Chabloz succeeds in criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

‘Sophie Johnson’ and Alison Chabloz – Hope not Hate informants – celebrating the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’ this week.

Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

This week Judge Christopher Hehir, sitting alongside magistrate Mena Rego (a Kenyan Asian immigrant and Roman Catholic school governor), reimposed exactly the same sentence as Judge Zani had passed last year: a 20-week suspended prison sentence, plus 180 hours of unpaid “community service”, plus a 12 month ban from social media.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

That’s because the earlier court judgment could not set a precedent: it applied only to Ms Chabloz’s particular case. Richard Edmonds warned in an article for the Heritage & Destiny website published on January 2nd – ‘Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door’. Mr Edmonds’ warning has been fully vindicated this week.

He wrote:
“This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Dr James Thring commemorating the Dresden Holocaust.

Mr Edmonds (and H&D) were severely criticised for these observations. Ms Chabloz’s right-hand-woman – a Hungarian lady who uses the name ‘Sophie Johnson’ – sent Mr Edmonds an impertinent email calling him a “dotard” who had produced “stupid burblings” and “ugly bile”.

Yet the outcome this week has been precisely as Mr Edmonds warned.

Within hours of the verdict Zionist lobbyist Gideon Falter, a law graduate who founded the Campaign Against Antisemitism which began the case against Ms Chabloz, issued a triumphant statement:
“The decision sets a new precedent in British law. The case effectively delivered 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.”

For more than thirty years, Jewish lobby groups have been frustrated that the UK has stood apart from a general European trend towards criminalising ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, which they like to term ‘Holocaust denial’. In one form or another, most European countries outlaw the expression or publication of views which dare to question the established historical orthodoxy: that six million Jews were killed, mostly in homicidal gas chambers and mostly in concentration camps, during the Second World War, on the orders of Adolf Hitler and other senior figures in Germany’s National Socialist government.

Professor Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter were targetted by London’s Jewish lobbyists in 1991.

In November 1991 for example – as revealed last month by H&D – a British government document prepared for then Prime Minister John Major in advance of a confidential meeting with leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated that Anglo-Jewish leaders were wishing to prevent a visit to London by leading revisionists Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The document added:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

Fred Leuchter was duly arrested and deported from the UK, but there was no legal means of excluding Prof. Faurisson (a dual French-British citizen), and despite continual lobbying there has never been any anti-revisionist law in this country.

In 2008 there was an attempt to ban revisionism via the backdoor method of the European Arrest Warrant system. German authorities issued an EAW leading to the arrest of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, who was seized from a plane while in transit at London’s Heathrow airport and locked up in Brixton prison awaiting extradition to Germany, where he would have faced imprisonment for ‘crimes’ that are not illegal in this country.

After the last-minute mobilisation of a legal team by Lady Michèle Renouf (acting on timely information from Dr David Duke) the authorities’ attempt to extradite Dr Toben was blocked. This meant it was impossible for European courts to extradite Bishop Richard Williamson or other historical revisionists living in Britain, such as the French author Vincent Reynouard.

Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins outside the City of London Magistrates’ Court during the successful action to overturn a European Arrest Warrant against Dr Fredrick Toben in 2008.

During parliamentary discussion of the European Arrest Warrant system, several well-informed members of the House of Lords had criticised European laws restricting free historical research. Israeli-funded lobbies realised it would be difficult to pass a UK version of such laws through Parliament, and that even making the attempt might cause unwelcome scrutiny of the entire Holocaust story.

Time for Plan B.

In the UK, law can be made either through Parliamentary statute or through case-law precedent. In most cases of Holocaust revisionism, it is difficult to obtain a conviction using the race laws, since they demand evidence either that the words concerned were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the relevant circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

Sometimes an element of ‘Holocaust denial’ can be bundled in with a wider set of charges against a ‘racist’ publication, as was the case in 1998 when Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted at Harrow Crown Court for editing and publishing a magazine called The Rune. But in most cases this avenue would have little chance.

Jewish activists looked instead at the Communications Act, which is the latest version of a law dating back before the Second World War, and originally intended to criminalise “grossly offensive” telephone calls. There is a technical legal question as to whether this law even applies to the internet (and in particular to YouTube), but assuming prosecutors could succeed with that technical argument, all they needed was a form of historical revisionism that could plausibly be portrayed as “grossly offensive”.

Enter Alison Chabloz, a cruise-ship singer with no background in revisionism, or any other form of historical research. (Her political activism had previously been limited to the fringes of Corbynite Labour, and even there she could hardly be described as active or at all significant.)

A couple of Chabloz’s anti-Zionist songs were posted on YouTube in 2016, attracting complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity funded by Jews who believed their community’s leadership was too ‘soft’ on their enemies. CAA pursued a private prosecution, but at this early stage it seemed possible that the case could be won. Brave lawyers agreed to take on Chabloz’s defence, despite the pittance paid by legal aid and the bad publicity they would attract.

During 2017 and 2018 Chabloz repeatedly damaged her own defence, for example by uploading an additional song (while on bail) which was both non-revisionist, or even anti-revisionist, in singing about soap, lampshades and other long-discredited aspects of the Holocaust myth; and more blatantly “grossly offensive” within the meaning of the Communications Act, since the words suggested that one should wish that Jewish children had indeed been turned into soap, lampshades, etc.

As her trial proceeded early in 2018, Chabloz launched an extraordinary tirade against her own sole defence witness Peter Rushton. After she received a light sentence at Marylebone Magistrates, she decided to escalate the case at a higher legal level. The only thing this was likely to achieve was to establish a precedent that (in certain circumstances) criminalises Holocaust denial in the UK.

And so it has turned out, much to the delight of Gidon Falter and his backers. There was even a veteran of the 43 Group on hand in the public gallery to mark the occasion. (This was a Jewish criminal gang who specialised in violent attacks on British nationalist meetings in the late 1940s.)

Notorious Jewish gangster Jack Spot was among the Jewish thugs who attacked lawful British natonalist events in the 1930s and 1940s. A veteran of the ’43 Group’ gang was present to celebrate the Zionist victory in Southwark Crown Court this week.

So where do we now stand.

The good news is that this week’s judgment is not a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. Judge Hehir and his colleague write:
“it is important to bear in mind, as Mr Davies [Chabloz’s barrister Adrian Davies] understandably stresses, that there is no crime of Holocaust denial in this jurisdiction. Material which consists of or includes Holocaust denial can only found liability under section 127 [of the Communications Act] if it is grossly offensive. No type of speech, Holocaust denial included, can be characterised as grossly offensive per se: the question of whether particular speech is grossly offensive is always fact-specific.”

Later in the judgment, it is confirmed that:
“we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.”

Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team celebrate after their partial legal victory over British historian David Irving in 2001

Here we move to the bad news. Where this week’s judgment does break new ground is in the bald statement:
“no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly though not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 – happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds, attests to it. Moreover the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg Trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”

This week’s judgment quotes the ruling in a civil rather than criminal judgment from 2001 (a libel case between British historian David Irving and his American critic Deborah Lipstadt) to the effect that:
“no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

Judge Hehir and his colleague for the first time enshrine this conclusion in a criminal judgment:
“We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged.”

The judgment will be closely analysed by lawyers in the coming weeks, and we should bear in mind that (so far) the precedent is ‘persuasive’ rather than ‘binding’. If the case proceeds further then on certain points of law a ‘binding’ precedent could be set, which would of course be even worse news!

However at first sight it seems that revisionists – even in the UK – have now been placed in one respect in an equivalent position to their German colleagues. Just as the German courts refuse even to consider revisionist arguments, a British criminal court now (for the first time) regards the “historical fact of the Holocaust” as “undoubted” – or as the German courts put it, “manifestly obvious”.

It has always been the case that revisionists (just like racial nationalists) have had to take care that their words would not be seen as likely to “incite racial hatred”.

But now the criminal bar has been substantially lowered. Revisionism no longer needs to incite hatred to be prosecutable, it can merely be “grossly offensive” – and it is accepted that anything deemed grossly offensive to Jews should be deemed by the law as grossly offensive to the general public.

The effect of the Chabloz case has therefore been to shift the goalposts considerably to the benefit of organised Jewry and International Zionism, and much to the detriment of free historical research. The only reason why any aspect of this case this has become a ‘persuasive’ legal precedent, endangering both native Britons and fugitive European revisionists, is that Ms Chabloz’s vanity (or worse) caused her to escalate the case above the level of Magistrates’ Court where it would otherwise have remained. Richard Edmonds (and the anonymous author of an article circulated in 2017 by Agence Bocage) are fully vindicated by this week’s developments.

Alison Chabloz and her chief crony ‘Sophie Johnson’, motivated by spite or perhaps something worse, acted as informants for the ‘antifascist’ organisation Hope not Hate, disrupting the final meeting addressed by the late Prof Robert Faurisson in his Shepperton birthplace last October. That disgusting betrayal already put them beyond the pale.

This week’s disaster is arguably even worse. Alison Chabloz has succeeded in criminalising revisionism (at least in certain circumstances). Those (including at one time ourselves at H&D) who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.

Robert Faurisson International Prize awarded to Ursula Haverbeck

On Friday 25th January 2019 in the historic city of Vichy, a lunch attended by sixty guests from around Europe commemorated the 90th birthday of the great scholar and brave champion of historical exactitude, Professor Robert Faurisson. That day would have been his 90th birthday.

Professor Faurisson died on 21st October last year, immediately after returning to Vichy from a conference in his birthplace of Shepperton, West London, hosted by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Western Spring.

At the Vichy luncheon, Italian tenor and veteran of the Gaza flotilla Joe Fallisi (who organised the event), together with Professor Faurisson’s right-hand man Guillaume Nichols and Lady Renouf, awarded the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize to the great German lady Ursula Haverbeck, heroine of the campaign for truth and justice.

Joe Fallisi and Lady Michèle Renouf (who together with Guillaume Nichols were the adjudicators for the 1st Robert Faurisson International Prize) present the award to Ursula Haverbeck’s Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

Frau Haverbeck, though 90 years old, is presently incarcerated in the German city of Bielefeld, serving a prison sentence of more than three years for the ‘crime’ of politely questioning historical orthodoxy.

For this reason, she was unable to travel to Vichy to collect the award in person, but was represented by her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

Speakers at the luncheon included Jerôme Bourbon, editor of the journal Rivarol. We shall later publish an edited video of the Vichy event: exiled French revisionist Vincent Reynouard has already published his video report (click here to view – in French).

Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:
“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances

Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:
“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:
“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:
“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.
“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.”

The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset”

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.”

On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards.
“Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991.

Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day.

A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that:
“The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991

Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature.

The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law.

The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Neville Nagler

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter



Political prisoner Monika Schaefer now back home in Canada

Canadian citizen and free debate champion Monika Schaefer is now back home in Canada having spent most of 2018 as a political prisoner in Germany, held under the Federal Republic’s notorious debate-denial laws.

Just a few weeks before her incarceration Monika had celebrated the 2017 Winter Solstice with friends and comrades including Lady Michèle Renouf, the late Werner Keweloh, Joe Fallisi, Guillaume Nichols, Allen Newport, Marc-Henri, and H&D Assistant Editor Peter Rushton (see video above).

Her brother Alfred remains a prisoner of the Federal Republic, but is confident that truth will prevail and that Germany and Europe will once again be free. Alfred’s 64th birthday is on January 30th. He can be contacted at his prison address:

Alfred Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Stadelheimer Str 12
81549, Munich (München)
GERMANY

Horst Mahler – 83 this month

Fellow political prisoner Horst Mahler will celebrate his 83rd birthday on January 23rd in prison in Brandenburg near Berlin. He has just had a second leg amputated. The operation went well, but it seems that everything is done to prevent a successful recovery of the patient.

Apparently one or more motion detectors were installed in Horst’s hospital room. They are connected with garish lights that start at his slightest movement. His room door must not be closed, so that he has not slept sufficiently for days due to the background noise. In addition, Horst Mahler is tied to the bed and is guarded around the clock by a prison officer.

How is an 83-year-old (on 23 January Horst becomes 83 years old), both legs amputated, supposed to flee? Complaints against the obviously purposeful sleep deprivation remained so far unsuccessful.

Horst Mahler can be contacted at his prison address:

Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg A.D. Havel,
Inhaftierter: Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
14772 Brandenburg
GERMANY

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Vincent Reynouard at one of his many court hearings

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called “Holocaust”, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning “Holocaust”-denial.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

Demonstration marks 90th birthday of political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck

On the occasion of Ursula Haverbeck’s 90th birthday, six hundred German Nationalists paraded through the North German town of Bielefeld where the brave Revisionist is currently incarcerated for the expression of her non-violent views questioning the “Holocaust”. Speakers at the concluding rally included our friends Thorsten Heise and Nikolei Nerling, the Volkslehrer.

Letters and cards of support can be addressed to: Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Senne, Bielefeld, D-33649, Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: MI5 takes over state campaign against ‘far right’

Andy Carmichael – the MI5 mole in the NF – operated long after the party had already gone into decline

According to a report posted this evening on the Guardian website, Britain’s security service MI5 is taking over responsibility for “combating extreme rightwing terrorism amid mounting fears that white supremacists are increasing their efforts to foment violent racial conflict on Britain’s streets”.

Until now, although MI5 maintained a small section monitoring the ‘far right’ from a counter-subversion angle, most state monitoring of such movements has been handled by the police, specifically Special Branch and its successor SO15.

For example the vast majority of operations against the ‘far right’ have involved public order questions surrounding demonstrations and marches by the likes of the English Defence League. ‘Anti-terrorist’ operations in this area have (until now) involved mainly connections between racial nationalists in the NF or BNP and Ulster loyalist paramilitaries.

As distinct from a range of police responsibilities to combat crime and preserve public order, MI5’s responsibility involves serious threats to national security. It is an extraordinary tribute to the failure of the multicultural experiment that racial nationalist groups are now deemed to fall into this category!

Contrary to the Guardian‘s implication, it is not unheard of for MI5 to take an interest in British racial nationalism. H&D has just finished serialising a detailed analysis of MI5’s files on British Movement founder Colin Jordan, dating from the 1940s to the end of the 1960s, while far more recently an MI5 agent operated inside a moribund splinter from the National Front, the late Ian Anderson’s ‘National Democrats’.

Several European countries have long-established sections of their security / counter-subversion services specialising in the ‘far right’. MI5 will hope that they fare better than their colleagues in Germany’s BfV, which has lost two directors in recent years due to scandals surrounding its handling of the ‘far right’.

 

 

VIDEO: New police raid during latest thought-crime trial in Munich of Canadian-Germans Monika and Alfred Schaefer

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika (while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery. Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe. The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict’ then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence. How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical sceptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”? During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, I have personally witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Planck Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients. Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz (Scientist of Law); Attorney Wolfram Nahrath (Monika Schaefer’s counsel); Attorney Frank Miksch (Alfred’s counsel); Alfred Schaefer (Defendant); Lady Renouf (press correspondent for The Barnes Review and American Free Press)

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schöffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a farcical “Muppet Show”. (I concur for, in The Great Muppet Caper movie, I act as role-model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!)

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full. The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in Alice in Wonderland wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”. The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness” but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.

No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary yo the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik! Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Udo Walendy, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höfs, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few. Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, Michèle Renouf at Munich Courthouse moments before the Schaufer sibling’s trial for Volksverhetzung/populace incitement para 130

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 1, AFTERNOON SESSION Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.

Monika Schaefer achieved her common-sense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over! Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister. At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal “ criminal” events. By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings.

The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.
Michèle Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 2, AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.

This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a) who was taken yesterday into police custody is over for the time being. After today’s session he will be permitted to return home. Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “ Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).

Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias against the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, are but two of the ‘contrariwise’ obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry. These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese-protected exceptionalism.


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018

Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised policewoman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”). Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published in ca. 1976 which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber. The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?”

Before court prooceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law. The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this. Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).

During the morning session it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives. The Process, as public gallery eyewinesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastened her (whose name we are not told) not Nahrath.

Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom. Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences – for instance, how his doctor brothers acted to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity – a formidable opponent to those who rely for their identity on a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences. For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-Keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!

Alfred Schaefer and Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz see each freed after being taken from the courtroom under police custody!

Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukeller beer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom. Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been, unexpectedly, freed. Having committed no actual harm (i.e. no crime which is an act not a thought!) whatever, why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope for this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.

As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had travelled in the same police transfer van to the prison though they had little chance to speak owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika”!

At the close today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate. Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” Telling Film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.

This week’s 4 days’ trial sessions will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden; and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on that key to Germany’s sovereignty, that graspable cornerstone.

“No surrender”!
Michèle Renouf

——————————————————-

Friday afternoon update, July 6th

Greetings all: today at 2pm at the home of Alfred Schaefer he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters re his videos he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom …and then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my Laptop …and so I went to wash my hands.

I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was as if one were suddenly in a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! At first I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood 2 armed officers awaiting me.

I handed over my passport; they said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw 5 of them handcuff my host.

Taking with him the little packed cheese lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband, Alfred was hauled away for reasons the police declined to explain to me. Possibly it was about something he had perhaps said when yesterday he had duly turned up at the police station, as he has to do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. His wife advised that I and HH should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure.

Vot a business. Cat and mouse – but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each retrieved the cheese!

 

The Inquisition of Alfred and Monika Schaefer – Part 1 from NS VIKING on Vimeo.

New organisation for prisoners’ aid: The Link

UPDATE: Please note Simon Sheppard’s new prison address, see below.

The Link has been formed as an urgent necessity to aid victims of government anti-race laws. Since the introduction of various measures, ostensibly to combat the menace of genuine terrorism, many dissident patriots have been arrested and harassed as a deliberate act of government policy.

The Link has been formed to help ensure that those accused of ‘hate crimes’ (thought crimes) obtain the full support of our freedom loving community throughout and beyond their current ordeal.

left to right: Joe Pearce (twice imprisoned for thought crimes during the 1980s) with then-comrades Richard Lawson, Nick Griffin and Steve Brady

We urgently need detailed information about anyone who has been imprisoned or threatened by the encroaching Orwellian state.

In the first instance please contact Michael Woodbridge on 01490 440418 or email tarkatheotterwestwardho@hotmail.com

Two prominent thought criminals and friends of H&D presently incarcerated are Jez Turner and Simon Sheppard. They can be contacted at the addresses below:

Jeremy Bedford-Turner, A5544EE, Wing E3-02, HMP Wandsworth, PO Box 757, Heathfield Road, London, SW18 3HU

Simon Sheppard, A8042AA, HMP Humber, Everthorpe, Brough, East Yorkshire, HU15 2JZ

 

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’.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter