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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
You're presenting an anti-semitic case yourself. She was found guilty of causing offence. Jews are not "privileged" as you claim.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Again, provide evidence Jews are a "protected group".
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?— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Again, you refer to "Jews". Just stop this borderline anti-semitic shit...
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.
What of that is difficult to understand?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.
What of that is difficult to understand?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
If it deliberately causes offence, breaks laws etc then you can be prosecuted.
What of that is difficult to understand?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Seems you need to read up on the history of the case and chabloz.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Hint; why did Chabloz write and record the songs? Second hint; she gave a reason in the court case.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.
Do you have a problem with that?
I don't hate you. I pity you.
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...— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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".— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
System worked as you described yet you complain because of Jews.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
A law that was applied in this case.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Again, provide evidence Jews are a "protected group".
Private prosecution was brought initially, which forced CPS to then take it over due to volume of evidence found.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
CPS make plenty of mistakes with regards to case selection.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Seems you need to read up on the history of the case and chabloz.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Hint; why did Chabloz write and record the songs? Second hint; she gave a reason in the court case.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.
Do you have a problem with that?
I don't hate you. I pity you.
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...— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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".— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
System worked as you described yet you complain because of Jews.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
A law that was applied in this case.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Guess what, cupcake? If Chabloz made Islamophobic songs, my view would be exactly the same. And you'd not rail about Muslims controlling things.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
You call that "honest and rational debate"?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Those songs broke the law.
You're really not understanding the whole freedom / consequences dynamic are you?
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"?— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
"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.
It's an offence to communication offensive material against anybody.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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?
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?— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Do you not notice the contradiction in your comments?
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Where laws are broken, convictions occur.
Do you have a problem with that?
I don't hate you. I pity you.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
According to you, no law would have been broken!
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Neither is a good look.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
Your deliberately attempts to try to ignore it are telling.
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.— Martin Warnett (@MartinWarnett) May 26, 2018
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
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
