LONDON, January 10, 2018. Defense barrister Adrian Davies left Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism reeling after a withering cross-examination in today’s trial of blogger and satirical chanteuse Alison Chabloz, on trial for three songs mocking some of the claims of the new religion of holocaust.
Falter initiated charges against Miss Chabloz last year. These were private charges, as neither the police nor the Crown felt there was sufficient evidence. After the private charge was laid last year, the CPS (Crown Protective Service) took it over. Ms. Chabloz is charged under Sec, 127.1; that is, “using the public communication networks to communicate a message that is grossly offensive,” prosecutor Karen Robinson explained.”We apply the standards of an open and multicultural society to determine whether a message would cause gross offense to those mentioned,” she added. However, “the prosecution does not contend that any comment of holocaust dispute is grossly offensive.”
Miss Chabloz is charged with 5 counts involving three songs (((Survivors))), Nemo’s Anti-semitic Universe, and I Like the Story As It Is. .”The songs are mocking and suggest that Jews are using holocaust stories for gain,” Ms Robinson added. When Alison Chabloz was questioned under caution by police last year, Ms Robinson reported: “She charged that this prosecution was to set a precedent to silence all dissent from the holocaust. She feels this is an attack on free speech.”
However, Ms Robinson warned, “freedom of speech can be proscribed for many reasons.”
Indeed, free speech advocates in the UK see Miss Chabloz’s persecution as an attempt to twist a law originally intended to punish people who used the phone to make obscene calls to random women. However, unlike an aggressive and intrusive call to a stranger, Alison’s postings on You Tube or elsewhere are passive. A person has to find the songs and then choose to click on ans listen.
During the playing of (((Survivors))) two dozen free speech supporters burst into applause. “I won’t have a repetition of that applause in the public gallery,” snapped Judge John Zani. “If there is, those people shall be asked to leave.”
The first prosecution witness was Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, A slim 34 year old, Falter donned a black yarmulke (Jewish beanie) as he took the witness stand. Mr Falter was, of course, the prime instigator of this entire case, initially bringing a private prosecution against Alison on behalf of his ‘charity’ the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). The present case is a continuation of that private prosecution, now taken over by the Crown..
The main focus of the original case brought by Falter was Alison’s treatment in her song (((Survivors))) of three individuals: Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.
Under Adrian’s cross-examination, Falter was forced to admit that he had not actually read Zisblatt’s book, despite having brought a private prosecution to protect it from ridicule!!!
Falter also claimed not to have read or to know anything about the infamous Holocaust fraudster Binjamin Wilkomirski; or even to have read Norman Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry. (The relevance of the latter will be made clear during the defense case.)
He then put to Falter what will be a main plank of the defense case: that Falter was not in truth offended merely by the satirical style and manner of the songs, but by the basic message. He asked Falter whether he found it “intrinsically offensive” for Alison to refer to Palestine being reclaimed “from the river to the sea”. Falter replied: “Yes”.
Adrian Davies then suggested that Falter was intrinsically offended by both the revisionist and pro-Palestinian aspects of Alison’s songs: “You want to silence her and stop her putting those messages out.”
Falter claimed that because these are songs, he is entitled to be offended by the whole package, content/style/presentation etc all taken together.
Falter seemed to differ from the Crown which said that the prosecution was not against mere questioning of the so-called holocaust. Falter indicated that those who question the new religion should be prosecuted under the law and attacked professionally: that is, ruined financially. [Jewish lobby pressure has driven Miss Chabloz out of most of her money-making business engagements]
However there are inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case as regards whether the truth/falsehood of Alison’s criticisms of Zisblatt et al. is relevant, or whether the Crown suggests that no-one claiming to be a Holocaust survivor should be ridiculed, regardless of truth/falsehood.
On entering the Court, Alison was presented with two bouquets of flowers by her supporters. Throughout the day, she sat in the long prisoners’ box, separated from the court by heavy flexiglass She was serene and classy and calm.
The trial scheduled for one day only completed the Crown’s evidence. The trial will continue March 7 with defense witnesses and final summations.