Tommy Robinson, Alison Chabloz, defaulting on our debts then restoring t...

Do you have to be Jewish to help Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews protest against feminism and the abomination of gay marriage?

Modernity is but feminism, and Post-Modernism is but full spectrum global feminist dominance. Matriarchy is the sea, patriarchy is the coastal defence of your civilisation. https://t.co/En4NLMuyor

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) January 19, 2018

Just in case you were wondering, nothing short of a theocracy would restore patriarchy. Theocracy is continuing maintenance, patriarchy is coastal defences, and matriarchy is the eternal sea. A course of action can be both necessary and radical.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 29, 2018

Theocracy is eternal vigilance.

Patriarchy is coastal defences.

Matriarchy is the eternal sea.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 8, 2018

Orthodox rabbi says feminism and gay rights is "a fantastic development".

Antisemites and those who believe in a Jewish conspiracy should note that Judaism is also being progressively liberalised. They are not doing this just to your religion, they are also doing it to the religion of observant and Orthodox Jews too.

Who are "they"? The Deep State, who is feminist and satanic.

Anything that is against the laws of God is by definition since Satan is rebellion against God.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and anything that undermines marriage undermines patriarchy and by definition the very basis of Western civilisation itself or indeed any civilisation at all.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.

At the very least any religion worthy of its name should maintain morality enough to preserve the patriarchy. This means ensuring that the overwhelming majority of members of society have married parents. This is obviously not the case in the West because satanic Western governments no longer support marriage. They only marriage these satanic matriarchal Western governments support is gay marriage.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

To allow and glorify marriage-substitutes such as fornication, sodomy, the civil partnership, gay marriage undermines marriage.

Gay marriage and the civil partnership offends against the Fifth Noahide law forbidding sexual immorality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

No-fault divorce making marriages easier to dissolve with no guilt or admission of wrongdoing also undermines marriage.

Allowing women to compete unfairly against men in the workplace using the law (eg the Equality Act 2010, the Equal Pay Act) also undermines marriage because, let's face it, women really only put up with men is if they pay the bills.

A patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers.

It is easy to see that the former is eugenic and the latter degenerate.

If you are wondering why the West is going down the toilet, look no further than your Feminist State.

Chief Rabbi: Removal of Joseph Dweck from his position as Rabbi of S&P Sephardi Community London - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/SpFhP9bKuf via @UKChange

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 30, 2018

https://www.change.org/p/chief-rabbi-removal-of-joseph-dweck-from-his-position-as-rabbi-of-s-p-sephardi-community-london?recruiter=80029325&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_abi_share_button_ordering_1.abi_featured_fb

Rabbi Bassous calls all Jews with the flame of the Torah still burning in their hearts to take a stand against "fundamental British values" which have fallen dangerously below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws that are but the decrees of Antiochus

Jews being more right-wing would make them less unpopular because God would bless them for upholding the Noahide laws

The tweet that resulted in Alison Chabloz having her employment contract terminated

Ambrosine Shitrit (Chetrit) managed to have me sacked, but it was only after she tried to have my 2015 Edinburgh Fringe show pulled – and after my quenelle response – that harassment and stalking of me was taken over by CAA.

CAA trolls Silverman and Applebaum together did everything they could to destroy any chance I had of performing, culminating in my 2016 Ed Fringe show being pulled and, finally, by way of the private prosecution against me brought by Falter.

All is on record, including details of events leading up to my sacking from the cruise ship. The Musicians Union did offer some modicum of assistance, but with the cruise company denying my right to data protection (“We have no record of any documents concerning you sent to the ship” – documents that were shown to me in the Captain’s office the same day I was sacked!), I stood very little chance of bringing a case against my German employer.

What punishment awaits on June 14th is anyone’s guess, but already this guilty verdict boils down to the plain fact that we, as native Britons, no longer have the right to express ourselves freely in our own land. Those wishing to further curtail this most fundamental of human rights do not hold dear British values. If they did, then they would not be working day and night to suppress voices of political dissidents. The very fact that these agents of a foreign state are so clearly and deliberately working against our long cherished values should be enough to worry even the most apathetic citizens.

https://alisonchabloz.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/abusive-caa-approved-twitter-trolls-sparked-songs-of-the-shoah/

In his written judgment, District Judge Zani said that Chabloz “blames others for the fact that she lost an earlier job on a cruise ship”.

He wrote: “Having considered her evidence in some detail, this court considers that it is not unreasonable to infer that her actions may be driven by her as some form of revenge for the said loss of job.”

Chabloz told the JC that she was fired from her job with the Aida Cruises firm after her employers became aware of an anti-Israel tweet she had posted. She denied that it was antisemitic.

She added that three songs, for which she has been convicted, were “provoked” by her dismissal.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/alison-chabloz-antisemitic-songs-blogger-1.464612

She has been jobless since 2014 when she was ordered off a cruise ship where she worked - and was forced to move into the home of her parents ... 

Chabloz, who went to school at Bredbury Comprehensive, in Stockport, was sacked by the German cruise company Aida when an activist complained about her anti-Semitism and left stranded in Germany when she was unable to board the ship.

A former friend Fiyaz Mughal, founder of anti-Islamophobia charity Tell MAMA, initially stood by her and offered her money to get home.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5771007/Blogger-GUILTY-broadcasting-anti-Semitic-music.html

I asked Alison Chabloz about the tweet that resulted in the termination of her employment with AIDA Cruises.

Her response:

Shitrit sent one of my tweets to the cruise ship - I mocked her for saying that Israelis who wanted to go to a Nativity play needed to wear a gas mask because of Hamas 'terrorists'.

my tweet said:

This made me laugh: suddenly, Israeli Jews believe in Baby Jesus and the Nativity. Hallelujah, saved at last!

I was sacked for that one tweet.

Alison Chabloz explains what happened. 

What will Jews do to Alison Chabloz now? I dread to think. Surely they have heard of the principle of proportionality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Judaism

Should Jews be protected from being offended by Holocaust denial even if there is no law against Holocaust denial in your country? If so, why?

 From the 13th minute

Blogger found GUILTY of broadcasting anti-Semitic music  https://t.co/kDpl9AbvY1 via @MailOnline

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Man with Israeli flag getting aggressive. Chillul Hashem.

Tattooed Jewish man with Israeli flag pushes gentile. Chilllul Hashem.  

https://www.facebook.com/ZviSolomons/posts/10155364740296406?notif_id=1527492852286544&notif_t=comment_mention

https://www.facebook.com/claire.khaw.92/posts/1959980977409859?comment_id=1961097307298226&notif_id=1527695056192922&notif_t=feed_comment

A sad day for free speech which will only intensify antisemitism and send out the message that Jews do control everything, have undeserved privileges and conspire to deprive gentiles of their human right to free speech.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Holocaust Denial is not illegal in the UK, but the government is treating it as if it were. So much for the rule of law. The rules are always being rigged.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Is there a crime of intentionally offending someone or a group of people?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Alison Chabloz has been confronted by British "justice" and found wanting, says Martin Bashir.  Holocaust denial is not a crime, but one can still be guilty of it. It is British "justice" that has been found wanting. Are British Jews also proud of British "justice"? #TWT

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Are there any fair-minded British Jews who acknowledge that they have are privileged by this legal decision and that the fact of this privilege creates understandable resentment? They can intentionally insult the goyim but the goyim cannot return it without a criminal conviction.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

If I were Jewish and concerned about antisemitism, I'd be concerned the legal decision against Alison Chabloz would in fact increase antisemitism, which it must surely do. The status of the indigenous without a religion has fallen below those with a non-indigenous religion.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

So do nothing about blatent anti-semitism - which Chabloz has form for because it might cause more anti-semitism.

You're presenting an anti-semitic case yourself.  She was found guilty of causing offence.  Jews are not "privileged" as you claim.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

She wan't convicted for "Holocaust denial".  Do you actually know anything about the case?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Alison Chabloz was convicted of 'improper use of a public electronic communications network' by posting 'grossly offensive, indecent or obscene' under s 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This seems to mean anything found offensive by any protected group posted on social media.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

"Seems to mean" = you making shit up.

Where does it refer to "protected groups"?

Chabloz was supported at court by NF, BNP.  Go figure.  Have you even read her rationale for writing the songs in the first place? Do you know any of her history? No?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Jews are a protected group but obviously not the antisemite. You can't see that it is an uneven playing field? There is no crime of intentionally offending a group of people, is there?  But do correct me if I am wrong! So if you are BNP/NF you have no right to free speech?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Everyone has a right to free speech.  YOU want free speech with no consequences which is an incredibly stupid thing to say.  If Chabloz had been making Islamophobic songs, you'd saying something different.

Again, provide evidence Jews are a "protected group".

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Good grief. "Free speech" doesn't absolve you of the consequences of what you say, sweetheart.  Which bit of that is a tiny bit difficult for you to understand?

Again, you refer to "Jews".  Just stop this borderline anti-semitic shit...

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

As I understand it, you have free speech so long as what you say does not incite crime or defame people. Is saying "Jews" antisemitic? Is there legal authority for your proposition? Oh dear!

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

No, we have free speech. You can say whatever you want.  You have the FREEDOM to say whatever you want.  You can't thus ignore consequences of what you say.

If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.

What of that is difficult to understand?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

No, we have free speech. You can say whatever you want.  You have the FREEDOM to say whatever you want.  You can't thus ignore consequences of what you say.

If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.

What of that is difficult to understand?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

No, we have free speech. You can say whatever you want.  You have the FREEDOM to say whatever you want.  You can't thus ignore consequences of what you say.

If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.

What of that is difficult to understand?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

You forget that the CPS didn't think Alison Chabloz had broken the law.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

By taking over the case, yeah CPS acknowledged she'd broken the law.

Seems you need to read up on the history of the case and chabloz.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

The prosecution of Alison Chabloz was politically-motivated. You seem to be saying that Jews are beyond criticism, and if this is the case, Jews should expected to be resented for their privileges that the gentile does not have in his own land.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

And what criticism of Jews was provided by Chabloz?  You're really no cue about the case, have you?  Exposing your gross lack of knowledge is on one hand amusing.

Hint; why did Chabloz write and record the songs? Second hint; she gave a reason in the court case.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Are you as a gentile claiming that Jews have a right not to be hated or criticised? How much more would you hate me if you were told you were forbidden from hating or criticising me? @JonathanArkush

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Everyone has a right not to be "hated" based purely upon religion, race, skin colour.
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't hate you.  I pity you.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

We now have an ADDITIONAL thoughtcrime in a totalitarian country whose fundamental values are - guess what - democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith. It is a sick joke.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

So...

You're either an extreme hypocrite displaying double standards or a tad thick.

Clue; NF, BNP there supporting Chabloz?  They'd hate you to the extent of illegality.  Try working out why.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

How am I hypocritical?  I happen to think the NF and the BNP and Alison Chabloz should have the right to free speech that we are all supposed to enjoy, but you propose to criminalise everyone whose views you dislike. Please confirm.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

You are an utter hypocrite. System works as you described yet claim "Jews control it".

Views I dislike?  Any right minded person would abhor Chabloz's views.  Her views didn't cause the conviction.  Her actions based upon those abhorent views did.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

I really don't see how I am being hypocritical.  Just admit that you are saying that people who express antisemitic views cannot now do so and that they therefore have no free speech to criticise a group whom they regard to be powerful and oppressive at their expense.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Chabloz acted to deliberately cause offence against a people ( Jews ) she blamed for losing a job over.  You seem to think that's absolutely ok because lol free speech and accept no responsibility for your actions.

System worked as you described yet you complain because of Jews.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

There is no law against deliberately causing offence to Jews, is there?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

There is a law against deliberately causing offence to anyone via malicious communications.

A law that was applied in this case.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Alison Chabloz did not send any of her songs to Jews, did she?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Which isn't relevant to the case, if you actually knew the law.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

The case against Alison Chabloz was that she denied the Holocaust on online. Her defence was that she did not send her songs to Jews. It was not a crime to deny the Holocaust in the UK until yesterday. Rule of law broken.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

I really think you need to spend time reading the case and the judgement.

I've got to go out shopping , will be back in about 2 hours.  I realise that won't be long enough for you to read, digest and understand but hey ho.

Rule of law upheld.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Is there an offence for being deliberately offensive against Jews? Is there a Prohibition Against Being Offensive to Jews Act? What about a Prohibition Against Being Offensive to Gentiles Act? Why isn't there a level playing field for Jews and gentiles? Rule of law broken.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Everyone has a right to free speech.  YOU want free speech with no consequences which is an incredibly stupid thing to say.  If Chabloz had been making Islamophobic songs, you'd saying something different.

Again, provide evidence Jews are a "protected group".

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Private prosecution was brought initially, which forced CPS to then take it over due to volume of evidence found.

CPS make plenty of mistakes with regards to case selection.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

There was no law against Holocaust denial in the UK, but now there is. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

She wasn't prosecuted for Holocaust denial.  Please provide evidence for your bold assertion; I presume you've actually read the judges finding?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Using s 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the *back door* through which all our rights to expressing our political views is now threatened, whether we be Jew or gentile. This decision *must* be appealed. @JonathanArkush

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

By taking over the case, yeah CPS acknowledged she'd broken the law.

Seems you need to read up on the history of the case and chabloz.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

The prosecution of Alison Chabloz was politically-motivated. You seem to be saying that Jews are beyond criticism, and if this is the case, Jews should expected to be resented for their privileges that the gentile does not have in his own land.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

And what criticism of Jews was provided by Chabloz?  You're really no cue about the case, have you?  Exposing your gross lack of knowledge is on one hand amusing.

Hint; why did Chabloz write and record the songs? Second hint; she gave a reason in the court case.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Are you as a gentile claiming that Jews have a right not to be hated or criticised? How much more would you hate me if you were told you were forbidden from hating or criticising me? @JonathanArkush

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Everyone has a right not to be "hated" based purely upon religion, race, skin colour.
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't hate you.  I pity you.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

We now have an ADDITIONAL thoughtcrime in a totalitarian country whose fundamental values are - guess what - democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith. It is a sick joke.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

So...

You're either an extreme hypocrite displaying double standards or a tad thick.

Clue; NF, BNP there supporting Chabloz?  They'd hate you to the extent of illegality.  Try working out why.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

How am I hypocritical?  I happen to think the NF and the BNP and Alison Chabloz should have the right to free speech that we are all supposed to enjoy, but you propose to criminalise everyone whose views you dislike. Please confirm.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

You are an utter hypocrite. System works as you described yet claim "Jews control it".

Views I dislike?  Any right minded person would abhor Chabloz's views.  Her views didn't cause the conviction.  Her actions based upon those abhorent views did.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

I really don't see how I am being hypocritical.  Just admit that you are saying that people who express antisemitic views cannot now do so and that they therefore have no free speech to criticise a group whom they regard to be powerful and oppressive at their expense.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Chabloz acted to deliberately cause offence against a people ( Jews ) she blamed for losing a job over.  You seem to think that's absolutely ok because lol free speech and accept no responsibility for your actions.

System worked as you described yet you complain because of Jews.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

There is no law against deliberately causing offence to Jews, is there?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

There is a law against deliberately causing offence to anyone via malicious communications.

A law that was applied in this case.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Alison Chabloz did not send any of her songs to Jews, did she?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Which isn't relevant to the case, if you actually knew the law.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

The case against Alison Chabloz was that she denied the Holocaust on online. Her defence was that she did not send her songs to Jews. It was not a crime to deny the Holocaust in the UK until yesterday. Rule of law broken.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

It's about all forms of communication.  The letters triggered the legislation.

Chabloz' songs are "expressions of political views".  Right. I mean, I'm sure YOU can see the political aspect to them... yet don;t even know *why* she wrote them.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

So Jews now have the right to control the thoughts of gentiles and override their human right to free speech. Doesn't this make you in any uncomfortable, as a gentile?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Ah the "Jews control everything" mantra. Again.

Guess what, cupcake?  If Chabloz made Islamophobic songs, my view would be exactly the same.  And you'd not rail about Muslims controlling things.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

I fully support the right of anyone to hate and criticise me as long as they do not commit crimes and illegal acts against me and reserve my right to hate and criticise anyone as long as I do not commit crimes and illegal acts against him/her/them. @AlanDersh

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Except Chabloz committed a crime under existing legislation.

Chabloz wrote the songs due to anger at having been fired from a job - a company owned by "Jews".  That's a tacit admission they were deliberately created to cause offence - she also has historical form.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Expressing any political view is always offensive to someone who takes the opposite view. Didn't you know that? So you are for preventing honest and rational debate? Why would you want to do such a thing when so many longstanding problems cannot now be discussed?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Chabloz wasn't expressing political views.  Chabloz was by her own admission deliberately targetting Jews by writing songs designed to cause offence due to her hatred of Jews.

You call that "honest and rational debate"?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Alison Chabloz must hate Jews for her own obviously political reasons. Just remember that everything we do is political whether we want it to be or not. Everything political is moral, and everything moral affects someone else. Do you support free speech or not?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Even if I were absolute dictator, I would allow free speech if only to know I have gone wrong in some way before it is too late and the mob with their pitchforks and pikestaffs are about to storm my palace and put my head on a spike. Free speech has a wider purpose, you know.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Free speech is allowed.  Chabloz was allowed to make and publicise those songs.

Those songs broke the law.

You're really not understanding the whole freedom / consequences dynamic are you?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

There is now law against Holocaust denial when there was not before in the UK after the legal decision against Alison Chabloz by a District Judge in a Magistrates Court. This must be appealed if you care about free speech, whether you be Jew or gentile. @JonathanArkush

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

It is very odd that a supposedly ancient and wise people cannot understand that it is not a good idea to deliberately provoke the majority when they are the minority, for no good reason other than because they think they can get away with bending the law to suit themselves.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

"bending the law to suit themselves"?

"deliberately provoke the majority"

So basically would it be fair to point out your view appears to be "Jews control things", "Jews bring it on themselves"?

Not a good look, sweetie.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

It's an offence to communication offensive material against anybody.

Do keep up., it's pretty simple to understand.

To deliberately misinterpret the case, the law you do seem to have a problem with Jews.  Is there a problem you have?  Once had an upset belly from a bagel?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

People will always hate other people. As long as there are laws that protect someone hated from criminal and illegal acts against them, this should be enough to protect the free speech that is apparently part of the liberal pantheon eg freedom of expression/contract/association.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

So you're complaining Jews are a "protected group" due to the system you espouse providing a conviction?

Do you not notice the contradiction in your comments?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

You will find that the police also talk about protected groups of people. Such protected groups are privileged groups and people are inevitably resented for their privileges if they are perceived to be undeserving, dishonestly or unjustly obtained or being abused.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Good grief.  You genuinely believe what you write, don't you?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

I confirm that I genuinely believe in free speech and the free exchange of ideas which is in fact guaranteed by https://t.co/R585jqogaE

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

And do you believe individuals should be held responsible and accept consequences for the free speech expression? Yes or no?

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

It should not be a crime to hate anyone for any reason at all as long as you do not incite crime and illegal acts against them. @AlanDersh

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

People will always hate other people. As long as there are laws that protect someone hated from criminal and illegal acts against them, this should be enough to protect the free speech that is apparently part of the liberal pantheon eg freedom of expression/contract/association.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Everyone has a right not to be "hated" based purely upon religion, race, skin colour.
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't hate you.  I pity you.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

I don't deny that Alison Chabloz was being satirical about Jews in her song denying the Holocaust. Is there a law against that though? Not until yesterday! Bottom line is that I don't think being deliberately offensive against anyone should be against the law, but you clearly do!

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

Now, based upon YOUR logic, someone graffitis "f*ck all Jews" on a wall.  That's neither written on wall of individual Jew nor mentions individual Jew... and neo-nazis would enjoy it.

According to you, no law would have been broken!

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

If some people want to have sex with Jews, why would that be a problem if there is mutual consent? If they said "Rape Jews" that would be an incitement to crime, of course.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

The point has spectacularly flown over your head.  Again, that's either for a deliberate reason or because you;re a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Neither is a good look.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

What is the point you are trying to make then?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

I'd suggest it's a fairly obvious point being made.

Your deliberately attempts to try to ignore it are telling.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

You seem to be saying that it should be a criminal offence for gentiles to be rude about Jews. Should it be a criminal offence for Jews to be rude about gentiles? Is this what you are suggesting?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

I'm suggesting it's already a criminal offence to target groups based upon race, religion etc.  You seem utterly unable to grasp that - which begs the question of why and more importantly why you seem to have a problem with Jews.

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

In which Act of Parliament does it say that it is already a criminal offence to "target" groups based on race, religion etc? What do you mean by "target"? Does it mean that these groups cannot be criticised at all? Does it mean that protected groups can abuse unprotected groups?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 26, 2018

I find it very odd that someone portraying themselves as a "political commentator" seems to be so clueless.  I can only assume it's deliberate so there's really zero point in trying to correct or educate your intellectually flawed arguments. 1/2

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

It's just really not worth my time dealing with you.

I only hope one day you look in the mirror and are honest with who and what you are.  May cause you to reflect and improve.

Have a nice day - don't reply as you're muted. 2/2

— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018

Liberal lawyer getting concerned about the free speech implications of the conviction of Alison Chabloz for Holocaust denial in the UK where Holocaust denial is not a crime. Good. https://t.co/1uj7YH62pB

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 29, 2018

1/ I have just been sent the 24-page judgment of DJ Zani in the Alison Chabloz case. She was convicted of sending a grossly offensive message over a public communications network contrary to s.127 of Communications Act 2003 for publishing songs mocking and denying the Holocaust

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 29, 2018

2/ I will try to do a more detailed thread or post on this but for now here is the key part of the judgment. Note that the judge accepted that Holocaust denial isn't a crime in the UK but (it would seem) the gross offence was caused by the manner of delivery too pic.twitter.com/yqGVkrEjL0

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 29, 2018

3/ As I have said before, I think s.127 is a real and continuing threat to free speech - https://t.co/jYuolnEqo7. It's a difficult argument to make as it often comes across as supporting *what was said (or sung)* rather than *the criminalisation of speech*

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 29, 2018

4/ Having read the judgment, my view is that any kind of Holocaust denial on social media, particularly if a mocking tone is used, will be potentially at risk of a conviction under section 127. I can't see how the judgment can be interpreted in any other way.

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 29, 2018

5/ This isn't to say that *all* Holocaust denial is now a criminal offence. But I don't see how some of the tweets I have received in the past month about e.g. Auschwitz being a leisure centre are any less offensive than Chabloz's horrible songs.

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 29, 2018

It’s also concerning how subjective judicial application of the ‘grossly offensive’ test appears to be from this judgment. Like you, I shed no tear for Chabloz but find concerning the possible applications of s.127

— Jason Braier (@JasonBraier) May 29, 2018

Religion is the string that ties a bundle of sticks together

Blogger found GUILTY of broadcasting anti-Semitic music  https://t.co/kDpl9AbvY1 via @MailOnline

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

A sad day for free speech which will only intensify antisemitism and send out the message that Jews do control everything, have undeserved privileges and conspire to deprive gentiles of their human right to free speech.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Holocaust Denial is not illegal in the UK, but the government is treating it as if it were. So much for the rule of law. The rules are always being rigged.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Is there a crime of intentionally offending someone or a group of people?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Alison Chabloz has been confronted by British "justice" and found wanting, says Martin Bashir.  Holocaust denial is not a crime, but one can still be guilty of it. It is British "justice" that has been found wanting. Are British Jews also proud of British "justice"? #TWT

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Are there any fair-minded British Jews who acknowledge that they have are privileged by this legal decision and that the fact of this privilege creates understandable resentment? They can intentionally insult the goyim but the goyim cannot return it without a criminal conviction.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

If I were Jewish and concerned about antisemitism, I'd be concerned the legal decision against Alison Chabloz would in fact increase antisemitism, which it must surely do. The status of the indigenous without a religion has fallen below those with a non-indigenous religion.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

I have explained before that those without a religion will always have to yield to the preferences of those with a religion because that is the nature of things and a law of human nature.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Jews = triangles
Muslims = squares
Atheist anti-Semitic Islamophobes/alt-right = balloons with water

All three are in a confined place and move about rubbing against each other from time to time.  Who is going to keep their shape and who is going to get squished?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 25, 2018

Questions for Christian theologians

1. Do Jews and Muslims agree that Christianity is idolatrous?
2. Has Christianity failed?
3. If Christianity has not failed, why is the Post-Christian Westerner forever complaining about being exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims?
4. Has the Post-Christian Westerner thrown out the baby of Biblical patriarchal morality with the the bathwater that is the Doctrine of the Trinity?
5. Is the West as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human?
6. Is the decline of the West caused by the failure of Christianity?
7. Do Christians suffer from having a corruptible and obviously corrupt clergy who go along with the degeneracy of matriarchal liberalism and feminism?
8. Is the reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy go hand in hand because you have to affirm that you believe in an absurdity in order to be and remain a Christian?
9. Is Christianity inherently antisemitic?
10. Once it became legal to deny the Trinity, Christianity began to die. Do you agree?
11. Christianity was so defective as a religion that the Americans quarantined the church from the state. Do you agree?
12. If your religion no longer even promotes marriage and family values, it might as well become extinct. Do you agree?
13. Christianity is the religion of white people promoting Global Gay Marriage who want to turn our Global Village into Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you agree?
14. Does the effort of believing in the absurdity of the Trinity damage your intellect and morality? If you do not really believe and lie about your belief, does the dishonesty damage your moral integrity? If the answer to the foregoing is yes, is Christianity inherently a corrupt bargain?
15.  The New Testament is just hearsay of the reported speech and deeds of the allegedly begotten Son of God whose mother was supposed by Jews to have been raped by a Roman soldier. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/virginmary_1.shtml The Koran is at least conceptually superior because it is said to be the directly revealed Word of God to humanity. Do you agree?
16. If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite". Would you agree? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
17. If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then Islam is divine civic nationalism. Do you agree?
18. If we conclude that Christianity is kaput, what is the honest, rational and moral course to take if you are a morally courageous senior male politician or philosopher living in the West prepared to challenge the Feminist State?
19. Is Christianity or Islam more in harmony with the Noahide laws? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws "In view of the strict monotheism of Islam, Muslims were considered as Noachides whereas the status of Christians was a matter of debate."

My favourite sin of Lashon Hara AKA evil speech

http://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/my-favourite-sin-of-lashon-hara.html

What the Koran says about what God thinks about the backsliding Jews

The Jew who breaks the Sabbath should not exist at all, according to the Torah.  https://t.co/q3HDAURgqu  The solution is obvious, is it not?

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 23, 2018

The solution is obviously to require Orthodox Jews keep a Register of Jews and to declare non-Jews those who break the Sabbath. This would prevent a lot of Chillul Hashem which gives Jewry a bad name provoking antisemitism. If only Jews would just follow their own rules! Oy vey!

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 23, 2018

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=7&verse=160

We divided the descendants of Israel into twelve tribes and told Moses to strike the rock with his staff to let twelve fountains gush out therefrom; his people had asked him to supply them with water. The twelve flowing springs were divided among them (a spring for each tribe) and each tribe knew its drinking place well. We provided them with shade from the clouds, sent down manna and quails to them for food, and told them to eat the pure things which We had given them. They did not do injustice to Us but they wronged themselves.

And (remember) when it was said to them: "Dwell in this town (Jerusalem) and eat therefrom wherever you wish, and say, '(O Allah) forgive our sins'; and enter the gate prostrate (bowing with humility). We shall forgive you your wrong-doings. We shall increase (the reward) for the good-doers."

But those among them who did wrong changed the word that had been told to them. So We sent on them a torment from heaven in return for their wrong-doings.

And ask them (O Muhammad SAW) about the town that was by the sea, when they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday): when their fish came to them openly on the Sabbath day, and did not come to them on the day they had no Sabbath. Thus We made a trial of them for they used to rebel (see the Quran: V.4:154).

https://quran.com/4/154

And when a community among them said: "Why do you preach to a people whom Allah is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?" (The preachers) said: "In order to be free from guilt before your Lord (Allah), and perhaps they may fear Allah."

So when they forgot the remindings that had been given to them, We rescued those who forbade evil, but We seized those who did wrong with a severe torment because they used to rebel (disobey Allah).

So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected." (It is a severe warning to the mankind that they should not disobey what Allah commands them to do, and be far away from what He prohibits them).

And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allah's Forgiveness).

And We have broken them (i.e. the Jews) up into various separate groups on the earth, some of them are righteous and some are away from that. And We tried them with good (blessings) and evil (calamities) in order that they might turn (to Allah's Obedience).

Then after them succeeded an (evil) generation, which inherited the Book, but they chose (for themselves) the goods of this low life (evil pleasures of this world) saying (as an excuse): "(Everything) will be forgiven to us." And if (again) the offer of the like (evil pleasures of this world) came their way, they would (again) seize them (would commit those sins). Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them that they would not say about Allah anything but the truth? And they have studied what is in it (the Book). And the home of the Hereafter is better for those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). Do not you then understand?

And as to those who hold fast to the Book (i.e. act on its teachings) and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), certainly, We shall never waste the reward of those who do righteous deeds.

And (remember) when We raised the mountain over them as if it had been a canopy, and they thought that it was going to fall on them. (We said): "Hold firmly to what We have given you [i.e. the Taurat (Torah)], and remember that which is therein (act on its commandments), so that you may fear Allah and obey Him."

When your Lord asked all the offspring of Adam (before their birth), "Am I not your Lord?" All of them testified and bore witness to their testimony that on the Day of Judgment they would not say, "We were not aware of this (fact),"

or say, "Our fathers worshipped idols before us and we as their descendants followed them. Would you then destroy us because of what the followers of falsehood have done?"

Thus do We explain Our revelations so that they might return to (the right path).

Are Jews guilty of malign encouragement of the gentiles in the lands where they have settled?

The assimilated Jew is basically a turbo-charged liberal. Gentiles already hate their own liberals, so all the more will they hate Jews who are turbo-charged liberals with Jewish privileges that they will unhesitatingly use by accusing the gentile of #Antisemitism. https://t.co/L3Ca1x2AzY

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 2, 2018

Why not examine whether some Jews provoke anti-Semitism? After all, gentiles already hate their own liberals, and an assimilated Jew is really a turbo-charged liberal with Jewish privileges who can accuse you of being a Nazi at the drop of a hat and make you lose your job. https://t.co/HWgerywu8v

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) April 2, 2018

Commentary on E Michael Jones' conversation with Kevin Barrett on "Catholics and the Jew Taboo"

Kosher Jews are not the same as liberal assimilated merely biological Jews who have not internalised Torah principles

Jews must now remind gentiles of the Noahide laws

Claire Khaw considers converting to Orthodox Judaism to save world Jewry from chillul Hashem

Jews being more right-wing would make them less unpopular because God would bless them for upholding the Noahide laws

Should it be a crime for Jews to incite hatred against themselves?

Distinguishing authentic Orthodox Judaism from Reform Judaism is crucial to preserving the good of Jewish identity and keeping observant Jews safe

How a neocon liberal assimilated Jew has incited antisemitism and what Orthodox Jews can do to solve the problem of liberal Jews giving Jews a bad name

Advice to Jews on how to become less unpopular

How Jews could solve the problem of antisemitism

Why an atheist might support a theocracy

The advantages of a theocracy even for the atheist is that he would be more likely to enjoy a stable family life, a lower crime rate and lower taxes as well as a government that actually defends the national interest. The disadvantage is that he would have to have his choice of sex partners severely curtailed.

The idolatry of Christianity has caused it to fail in an age of science, technology, universal education and scepticism

The point of the Trinity is to make Christians feel special and better than Jews and Muslims with their divine prophet, but Christianity is in fact a very stupid religion. A believing Christian is stupidly credulous because he believes in a patent absurdity that Christ is the begotten Son of God and the co-equal of an omnipotent and eternal God. However, an unbelieving person who nevertheless calls himself a Christian is by definition a coward, hypocrite and a liar. No wonder it has failed in the West, steeped in lies, confusion and absurdity repulsive to reason. Fortunately, Islam - which is in conformity with the Noahide laws in the way that Christianity is not because it is idolatrous - is waiting in the wings. Unlike the Old and the New Testament, the Koran specifically and explicitly accommodates the previous two Abrahamic faiths.

After a catastrophic war, polygamy - but only up to four wives - should be encouraged to replenish the population without resorting to immigration. Too bad the British never thought of this. If they had been more Muslim, they wouldn't be whingeing and moaning about Muslims now.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 16, 2018

The Arab-Israeli dialogue that would lead to peace in the Middle East

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=17&verse=104

Sahih International: And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, "Dwell in the land, and when there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will bring you forth in [one] gathering."

Pickthall: And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Yusuf Ali: And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

Shakir: And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

Muhammad Sarwar: We told the Israelites after this to settle in the land until Our second promise will come true. We would then gather them all together (on the Day of Judgment).

Mohsin Khan: And We said to the Children of Israel after him: "Dwell in the land, then, when the final and the last promise comes near [i.e. the Day of Resurrection or the descent of Christ ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) on the earth]. We shall bring you altogether as mixed crowd (gathered out of various nations).[Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Vol. 10, Page 338]

Arberry: And We said to the Children of Israel after him, 'Dwell in the land; and when the promise of the world to come comes to pass, We shall bring you a rabble.'

Israeli Jewish leader [pointing to 17:104 of the Koran]:

Don't you think you had better allow us the peaceful enjoyment of our land since your Koran is Zionist too? Even Allah has decreed that Jews should live in Israel! Surely it is forbidden for Muslims to forbid what God has allowed! 

Arab Muslim leader:

I suppose we cannot quarrel with the Koran, it being God's Word and all, but it is obvious that Israel of all the countries in the world must be theocracy. Currently, you are nothing but a filthy colonial outpost of an evil and declining empire still bent on inflicting Global Gay Marriage before it breathes its last after turning our Global Village into Sodom and Gomorrah and causing it to suffer the same fate. It is a religious obligation of Muslims to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, don't you know.  http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=114

Israeli Jewish leader:

OK, we will stop all that nonsense and become a Torah theocracy and a Jewish ethno-state as long as you promise not to attack us any more and allow us the peaceful enjoyment of all the territories we have so far managed to acquire.

Arab Muslim leader:

Done!

Both sides keep their promises and the Jews and Muslims become good neighbours, looking in on each other and dropping in on each other for cups of tea and even borrowing cups of sugar from each other from time to time time.

Finally, the Muslims become concerned about the Jews stoning each other over every little thing. They thought it was a dreadful thing that Jews could not go shopping on a Saturday, open their shops, drive to shul or even switch on the light without incurring the penalty of being dragged outside their city gates and then being stoned to death.

Also, although the Muslims disapproved of drunkenness, they thought it was a bit strict that disobedient sons who were drunkards were also dragged outside the city gates and stoned to death.

The Muslims learned of all the capital crimes in Israel that were not capital crimes in their country and thought it really was all a bit too much.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Judaism

So one day, they finally decided to raise the subject with the Jews and said:

You know, you don't have to stone each other for breaking the Sabbath. If you adopt sharia, you won't have to end up stoning those who break Sabbath and your disobedient sons who are drunkards. The idea of you stoning each other over matters we would consider not offences at all distresses us extremely and we were wondering if you could just consider our suggestion, if you wouldn't mind. It has been said that Islam is 'Judaism Lite' and we even know of something called Secular Koranism, conceived of by one Claire Khaw - a very kind, nice and wise lady - which is intended to be 'Islam Lite. Either way you would still be a theocracy, you see, and that is the main thing really, as far as God is concerned. 

Jews:

Why didn't you say so before!