelled.

In common with UKIP and its various splinter groups, Farage has always insisted that former BNP activists and other ‘racists’ would always be excluded from his movement.

Assisting this ‘anti-racist’ agenda, it was helpful that Ms Blaiklock was herself married to a black Jamaican, and had previously been married to a Nepalese Sherpa!

Mark Collett speaking at the 2017 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston

Yet today Ms Blaiklock has been forced to resign for ‘racism’. Her crime seems to have been to retweet messages by former BNP activist Mark Collett, who was a speaker at H&D‘s John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in 2017.

What will be the next fake outrage? Have we really reached the stage where it is unacceptable for anyone in mainstream politics to address racial issues? If so then mainstream politicians are in for a few surprises.

Simon Sheppard jailed for nine months in latest ‘opinion crime’

Simon Sheppard (right!), author, publisher and Yorkshireman, whose principled defiance of the race relations industry led to his imprisonment after a notorious extradition from the USA.

Yorkshire-based author Simon Sheppard was jailed yesterday for the latest in a series of ‘opinion crimes’.

A judge at York Crown Court sentenced Mr Sheppard to nine months imprisonment after a jury convicted him of using “racially aggravated words” to a Sky engineer fitting a satellite dish to the next door flat in Selby, North Yorkshire.

The words were not aimed at the engineer, but referred to Mr Sheppard’s complaints against his black neighbour. The jury acquitted Mr Sheppard of waging what the prosecution had called “a two-year racial harassment campaign”.

Mr Sheppard is perhaps best known for his attempt in 2008 to claim political asylum in the USA after an earlier conviction under Britain’s infamous race laws. Neither that nor this week’s conviction would have amounted to criminal offences in the USA, where Mr Sheppard’s alleged ‘criminal’ conduct would be covered by the Constitution’s protection of free speech.

 

UPDATE: Alison Chabloz given suspended sentence for “grossly offensive” YouTube videos

Alison Chabloz

Folk singer and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted this morning at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three charges relating to “grossly offensive” material on YouTube.

Judge John Zani found Ms Chabloz guilty of what he termed “serious” offences under the Communications Act 2003: he will pass sentence on June 14th after receiving probation reports. The maximum potential sentence is six months imprisonment on each charge.

Click here to read a more detailed report, analysing Judge Zani’s ruling and his dangerous failure to respond to the important issues raised in defence evidence from H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

14th June update: Ms Chabloz has been given a 20-week suspended prison sentence, combined with 180 hours community service and a 20-day “rehabilitation programme”. She has also been banned from posting to social media. The Campaign Against Antisemitism which brought the original private prosecution said in their statement following the sentencing hearing this morning:

“The case effectively delivers a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

In his personal statement, Gideon Falter of CAA repeated his earlier assertion that the verdict amounts to the outlawing of revisionism:
“This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

As explained in our detailed report, it is by no means clear whether Judge Zani’s verdict does criminalise ‘Holocaust denial’ per se, or only particular forms of such denial which are deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.

Do we now have a Holocaust Denial law? Confusion reigns after Chabloz ruling

Jewish boxer confronts free speech defender outside Chabloz trial

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism.  It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges.  The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.  H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators.  As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood.  Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

Elie Wiesel (left) pro-Israel propagandist and High Priest of Holocaustianity, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

Columnist Christopher Hitchens dismissed Elie Wiesel in grossly offensive terms: Judge Zani refused to explain when and how such attacks become criminalised

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt.  Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

Holocaust fantasist Irene Zisblatt: the latest court judgment implies we must treat her lies with respect.

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.”  As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny.  As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs.  It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Gideon Falter (third from right) with colleagues from CAA and other Jewish organisations including Shomrim, meeting the Police & Crime Commissioner of Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case?  In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial.  This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.”  Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews.  Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago.  Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of.  Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

CAA Patron Sir Eric Pickles, seen here with Prime Minister Theresa May, called within hours of the Chabloz judgment for a new law criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

Pickles, honorary patron of the CAA, told the BBC’s Martin Bashir that although he had previously opposed such a law, the Chabloz case had convinced him that there should be longer sentences for ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade.  A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof.  Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”.  The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Watch this space…

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter