@RichieAllenShow
The
Jewish Chronicle seems
dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail
time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms.
Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This kingdom has, in
just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.
For posting
so-called ‘grossly offensive songs’ on the internet, Chabloz was
sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended
for two years. It seems that now music is deemed a major threat to
Britain.
Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social
media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet
social interaction and intellectual exchange? Israel imposes such
prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain
types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw
itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the
people and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good
company.
Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of
unpaid work.” This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz
gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend ‘a 20-day rehabilitation
programme.’ In 21st century Britain, a singer songwriter has been
sentenced to ‘re-education’ for singing a few tunes that offended some
people. The initial objective of the Nazi Concentration camp was also to
‘re-educate the people.’ Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans,
dissenter communists and to make them into German patriots. I wonder
what this particular rehab program will entail for the revisionist
singer? Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to Ava Nagila, will
she have now to learn to sing Ava Nagila in Yiddish, or maybe to try to
fit her own original ‘subversive’ lyrics to the music of Richard
Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what
happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of
Jewish suffering or far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?
Satire
aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that
Britain is no longer the liberty-loving place I settled in more than
two decades ago. If liberty can be defined as the right to offend,
Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In
contemporary Britain, exercise of the ‘right to offend’ evidently leads
to conviction and possible imprisonment. And who defines what
establishes ‘an offence’? British law fails to do so. Chabloz was
disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures such as Elie Wiesel and Otto
Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar
legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston
Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals
and artists? Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by
pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia.
We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly
watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor
our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.
Democracies
are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make
decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to
watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no
longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts
are now taken by ‘the law’. According to the JC, Judge Zani told
Chabloz that :“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a
fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly
established that this right is a qualified right.”
While many of
us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made
it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore.
Freedom of speech in Britain is now a ‘qualified right.’ In other words
Government and the Judicial system are allowed to interfere with such
right at any time. Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service
didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the
CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or
quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that
is prosecuted.
Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, signed by Great Britain and enacted in 1948 declares: “Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.”
This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights we have to remember, we experience them no more.