Audio version
 |
| Chabloz. |
It is very disturbing that a woman has been jailed for her opinions in the UK. I won't mention what her opinions were, because I might have to then express my opinion of her opinions, and—in my opinion—it is clearly quite irrelevant what my opinion or anyone else's opinion of her opinions are. The point is—and this is the only point here—a woman is being jailed for her opinions.
Yes a woman—or a person, if you like—is being sent to jail merely for having the "incorrect opinions." Opinions, it should be added, for which she has already been booted off almost all social media anyway.
Yes, they are literally silencing someone whom the system has already silenced. The only surprise is that in doing so they have then mentioned her opinions in several national newspapers, like this one here.
A little basic info: the woman is 56 years old and her name is Alison Chabloz. Her jail sentence will be 18 weeks long. The conviction comes on top of an earlier conviction in 2018, for which she was given a suspended sentence.
Yes, they have been trying to get this woman to shut up for some time. She appealed that earlier conviction on free speech grounds, but the conviction was upheld, and, although she escaped prison that time—it was a suspended sentence—it made it all but inevitable that she would be sent to jail if convicted for a similar "offence" again. That's what just happened.
She repeated her opinions, the rightness or wrongness of which are entirely irrelevant to the core issue here, and she is now being sent to jail for them.
But Britain still likes to think of itself as a "free country" where anyone can say what they think freely. Some pretense has to be maintained in order not to "frighten the horses" it seems. In fact, there is still no actual law directly banning this woman's opinion. But they managed to find a way to get her:
Stage One: Wrongly convict her, but give her a suspended sentence so that no one thinks too much of it
Stage Two: Attach conditions to the suspended sentence, effectively limiting her freedom of speech in an ad hoc or 'sub-legal' way
Stage Three: Wrongly disallow the appeal
Stage Four: Convict her for breaking the sub-legal conditions of her suspended sentence
Stage Five: Jail her and claim that it is not directly for free speech
Yes, Britain still has "free speech," they pretend. After all, she was jailed for breaching her suspended sentence conditions. Not directly for what she said. They really think we are all that stupid.
Meanwhile no one is even asking why the only place she could say the opinions that got her jailed is on Gab and podcasts and websites that have been kicked off social media and brutally algorithmed into virtual silence anyway.
It's almost touching that the naked tyranny, under which British people live, likes to wear cute little fig leafs like this.
Also published at the Democracy NOW! blog.
The myth of "free speech" might be called a fig leaf, but it would more accurately be described as the bait on a hook. The regime wants most people to shut up, but it also wants the minority of potentially troublesome dissidents to identify themselves openly and be punished for it.
ReplyDeleteThe mistake many of these people make is when they do their protest they do it using terms that make it very unsavory and hard for others to defend and they do it in way that doesn't push the window but rather leaps right out of it. Accepting association with the usual suspects also typically doesn't help their case as then they are more easily demonized.
ReplyDeleteShe is promoting her "opinions" though as being true.
ReplyDeleteIts hardly about free speech when you have a person whose never studied a subject reciting decade old myths and talking points about something she is unfamiliar with. Its the exact same with Ursula Haverbeck, who likewise is going around repeating sound bites repeated from the likes of Zundel and Faurisson.
Zundel like Irving struggled to argue their case in court while using the unscientific methods used by Fred Leuchter, and they had no standing. Haverbeck and Chabloz come along over a decade later using these same slogans, and they likewise had no argument to make.
You are not defending "free speech" by promoting their lies, rather you are advocating for egalitarianism meaning that your "opinion" is as good as any others. As with Monika Schaefer, who also parrots these same empty appeals, and more recently Graham Hart.
Most old time revisionists no longer deny the Holocaust, those mentions have simply been influenced by having watched the earlier 1980/90s materials found online and then believe they are found "the truth" when such works by say Weber, Cole and even later Hunt no longer support or advocate their previous works.