Holocaust Revisionist Alison Chabloz on trial for ‘offending’ Jews with satirical song

Jews may offend Christians as much as they want, but Christians are not allowed to offend Jews. Seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it? Why don’t they put Sarah Silverman on trial (pictured HERE) for offending 2.2 billion Christians?  

By Sebastian Murphy-Bates
for The Daily Mail

Alison Chabloz, 53, arrives at court holding flowers. She’s a brave lady and we wish her well. She has our full support. (LD)

— Anti-Semitic songwriter, 53, who ‘mocked Anne Frank’ tells court the Holocaust is ‘meaningless’ and insists she’s a ‘revisionist’ not a ‘denier’.
— Alison Chabloz, 53, labelled the Holocaust as the ‘Holohoax’ in one song.
— The blogger arrived at court with fans who supported her from the gallery.
—  She mocks prominent Jewish figures, including Elie Wiesel and Anne Frank.
—  Chabloz, from Derbyshire, faces five charges.

7 March 2018.  An anti-Semitic song writer told a court today that the holocaust is ‘meaningless’ and the Germans were unfairly blamed for the Second World War.

Alison Chabloz, 53, laughed as she was read lyrics to her songs mocked Jews being fashioned into lampshades, having their heads shrunk and being turned into bars of soap.

Some were performed live at the London Forum, while others were played for the camera, but all were uploaded to the internet.

In one number she mocks prominent Jewish figures including Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel and Anne and Otto Frank to the tune of a traditional Jewish song.

Chabloz was asked by prosecutor, Karen Robinson, whether she denied the holocaust.

‘Deny the holocaust? I am sorry I do not understand this term. Who can deny the holocaust? It is a term that is meaningless in itself.’

Ms Robinson said: ‘In your police interview you made a distinction between holocaust denial and revisionism.’

Chabloz said:

‘You can call it holocaust denial but I prefer holocaust revisionism. I think there should be an official scientific and forensic investigation. I doubt very much that a murder case would be brought to these courts without forensic investigation.

It is very unlikely to have been more than a million killed —  that is my understanding of having researched the information available. Certainly a million —  perhaps more —  but until there is an official forensics investigation…

It is impossible to assess that the gas chambers actually existed to kill human beings. Without evidence, it is impossible to affirm that the supposed murder took place. There is absolutely no doubt that those taken to concentration camps suffered great tragedy, taken away from family and home.

As the war years continued and got harder for everybody and we see the allied bombing of the German infrastructure —why would they not bomb the concentration camps? A disproportionate amount of blame was put on the Germans by the victors.

The victors got to write history. It was a war — everybody suffered.

I would say that the so-called holocaust has been used to sustain the criminal state of Israel — it is used as a foundation myth. By sending school children on trips to Auschwitz and inculcating them into believing in the gas chambers, the so-called holocaust is used as a weapon to prevent nationalistic feeling amongst European people. It’s about furthering the globalist agenda.

It is certainly a topic worthy of investigation and of intelligent debate and discussion.’

ALISON  arrived at court holding onto flowers
and was followed into court by some of her supporters

Much of the questioning revolved around historical rather than legal argument as Ms Robinson tried to pin down Chabloz on her anti-semitism.

In one of her songs Chabloz jokes that if six million Jews had been killed that would not have been a bad thing.

Ms Robinson questioned Chabloz on her police interview where she said, ‘My grandfather certainly didn’t fight for our towns and cities to be taken over by non-whites and non-Christians.’

Chabloz told her, ‘It’s my right to express those views.’

Ms Robinson said: ‘This is not an unqualified right — one cannot send material or matter on the internet which is grossly offensive.’

Chabloz retorted, ‘But it depends for whom doesn’t it, because there are plenty of parodies of Christian music that say Jesus was gay or that he must have been born by a donkey. It is concerning that where I live, my people I love, my race, that we will become an ethnic minority.’

Ms Robinson told her, ‘The views you have expressed are anti-Semitic and racist. You said of the white race, “It breaks my heart to see that disappearing.” That is nothing more than racism.’

At which point there was loud booing from the public gallery and Chabloz’s barrister, Adrian Davies, rose to speak:

‘Now the witness is being treated much as a heretic during the inquisition, she is entitled to any political view that she wishes,’ Mr Davies said. ‘The example of the well known case of the street preachers who preach in the street that homosexuality is wrong — they are perfectly entitled to express that view so long as they are not being grossly offensive.

It is not a crime in England to say that no Jews died at the hands of the Germans — it is a perfectly lawful position —it is therefore not relevant to interrogate the witness about her opinions.’

The Crown must prove that Chabloz has caused ‘gross’ offence, Mr Davies believes that the statute is poorly set out.

Chabloz says that her songs provoke a ‘range of reactions’ and although some are ‘close to the bone,’ it is no fault of hers if someone chooses to be offended.

She cited a recent music video on YouTube by the black rapper Xxxtencion where he is seen to lynch a white child and the disparity in public outrage.

Chabloz is represented by Adrian Davies, who defended infamous historian and holocaust denier David Irving in 2001 at the Court of Appeal following his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt.

Chabloz, of Moss Croft, Town Lane, Glossop, Derbyshire, denies five counts of sending obscene material by public communication networks at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The charges centre on whether embedding the hyperlink to the footage constitutes as sending, and if her songs were grossly offensive.

She was bailed ahead of final submissions on 14 May and a verdict will be given on 25 May.

Trials that proved the Holocaust

The Holocaust – or Shoah in Hebrew – refers to a Nazi-led genocide against Jews and other minorities during World War II.

Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust in concentration camps, extermination camps, mass shootings and ghettos.

By the time the Soviets liberated Auschwitz concentration camp (pictured) in 1945, 1.1million people had been killed there.

Of those, 90 per cent were Jewish, with the remaining 10 per cent being Romany, Soviets and Poles.

When the war ended, General Dwight D Eisenhower (later to become 24th president of the United States) took steps against documenting the camps.

He feared any attempts to show what had happened would be dismissed as propaganda.

The same day, he visited a camp near Gotha and found what he said was ‘indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency’.

He ordered pictures be taken of the victims in the camp and brought Germans from the surrounding villages to bury the dead.

The Nuremberg trials from 1945-1946 served to preserve the historical record of the Holocaust with the core documents that brought Nazi war criminals to justice.

Otto Adolf Eichmann, who oversaw deportation of Jews to ghettos and concentration camps was captured by the Israeli government and tried in 1961 after fleeing to Argentina.

In proving Eichmann’s personal guilty, the prosecution also hoped to provide a historical account of the holocaust. Eichmann was sentenced to death for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The 1961 court room drama called Judgment at Nuremberg used newsreel footage from concentration camps that showed rows of naked corpses being bulldozed into pits.


DISCLAIMER. All articles published on this website reflect the views of their original authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with this website.

33 thoughts on “Holocaust Revisionist Alison Chabloz on trial for ‘offending’ Jews with satirical song”

  1. Why would the Nazis transport Jews all the way to Auschwitz in Poland to kill them? Why use irritant cyanide gas (Zyklon) when people crowded into an airtight room with an unventilated heater will soon die painlessly from carbon monoxide poisoning?

    Why were there 4.3 million survivors claiming compensation from Germany? Why did the Red cross only give 272,000 as the total number of deaths in ALL the camps? The Red Cross had access to the camps. Wouldn’t they have known if Jews were being gassed?

    Why were there a hospital, a pharmacy, a theatre, an orchestra, a choir, a library and a swimming pool at Auschwitz, in a death camp? Why were there no signs on wartime aerial photographs of the trainloads of coke that would have been required to incinerate millions of bodies? Why weren’t thousands of tons of ashes and bones ever found?

    The photos of piles of bodies show emaciation typical of starvation and disease, something that would not have time to occur if people were being gassed on arrival. It was Typhus, dysentery and starvation that killed these people, because by 1944 allied bombing had destroyed the infrastructure of Germany.

    Thies Christophersen had been in charge of an agricultural research enterprise in the Auschwitz region in 1944. He visited the Birkenau camp several times to requisition personnel there and never noticed the horrors usually described.

    The Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. She saw nothing, either close up or from a distance, that resembled mass murder, although she confirmed that many of the inmates had died of typhus.


    Read more: https://www.darkmoon.me/2018/holocaust-revisionist-alison-chabloz-on-trial-for-offending-jews-with-satirical-song/#more-93144


4 Responses to “Holocaust Revisionist Alison Chabloz on trial for ‘offending’ Jews with satirical song”

  1. NPP says:

    We must be free to ask questions and raise subject matter unpalatable to others… otherwise we live under Fascist-Communist rule.
    What point in being victors in WWI and consenting to the very tyranny we apparently fought against?

  2. Tapestry says:

    This article is clearly not in support of her. Why is it on The Tap? The comments are better.

  3. pete fairhurst says:

    Unfortunately the link, about halfway down, to the “offending” song is broken. Nailed by the usual suspects no doubt.

    I saw it before it was nailed and I can assure you that it was excellent.

    The link at the very start gives you a flavour of her work, but that song is not as good as the “offensive” one.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.