Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism

Letter critical of the CAA

{link) Published by The Guardian: "We are shocked and alarmed that the home secretary has been swept up in the wave of hysteria deliberately whipped up by the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism ... ."     ←   ZScarpia   01:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You do not provide a link, but it must be the letter published on 22 January 2015. As the activities of the CAA we outline in the article are entirely domestically based, their argument is not relevant here.

Philip Cross (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did provide a link, but it was removed, without explanation and marked inappropriately as a minor edit, by Reallyverybrilliantbrian in this edit.     ←   ZScarpia   09:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Complaint against Jeremy Corbyn

The Independent - Jon Vale - Campaign Against Anti-semitism launches official complaint against Jeremy Corbyn, 24 September 2016.     ←   ZScarpia   15:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

From the Web

There is an article about the Campaign Against Antisemitism on Powerbase here. Powerbase also has an article on the Campaign's chairman, Gideon Falter, and spokesman, Jonathan Sacerdoti, here and here. Falter was at the centre of the prosecution of Foreign Office diplomat Rowan Laxton (the "Ranting Diplomat") for comments Falter and one other alleged he had made in a gym while watching a news report about the killing of a farmer in Gaza. Later, at a Crown Court appeal, a judge and two magistrates decided that Laxton had not made the comment on which the prosectution relied.[1][2][3] According to this Electronic Intifada article, the BBC Trust determined that the way Sacerdoti had been used in the reporting of Operation Pillar of Cloud in 2012 had breached BBC impartiality guidelines (other articles by the same author are here and here). The breach related to the failure to make clear Sacerdoti's activism on behalf of Israel ("... the interviewee was introduced without sufficient context. The BBC had not made clear to the audience that the interviewee was associated with a particular viewpoint and this had resulted in a breach of Impartiality guideline 4.4.14."[4]). Tony Greenstein wrote about the Campaign Against Antisemitism here.     ←   ZScarpia   15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Electronic Intifada: new Tony Greenstein article.

The Electronic Intifada - Tony Greenstein - Campaign Against Antisemitism is a campaign against Palestinians, 20 March 2017. (April 2016 article on Greenstein's personal blog here)     ←   ZScarpia   19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hate crime figures

Has anyone seen police hate crime figures for antisemitism for 2016? Brian (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Philip Cross Powerbase.info is used in other articles, and the primary blogs are claims about themselves which is also OK. It's Powerbase that's put them together for the claim, as we quote here - in their voice. I'm attempting to address the advert and overuse of primaries (as well as provide RS for the AfD). By removing one of the main sources about the org itself (Powerbase) [5] this is leaving it weak on those fronts. The overwhelming majority of the sources I've seen go to town about the flawed poll (which is still missing here), whereas the Powerbase article is more balanced (although their sourcing isn't as rigorous as ours, I'll admit). If you agree Powerbase is an RS, then we can reinsert in the further reading (see history) or use for the poll. (I'm not sure what you mean by "Israel is NOT North Korea or Zimbabwe", I'm just giving appropriate WP:weight and WP:balance to a former advert, I've tagged for neutrality in the mean-time) Widefox; talk 13:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the summary, Powerbase is a wiki, and thus not a reliable source. That other articles apparently cite it is no reason to allow it here. There is however more. The website is run by one Professor David Miller of Bath University (formerly at Strathclyde) which is, not in fact a recommendation as Miller has a somewhat mixed reputation. His site has a bad reputation for its coverage of Jews and moderate Muslims. Around 2010 Miller's NeoCon Europe website received coverage for publishing material by Kevin B. MacDonald who has frequently being criticised for his Neo-Nazi sympathies and white supremacist ideology. Soon deleted, but not a sign of a reputable source. See for example this Guardian article in 2010 by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens on SpinProfiles, another Miller website or this or this by Shiraz Maher in Standpoint, also in 2010. Ignore what you might think about these individuals for a moment and consider if Powerbase is still suitable for an article on an organisation campaigning against antisemitism. Philip Cross (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing that and WP:RSNB (the editors do resolve to real identities so it isn't a public wiki WP:UGC BTW), suggest we put back in Further reading. Widefox; talk 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Best to be completely ignored in case the citation resurfaces in the main text. Philip Cross (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Left out for now, as doesn't help with WP:N. Widefox; talk 01:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception

In this edit Philip Cross deleted material critical of the CAA sourced to an Electronic Intifada article by Tony Greenstein, commenting: "not a reliable source, as Greenstein was then suspended from Labour, and has since been expelled for antisemitism/rudeness, the credibility of this source is also in doubt".

The Electronic Intifada is a not-insignificant element of the pro-Palestinian campaign. It is, of course, reliable as a source of its own content.

The most detailed coverage I can find of the expulsion of Greenstein from the Labour Party is in this article: The Jewish Chronicle - Marcus Dysch - Labour activist is expelled for abuse, 23 February 2018. The abuse it chronicles is pretty nasty, however the ruling by the NCC expelling Greenstein merely states without elaboration which rule he breached, so stating that the expulsion was for antisemitism appears to be an interpretation. The claimed antisemitic element appears to be Greenstein's use of the term "Zio" as an epithet, which, even if it is such, is pretty weak stuff. Obviously, Greenstein arouses strong emotions among Israel supporters, but it is the nature of the IP conflict, and, by extension, that part of Wikipedia dealing with it, that many of the commenters supporting a particular side are seen as despicable and unworthy of inclusion by supporters of the opposite side.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations

Similar content about me already removed as gross violation of BLP:

BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, and has been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

[6] Furthermore, my trial is still ongoing and, irrespective of moronic mainstream media articles, contempt of court rules also apply. Alison Chabloz (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

JzG, do you really not know that you need explicit consensus to restore the name? It might be easier to get this consensus after the verdict, which if I understand correctly is schedule for next week. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alison Chabloz: Please remember to place quoted material in a talk page quote, particularly when you include their timestamp, as otherwise it makes it difficult for editors to follow along with who's saying what in the thread. Thank you .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@DGG:, the BBC, The Times and other sources use the name in their headlines. It's also used in open court. The cat is out of the bag, and it's really not our job to put it back in. I absolutely don't think we should have an article on this person (it was deleted entirely correctly), but I am afraid this is a case of WP:NOTCENSORED. And in fact Ms. Chabloz' chief complaints as articulated are that (a) the sources call her a blogger not a musician and (b) she disputes their characterisation of her speech as anti-semitic.

Freom Adrian Davies,

1. Adrian Davies is representing me (not 'represented' past tense).

2. I am a professionally trained musician, known for my music. Therefore 'blogger' is something of a deliberate insult.

3. 'Holocaust denier' should read 'Holocaust revisionist'.

4. The charges against me use the words 'grossly offensive' but NOT 'anti-Semitic'. Wikipedia is supposedly independent of mainstream media. What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites?

Per the original complaint she would appear to be quite happy to be named as long as we don't follow the sources in describing the nature of her actions. I have asked for RS to support her preferred version, but she has failed to provide any and I can't find any. I have removed obvious junk sources like the Daily Mail, and obvious partisan sources like Jewish Times. What remains is a brief and neutral summary of what is reported in several news outlets with a very high reputation for fact checking.

One point of probably irresolvable conflict, though: holocaust revisionist is a euphemism for holocaust denier - our article is a redirect, and describing Auschwitz as a "theme park for fools" and the Holocaust as the "holohoax" is not even vaguely pausible as historical revisionism, it's outright denial. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail in one article uses the Press Association report which correctly describes me as a musician [7]: I spoke to the PA journalist outside court last week. I repeat that I also swore under oath that I am a professionally trained musician. The description of me as a 'blogger' was first used by the Jewish Chronicle in December 2016 [8]. Previously, after my Quenelle salute in 2015, the Times of Israel described me as an artist [9]. The BBC is no more or less impartial than any other outlet - indeed it is a state-run broadcasting company therefore serving globalist interests as do all other mainstream outlets. My trial is nothing more than the political persecution of an artist. In 1980, The Sex Pistols published a song entitled 'Belsen is a Gas' - for which there is an entire dedicated WP page [10]! Why wasn't Johnny Rotten brought in front of a court? Why isn't Ricky Gervais being prosecuted for his jokes about Schindler's List? After my first day of trial last January, most of the press used the term Holocaust revisionist - including the BBC [11]. There is no legal definition of the term anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier is equally a misnomer: weaponised words of ritual defamation used to protect a historical narrative for which there is no forensic evidence. Highly doubtful that any WP editor would like to be accused of mass murder without a forensic investigation and with no evidence of any actual murder weapon - simply on the word of eye-witnesses alone. Indeed, the fact that certain countries need laws to protect the official narrative should alert any thinking person of the highly suspicious nature of the whole story. Yad Vashem and the Auschwitz Museum admitted that the soap, lampshades and shrunken heads were war propaganda tools meant to demonise the losers after WW2. My songs ridicule the likes of Irene Zisblatt, diamond swallower and the fact that the latest edition Anne Frank's diary is now co-authored by her dead father, Otto. No revisionist denies that there were labour camps and deportations. I am the victim of a witch-hunt which, as is clearly visible, is being continued here on Wikipedia. Couldn't all this have waited till my verdict in a week's time?

Most importantly, if I am not important enough for a dedicated WP page, then WHY are BLPCRIME guidelines not being adhered to? Alison Chabloz (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are large numbers of cases where people are named or discussed in Wikipedia articles who do not merit articles of their own. The context here is discussion of the case itself, and whether we should censor the reliable independent coverage of the case. Wikipedia is not censored is a widely abused guideline, but in this case it appears to apply: I cannot find any mainstream coverage of this case that fails to mention your name. You are asking that Wikipedia lead the way in suppressing the poison that attaches to your name from being exposed as an antisemite and a holocaust denier. I am afraid I don't think that's our job. Even if the court finds you not guilty of the offences under the Communications Decency Act, that will not change the fact that you have been shown to engage in antisemitic behaviour. You've probably discussed this with your counsel and I am sure he has advised you that under the Defamation Act 2013 you have no right of redress against The Times, the BBC and other sources that so characterise you. Despite what you claim, Wikipedia absolutely does follow the mainstream media. That's the definition of mainstream. You were in court when Jeremy Bedford-Turner was convicted and sentenced to prison, based on findings of fact that are exactly reflected in the mainstream media coverage. You'll note that I oppose inclusion of partisan sources. The BBC is not a partisan source. Neither is The Times. I am sorry you do not like the opporpbrium that is heaped on antisemitic speech, but that is a real-world problem, not one we can fix. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Guy, you are simply exercising the right to express an opinion. Of course both the BBC and the Times are partisan. 'Hate speech' is simply a euphamism for 'Truth'. See George Orwell, whose novel 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. What I have or have not discussed with my barrister is absolutely none of your business and the fact that I attended Bedford-Turner's hearing (straight after my own) is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant - as well as quite laughable - that you cite 'other cases' of people being named on Wikipedia without providing sources. My songs are clearly an effective weapon against the globalist agenda (which relies on the 'Holocaust' narrative to stem 'racism') - hence my prosecution in the courts: the first trial of its kind in modern western history! That is the point here - it matters not whether or not I'm found guilty (for the legal arguments are such that even if I am found guilty, there will be an appeal in a higher court) - the point is that I will make legal history either way, because of my music! You simply wish to censor voices you disagree with, either because of limited reasoning capacity or something more sinister i.e. racial/religious-motived support for the genocidal pariah state of Israel or hatred of white people. If it's the latter, permit me to ask the following: would you be prepared to call a New Zealand Maori a 'racist' because he wishes to protect his own heritage and culture from the influence of mass immigration? Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC and The Times have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They have an editorial line, but they distinguish editorial from hard news reporting, and the sources we cite are hard news reporting. The idea that coverage is motivated by bias is fatally undermined by the fact that Jewish News, The Times, the BBC, the Independent and the Daily Mail all say substantially the same thing. The Daily Mail has a long and inglorious history of antisemitism, the BBC is currently under attack from Momentum for exactly the opposite. There is no plausible scenario in which all these sources could align and all be incorrect due to the same bias. And you don't do yourself any favours by making such self-evidently bogus claims - that's more likely to get your entire argument discounted than to make any actual difference, I'm afraid.

Your reference to Maori is incomprehensible. Are you claiming that Nazis are a historically oppressed group like indigenous peoples? Guy (Help!) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Who controls the media, Guy? Do you know how many Zionist Jews occupy top jobs at the BBC? My prosecution is yet another manifestation of the control of our country at the hands of a tiny, powerful minority. Trials such as mine and that of Jez Turner are political. The CPS wasn't interested in prosecuting either of us until a wealthy militant pro-Israel lobbying group pressured the authorities. Is this the kind of democracy you wish to live under? As for the Maoris, let me explain it differently. When the Pilgrim Fathers left for the New World, did they suddenly become American Indians? Are the American Indians treated as racists because they wish to preserve their own heritage and culture? As for WW2, how come no one ever mentions the Holomodor? Reasons for the rise of National Socialism make sense: the Treaty of Versailles being the main one. Germans today - like all Europeans - will eventually become a minority in their own lands. Demographic change is inevitable and Zionist Jews such as Barbara Lerner-Spectre make no bones about the agenda that has been underway for centuries. How will your grandchildren and great-grandchildren feel when they're a minority group - and you can be sure they won't be granted 'protected group' rights. They will live on reservations whilst our towns and cites are completely taken over by non-white immigrants who have no claim to this land, no attachment to this soil and no knowledge of our culture. Soon, every white British family will have one member who's been accused of 'racism' - another misnomer. Do you accuse Israeli Jews of 'racism' for their crimes against the Palestinians or indeed against their fellow black or Arab co-religionists? Finally, do you know what the definition of a 'racist' is, Guy? It's someone who wins an argument over a multiculturalist. Alison Chabloz (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody controls "the media", the media is not a monolithic entity. Now would be a great time to stop pushing antisemitic conspiracy theories on this page. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

CAA brought a highly unusual private prosecution against Alison Chabloz. Ms Chabloz disputes the inclusion and characterisation of this content, specifically: she disputes that she is accused of antisemitic acts but instead the charges relate to "grossly offensive" words, stating that "Wikipedia is supposedly independent of mainstream media. What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites?" and denigrating the coverage as moronic mainstream media articles; she asserts that she should be described as a musician not a blogger, and that the term blogger is a deliberate insult; she insists that she should be called a "holocaust revisionist" not a "holocaust denier". The following questions appear to be germane:

1. Should the private prosecution be included?
2. Should the target of the prosecution be described as a "blogger" per Blogger claims "no proof" gas chambers killed Jewish people (BBC), Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court (The Times), Blogger 'mocked Anne Frank and Holocaust survivors', court told (ITV)?
3. Should the target of the prosecution be characterised as antisemitic, per Court News and the other RS listed above?
4. Should the target of the prosecution be characterised as a holocaust revisionist, 'Holocaust revisionist' in scare quotes as per the BBC, or a holocaust denier?
5. Should the target of the prosecution be named, as per Blogger Alison Chabloz sings along to antisemitic song (((Survivors))) in court (Times headline), Getty Images caption, and the body of all the mainstream sources?
6. Should sources such as Jewish Times be included?
7. Should Wikipedia suppress mention of this case as sub judice?

Guy (Help!) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Options

• I would say: yes it should be mentioned, it is widely covered in the media and is a highly unusual private prosecution, possibly even the first of its kind - the issue of WP:BLPCRIME does not properly apply because the facts at issue are not in serious dispute. This is not a question of "did X do Y" but of "X admittedly did Y, was it a crime or not?"; yes we should use the word blogger but am not opposed to "and musician" if RS can be found (noting in passing that Google turns up pretty much nothing about her music other than this case); yes we should say antisemitic - the BBC is representative in saying accused of broadcasting "grossly offensive" anti-Semitic songs on the internet, the two categories are not exclusive, but I have no problem including "grossly offensive and antisemitic" if that seems fairer; holocaust denier is the correct term per WP:WEASEL (and indeed revisionist is a redirect to denier); Yes we should name the target because all the mainstream sources do, sometimes in the headlines, and, more importantly, not only the pro-Jewish sites but also a large number of supportive non-RS sources also use her name, e..g. "The Persecution of Alison Chabloz", "Blood Libel: The Ritual Persecution of Alison Chabloz" and so on - this also extends to several neo-Nazi sites, it's pretty clear that whatever the cause of her name being out there linked to this case, Wikipedia is not part of it, and indeed if we can't mention the name we arguably can't even cite some of the sourcees because it's in (e.g.) The Times article title; No we should not be including sources like the Jewish Times, they have an obvious bias and we have no need of them since we have much better sources for any content we might plausibly include; No Wikipedia can mention the case as long as we stick to what the mainstream media says, because the sources we quote have large legal departments and are quite well aware of what can be reported and what can't, we have no need to second-guess them. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Agree entirely with JzG -- what we have here is quite sufficient for "anti-semitic blogger" and it would be inappropriate to present less than a full description of the events and the way they have been described. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Modify existing text to ‘CAA brought a private prosecution against a holocaust denier who uploaded three YouTube videos characterizing Auschwitz as a "theme park" and the Holocaust as the "Holohoax".[10][11][12][13]’ - Granted, the phrase “criminally offensive” is repellant, and granted, the idea of someone being prosecuted because they said something offensive is an indictment of the sorry state of liberty in Britain. Granted, that prosecution should fail. Nevertheless, this person is in being prosecuted for holocaust-denial, numerous WP:RS affirm that fact, and I see no appeal in charmless euphemisms for holocaust-denial such as “holocaust revisionism.” (q4). As to whether she should be named and how she should be described (qq1,2,5), the article currently says: “CAA brought a Private prosecution against a holocaust denier who released three YouTube videos.” I think that’s sufficient as stands. But the following clause, “of self-written antisemitic songs,” can go; that the holocaust-denial was set to music is immaterial and it's redundant to explain that holocaust-denial is antisemitic. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to censor her name here, in your view? It appears prominently in every source. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Because "don't feed the trolls." The best remedy for (and vaccine against) people who crave notoriety, name-recognition, and attention is don't give them what they want.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Simon Dodd, it is incorrect to state that I am being prosecuted for Holocaust denial. There is no anti-revisionist law in the UK. The charges against me are for sending/causing to be sent "grossly offensive" material over a public communications network. The Crown Prosecution accepts this. Ergo, under UK law, I have not committed any offence unless it can be proven that my songs are "grossly offensive" - for which there is no legal definition. My trial has become a Trial by Media and that includes the evidence on these very pages over the past days. Alison Chabloz (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You are charged, according to court reports, under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, with "sending by a public communications network an offensive, indecent or menacing message or material" and, in the alternative, "causing offensive material to be sent by a public communications network". The question at issue in court is whether your antisemitic songs are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". The sources we use do not address that question, they discuss only the matters of fact, namely that you are a holocaust denier (something that's hard to disclaim, given that you stood in the dock and denied the holocaust) who recorded and published antisemitic songs. You could be cleared on the Section 127 charges and that would make no difference at all to the fact that you are, as the sources attest, a holocaust denier who recorded and uploaded antisemitic videos. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that your songs are offensive, and having watched the videos it is hard to see how you would argue that it was not your intention to offend. The only legal question is whether they rise to the level of grossly offensive, a matter of degree. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am by no means pro-Zionist, but I find the present statement in the article to be acceptable in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG/Guy <- self-appointed WP Inquisitor who would know better than an English court! LOL! Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ms. Chabloz references WP:BLPCRIME. The relevant text is: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. However, the coverage centres on holocaust denial and the performance of antisemitic songs. There is no serious dispute that she did this, the only open question is whether this was a violation of the Communications Decency Act. Consider R v Peacock. Peacock is not an independently notable individual, he is not WP:WELLKNOWN, he is not guilty of a crime, but the coverage states that he sold BDSM porn, and this is not disputed. Making antisemitic statements and selling BDSM porn are both things that some people find abhorrent and others consider to be free speech. In neither case does the outcome of the case have any bearing on the factual basis of the speech having been made, or its nature. This is different from David Irving, where the question at issue was whether he is a legitimate scholar or a holocaust denying anti-semite. The court finding there was directly relevant to the nature of his writing, and his professional reputation was intimately bound to the nature and honesty of his scholarship. Ms. Chabloz does not dispute that she described Auschwitz as a "theme park for fools", referred tot he Holocaust as the "holohoax", and she stated in open court he opinion that there is "no proof" gas chambers were used to kill Jewish people in World War Two, a claim which has been extensively investigated and shown to be objectively false (see Criticism of Holocaust denial § Use of gas chambers. So Ms. Chabloz' problem is not with the factual statement that she said these things, something she does not deny, nor with the existence of the case, regardless of its outcome, but with the real-world consensus that the views she openly expresses are antisemitic - a problem we are not going to fix per long-standing consensus, not least around the article on Irving, which has been subject to similar claims from supporters since forever. This is clear from her assertion that we should not follow mainstream media - What's the point of an independent outlet that simply parrots mainstream soundbites? - and from her denigration of reports as "moronic mainstream media articles" above. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidential proof of gas chambers having been used other than to fight typhus lice. If there were evidence showing that Jews and others were gassed with Zyklon B, then there would be no need for laws which suppress Holocaust revisionism. "moronic mainstream media articles" is a fair description of several alleged 'reliable independent sources' which claimed e.g. that I sang along from inside the dock when my songs were screened in court [12].

The main issue here is yet another gross violation of BLP guidelines regards unknown people accused of a crime. If I am not well-known enough for a dedicated page, then these guidelines should be respected. End of. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Point 1: If you are here to try to convince us that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews, you are doomed to disappointment. Those claims have been reviewed in the scientific and historical literature and in courts, and are entirely discredited. It is a matter of fact, established by competent courts, that gas chambers were used to kill Jews and there is evidence that gas chambers were used to kill Jews. This is not up for debate.

Point 2: As I pointed out, it's nothing to do with the allegation of a crime. See the comparison with R v Peacock above. The question of whether your antisemitic songs contravene the CDA is independent from the question of whether you published antisemitic songs, and the facts clearly show that you did. Please try to understand the difference between these two things, I think my explanation above was clear but do feel free to ask for clarification. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Point 1: not up for debate simply proves that Wikipedia is not a credible source of information

Point 2: There is already stark incoherence regards the way I - as a living individual - am subject to double standards, which merely confirms my assertion in point 1, that Wikipedia is not a credible source of information when it comes the so-called 'Holocaust'. See Paul Eisen. The Israeli government FUNDS workshops to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles favourable to Zionism [13] [14]. It's common knowledge. The truth is already out there - it's too late, I'm afraid. You have my pity. Alison Chabloz (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not up for debate precisely because Wikipedia is a credible source of information. The balance of your reply merely underscores that you are looking for reasons to get the result most personally convenient to you, rather than engaging with the questions about whether that is right or not. You appear to want us to fix the fact that reliable sources universally characteristic you as an antisemitic blogger - it is not clear to me how we are supposed to fix that, but it is clear to me that we are going to follow the reliable sources despite your apparent disdain for them, because that is our policy. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again Guy you are simply expressing your opinion. The pages on the so-called 'Holocaust' speak for themselves. Alison Chabloz (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they really do. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And proven in court with Irving v Penguin books et al. There is no credible evidence to back up claims of holocaust denial, and although historical revisionism is certainly a valid method of testing the truth, it is actually backed up by evidence - you know, survivors, sonderkommando, spies, resistance, intelligence, liberating troops, perpetrators, documents and so on. There are aspects of who knew what (on both the Axis and Allied sides), who did what, who the victims were and how many there were and challenging aspects of that could count as revisionism. However, you seem to be denying the accepted facts which would make it denial. Shritwod (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Alison, the pages on the Holocaust do indeed speak for themselves. No matter how right you think you are, you must realize the almost universal views about this. WP is not a place for advocacy, and of all possible unpopular ideas to advocate for, this is the one that will have the least sympathy. Surely you are aware of how views like yours are used in the world, and the nature of some of the people who use them. We will try to enforce BLP and NPOV even for you, but Guy is right in saying that NPOV as applied to you will inevitably be negative.

But Guy, it will be much easier to deal with this once the current court case is concluded. There's no need to push the issue. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@ DGG Thanks for your comment. I disagree with some of the implications made: I am advocating for freedom of expression and open, honourable debate. As to the 'nature' of certain people using 'views like yours' - I suspect here that the hidden message is along the usual lines of 'We all know where racism leads...' Enforcing BLP and NPOV 'even for you' therefore means reverting the edit on Adrian Davies's page which includes my name - as you did yesterday regards this page. Alison Chabloz (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DGG I don't know if it becomes easier or not. As far as I can see the outcome of the case makes no difference, the prosecution itself is notable, and the characterisation of Ms. Chabloz as an antisemite and a holocaust denier is not contingent on the outcome, it is a simple statement of fact. She is not on trial for antisemitism, she is on trial for violating the law by publishing antisemitism. A not guilty verdict will not acquit her of antisemitism, nor of publishing antisemitism, it will address only the question of whether publishing antisemitism in this specific way is legal or not. Same with her friend Jez who was jailed for a year last week. Oh, and I've watched the videos. There is nothing of openness, honour or polite discourse about them. They are simply a torrent of spite directed against people whose very existence appears to cause Ms. Chabloz to experience cognitive dissonance. Also: she needs a piano tuner. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

With the conclusion of the court case, we might have a detail or two to add -- but as Guy says it won't change the facts that we already know. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

DGG The WP Inquisition continues. The incoherence is quite astonishing: not on trial for anti-Semitism, on trial for publishing anti-Semitism! Which is it, DGG? It's NEITHER. There were over 800 comments on my original (((Survivors))) video before YouTube censored it - 90-95% of which were overwhelmingly positive. The same applies to all my other videos of songs. If you like, I can copy and paste them from Creator Studio (where I can still see them) into a PDF document and post them on my user page. Alison Chabloz (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)