Alison Chabloz— The Fight for Freedom of Expression Goes on!


Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.

Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.

Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.

Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:

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

Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!


11 July 2019

Alison Chabloz talks from her piano

39 thoughts on “Alison Chabloz— The Fight for Freedom of Expression Goes on!”

    1. The next step, as Alison Chabloz has written publicly, will be an appeal from Crown Court to the Divisional Court (i.e., in effect, High Court level, but criminal rather than civil), on point of law. It may be that there will be later and higher appeals. We shall see. Freedom of expression in England is at stake in this case.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Dear Ian,
        Thank you for giving us the benefit of your expert knowledge. Goodness knows, after our newspapers have told us in unison that Alison was convicted for holocaust denial and antisemitism, and Gideon Falter of the CAA insists that a precedent has not been set.
        I wish you had come to Alison’s Crown Court hearing, mostly because the absurdity of the carry-on there is not reflected in Hehir J’s written judgment. HH’s court, like the court of first instance, did not manage to articulate the nature of the distinction ‘offensive’ (not a crime) and ‘grossly offensive’ (a crime). Despite this, HH kept noting of each of the three songs of Alison’s that were under the court’s scrutiny that he ‘feels sure’ that they are grossly offensive. So HH convicted Alison on his feelings, not in terms of the statutory provision (section 127 of the Communications Act 2003) under which she was charged!
        Even more incredible is that HH admitted that the case against Alison would have been dismissed if the linguistically and logically sound definitions of ‘send’ and ‘cause to be sent’ advanced by her counsel had been adopted. (HH preferred the unbelievable contorted, counter-intuitive, laughably sophistic definition put up by the opposition.) For goodness sakes! How can a suspended custodial sentence and a huge forced labour (community service) obligation be handed down when the court is not even able to read intelligently what is being said in the statutory provision under which a person is charged?
        Kind regards,
        Sophie Johnson


      2. Hello. I have read about you (including the assertion that you do not exist). I think that you meant to write that “Gideon Falter of the CAA insists that a precedent *has* been set”.

        What is “grossly offensive” and what is merely “offensive” are matters of fact not law, so the tribunal of fact (in this case a judge plus an assessor ) decides it on that basis as best can be done (in theory). Communications Act 2003, s.127, is bad law, no question about it.

        I prefer not to comment on the legal point or points which may be raised on further appeal.

        In any event, thank you for your comment.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Dear Ian,

      Thank you for your reply. I’m grateful that I have been able to prove to you that the news of my non-existence was greatly exaggerated.

      Please allow me one more question: Is it safe, writing as a lay person, to rip into a judicial decision (in another lay person’s electronic publication ) when an appeal of that decision is in the offing? Or might doing that harm the appeal somehow?


      1. I refer you, as a starting-point, to the Wikipedia article on contempt.

        In principle and in general, it is usually better not to write publicly about an upcoming appeal in exact terms, meaning addressing the precise facts and law of the case, though of course the more serious form of contempt would be any attempt to influence a trial at first instance, especially a jury trial. That last does not apply here.

        Having said that, there is nothing much to stop anyone legally analyzing a case on public record, i.e. one which has been heard and is, at that level, finished.

        I cannot see how a “stray person” criticizing a judge’s judgment can be said to be in any serious way to be influencing an appeal from that judgment either way (it is hard enough to influence a judge when you are standing before him as Counsel!), but it *could* be taken to be a contempt, especially if couched in disrespectful terms.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Here is an interesting take on the Chabloz case from British Nationalists where perverse in-fighting come to the fore – in H&D:
    “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 this has become 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 who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.”
    My reflections on this are expressed in the following points:
    1. Rushton, the author of the H&D article, is projecting his own corrupt mindset on to the Chabloz matter – he is the defamer, the saboteur, and perhaps unwittingly, the agent for Jewish interests.
    2. Instead of speaking out against such a ruling he scapegoats Chabloz and claims she is a “Jewish” Holocaust agent!
    3. Rushton cannot see that the imposition of this legal constraint is a worldwide push – and instead he should have promoted an opening of the Holocaust debate by asking we be given the freedom to look at the facts, that those who believe the Holocaust myths and legends be required to prove the factuality of the allegations made against Germans, etc.
    Australia, like Germany, et al, has s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, where matters Holocaust-Shoah are legally protected from truth-content scrutiny. Now the UK, as did the USA in 1985, has taken judicial notice of these pillars and set them in legal concrete: 6 million Jews systematic extermination in homicidal gas chambers.
    4. Instead of fighting for the truth of the matter, Rushton is fiddling the books – strategizing and scapegoating and producing a payback against Chabloz, which is cant empiricist thinking of the most disgusting kind, i.e. labelling Alison Chabloz and Sophie Johnson as “informants”! Alison Chabloz’s role in Revisionist circles has made her a Revisionist Heroine – she joins 90-year-old German Ursula Haverbeck, lawyer Sylvia Stolz, and Canadian Monika Schaefer, all of whom are serving or have served prison time for their expressed beliefs.
    5. Also, in the H & D article my case gets a mention, and to that I would like to state: Had I not had the Home Office contacts who advised me to leave quietly, then I would have attended the hurried meeting Renouf organized to celebrate her “victory” of getting me out of prison, and to which Faurisson was invited. She scoffed at my not attending the meeting held in my honour and claimed I had fearfully fled, etc. Had I addressed the meeting, then that would have activated the legal constraints still imposed on me because we were in appeal mode.
    6. But that’s all old 2008 news now and I have repeated it elsewhere, which however comes to mind as I am reading Rushton’s rubbish about Chabloz. He cannot entertain the idea that Alison Chabloz is also an idealist and so this “ego-talk” is stupid Freudian rubbish. Idealism is one of those mental things the empiricists cannot handle too well. Such thrustings are beyond their grasp because of their residing in that physical world of strategizing only without having developed that overarching moral framework where the physical and mental strive to balance human endeavours into the abstractions-ideals of Truth – Honour – Justice – Love, etc.
    7. The strength of Free Expression lies therein that without it we die as human beings – as we witnessed in the former Soviet Union countries where thought criminals filled the Gulags. When the Soviet Union was established and you criticised prevailing political orthodoxy, you were sent to the Gulags; if you were accused of antisemitism, you were shot! This is where we are again in 2019.
    8. Currently those interested in protecting physical scrutiny of matters Holocaust have used “hurt feelings”- judicial notice as a legal constraint to stifle open debate on matters Holocaust, to which I formulated the following:
    If you deny me my right to think and to speak, in a civilized way, then you deny me my humanity and you commit a crime against humanity. Truth is my defence!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have of course heard of you. Welcome to my blog comments pages.

      Every individual at some point reaches the threshold where a moral choice has to be made. The idealist true to his or her ideals decides to follow those ideals, which are more than mere ideas, come what may.

      Alison Chabloz is, as you say, heroic in her refusal to kow-tow to the Jewish Zionist lobby. She is a lioness. I wish her well in her further appeal(s).

      Liked by 1 person

    2. It is ironic that the publisher of “H and D” is one Mark Cotterell who himself was accused of being a Special Branch agent as far back as the 1980’s – although I have seen no proof of this myself. However, he has a questionable racial heritage and was/is known as “Chi-Chi” in some circles because of his alleged “Asian” background!


      1. I have heard or read (probably read) the name somewhere, but know nothing of him and have never met him, (as I likewise have not met, nor had contact, with most other “nationalist”-oriented people). In fact, excepting a very few, I know and/or have met only those from long ago (1970s), though I met even those people only occasionally, briefly and/or en passant: John Tyndall, Martin Webster, Anthony Reed Herbert, John Kingsley Read, David Duke etc.


      2. Bob, I’m quite bemused. All these ‘agents’ of one kind or another! Even the perfect honey who built the best-yet nationalist/revisionist forum (London Forum), Jez Turner, is said to be GCHQ. (I wish he were.) A good follower of Alison’s told me recently that he works for the FSB. I laughed only because he seemed serious. Perhaps he was not until I laughed. Now erstwhile father-of-the-house Edmonds is in bed with Rushton and the bouf Renouf who want to destroy Alison, our best, fairest and most productive. What be (or why be) they, by their own reckoning? I think I want to be something too. Something small and mechanical and egalitarian, built to kick butts at random in the ranks of the deserving. In the meantime I shall get busy finding the MI5 man among us. I expect to spot him doubled up helplessly, eyes streaming. He had just been talking to … oops. He cannot say.

        Oh, hang it! When is our Fuhre coming? It would be nice to march into destiny in glamorous formation.


    3. Toben, another stupid spellbound sheep who Chabloz Tyrer has put a spell on. Remind yourself that no less than Fred Leuchter & Vincent Reynouard signed the statement written by Peter Rushton & Richard Edmonds. Those of us with eyes to see recognise that the evidence against Sophie Johnson, aka Chabloz is incontrovertible. Or do you think with your prick as well as Livingstone who salivates at the very sight of her. Didn’t Lady Michele help you Toben when you were arrested in 2006 under EU warrant legislation. Now you stab her in the back for the sake of a witch with warts on her face whose end game is to introduce denial laws to the UK. Ask yourself this: Who is paying Chabloz £7,000 court fees for the deliberate failure this week. And who will pay them in the Divisional courts?


      1. I have approved your comment in the interests of free speech, despite what I see as the personal (and inaccurate) nature of your comments (am I myself included in the “think with” comment? I hope not). If you want to comment on these pages in future, do so at least politely.

        Finally, though I ceased to practise at the Bar in 2008, 8 years before I was disbarred at the instigation of the Jew Zionists, I think that I am stating a fact in saying that court fees for such matters as criminal appeals are usually covered if the original matter (in this case in the magistrates’ court) was covered:
        also see, eg, #


      2. Herbert Wright – If I correct Rushton himself was accused of “state” links by Joe Owens, although perhaps not the best of sources for such allegations considering he is a convicted criminal! Similarly with Cotterrill, who has had these allegations since the 1980’s after the “Diksmuide” nationalist event! As Ian has said stated before – rumour- mongering can be more damaging than the reality of the allegation!


      3. Vincent Reynouard did not sign the salacious, lying missive that the little sewer-rat chappie Rushton concocted. Leuchter did. But what might one expect of him, a very sad little has-been-briefly? And of Edmonds, Renouf and Nicholls, the never-were-noughts?

        ‘evidence against Sophie Johnson, aka Chabloz is incontrovertible …’

        Hehe. And what is that incontrovertible evidence you cannot seem to produce, Rushton? You know, no matter how many names you assume, you are still your foul-mouthed, obscene, unprincipled, underclass self.


      4. Regret cannot post your latest comment. While I do give latitude to people on here, there are limits to how far off-piste comments can ski. This one went too far.


      5. Ah, the machine or process approved your comment anyway. Anyway, please do not use my comments section for feuding (especially with people with whom I myself have no direct quarrel). I have already had to block two people (with views opposed to yours) for their (I think in fact one person posing as two) intemperate and troublemaking comments.


  2. Thank you Ian. My basic framework rests on the assumption that as citizens we have moral, social and legal duties to fulfill in order effectively to seek the truth of a matter.
    In April 1999 I stated in a German court that were we ever to find the murder weapon, i.e. the homicidal gas chamber, then we would publish such information.
    The state prosecutor objected to the judge making a note of my statement but I insisted that my statement be recorded, and the judge obliged!
    I am as basic as that in my quest – and that is why I cannot accept the hypocritical mindset that blames “Jews” for every known conceivable evil, when in fact we have such thinking within out own ranks. – and hence my maxim:
    Don’t only blame the Jews but also blame those that bend to Jewish pressure – Truth is my defence!


    1. I “blame”, if “blame” be the right word, the peoples of Europe for being so unresisting, so willing to be ordered around by a self-interested tribe. On a similar but smaller stage, look (link below) at how the Bar of England and Wales treated me as against another barrister whose default was “merely” criminal!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Dismaying — seriously so. Has a Jewish barrister ever been disbarred in this jurisdiction for what he tweets? And, thinking of Dr Kollestrom, has an academic ever been dismissed summarily from his university position because of his choice of research subject? What, one must wonder, are the White colleagues of the Jew-bashed doing? One would expect outraged protest, but one gets profound silence. How can such a small number (if indeed they really are a small number!) intimidate the majority? Will the backlash ever come? It is well overdue.


      2. As to your first question, the answer is no. The retired circuit judge who presided over my “heresy trial” (Bar Disciplinary Tribunal) himself called my case “unprecedented”. As to academics, I do not know, but I doubt it.

        As for the “colleagues”, “spineless”, “me-too idiots” and “the ignorant but judgmental” covers most of the non-Jew reaction.

        As to your final rhetorical question, “those who live will see”.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Many thanks for supporting Alison in a difficult time. The insane cowardly behaviour of Rushton Renouf and Edmonds can only be seen by myself as jealous at best and state operation to further split and factionalise the movement.
    May I have permission to reproduce your words please gentleman ?
    Regards Chris

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This blog is public, and I have no objection at all to your reproducing it, so long as it is done as a whole (or in part, where it is made clear that the part is only an extract of the whole). Thank you for asking, though.

      I make no direct criticism of the three people you mention, with none of whom have I ever met or ever had contact. Nationalism, particularly social nationalism, should not be split by factionalism. However, I disagree strongly with that Heritage and Destiny article, which has already been seized upon by the Jew-Zionist cabal(s) and used to show that there is disunity because of Alison Chabloz and her trial(s).


  4. To the above gentlemen, permit me to add the following:
    1. One of my basic principles, which has enabled and guided me through the verbiage jungle of my life’s trials and tribulations, is this: “No guilt by association”.
    2. Consequently, what disturbed me about the Alison Chabloz case is the H&D accusations of “traitor” and “implied “manslaughter” charge leveled against Alison Chabloz.
    3. Imagine the situation – a just on 90-year old Frenchman attends a conference in England, then returns home to Vichy, France, all alone. He literally collapses and dies upon entering his home – and Alison is blamed for his death!
    4.This conclusion is based on the assumption that Chabloz was responsible – on account of her treachery in informing the enemy of the location of the event.
    5. It was also assumed that she was motivated by pure malice because she had not received an invitation to that meeting,
    6. Such reasoning is surely deficiency thinking at its best where hypocrisy and cant are guiding principles, and where truth as a moral-social-legal value/virtue has no home!

    I note your matter Ian and all I can say is: Welcome to Life, Welcome to Liberation and to the inexorable experience of being smithied, in Joyce’s words, on the anvil of life. You are not alone anymore.


    1. Thank you.
      As far as I know, there is no or no credible evidence to suggest that Alison Chabloz has had any contact with the “Hope Not Hate” crowd or any other Jew-Zionist or “useful idiot” “antifa” bodies. As far as I understand it (I was not present and in fact did not know that there had even been a meeting until after Faurisson’s death), the meeting in question was disrupted and the fire alarms activated by a typically (for hotels) spineless management. A similar event happened, though without alarms, when I spoke at the London Forum in 2017. See:

      I daresay that that lack of order etc might have disquieted M. Faurisson, who as you note was 89 years old and in poor cardiac health. No doubt the stress of the event and of having to travel etc led to his fatal heart attack. A sad loss.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Wikipedia has a good overview of the law on harassment.

      Note that there has to be a “course of conduct” (at least two acts). The acts must be pursued against the same victim, at least imo.

      In this case, even if the resident complaining were taken to be a victim, there seems to have been only one act per house.

      *Defences*. Wikipedia says: “There are a number of defences. These include showing that the course of conduct is pursued for the “purpose of preventing or detecting crime” These stickers could be said to be raising vigilance against gangs. The “Muslim” aspect does not necessarily break the law, again imo.

      It could be taken to be criminal damage to put a sticker on someone’s door.

      As to incitement to racial/religious hatred, that is another question. Doubtful that that could be proven, but possible.


  5. I think you are right – although I have no legal experience, i myself and some associates have had “some” personal experience of the Public Order Act 1986 – a nightmare piece of legislation for activist’s involved in “Nationalist” politics! In-fact, a friend of mine is currently facing allegations regarding several charges of “possession” and “distribution” of similar stickers. Although, unlike the alleged culprit referenced in the news article, my friend did not place his stickers on any residences or private property, yet has still been charged – talk about a clampdown on free speech!


    1. There is no free speech, or at least it has become very restricted over the past 50 years, mainly because of the machinations of the Jew-Zionist lobby. The situation worsened under the Blair-Brown ZOG “elected” dictatorship and continues apace. The Jew-Zionists now have as their first port of call a supine and often otherwise useless “British” police force to use as an occupied militia.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s