Legal gymnastics in the Chabloz case

On Monday we had the final submissions in the Chabloz case. She is on trial under the Malicious Communications Act. The verdict is due on 25 May.

There was some virtuoso legal gymnastics by her barrister Adrian Davies (sometime defender of Holocaust Denier David Irving).

He claimed that there was no evidence that anyone ever received the messages sent by Chabloz and that there was no intended recipient.  He tried to argue that Chabloz was not responsible for sending obscene songs – it was actually Youtube, he said:  “If someone who’s drunk or unstable or eccentric decides to phone up the Speaking Clock and shout some obscenity, it is not conceivable that they are committing an offence – it’s absurd. …Uploading a video to YouTube – the only ‘recipient’ is a lump of silicon in a concrete bunker in California.”

He claimed that the recipient of a Youtube video (not the creator) ‘causes the video to be sent’ , by clicking on it.

He argued that the vile songs could only be understood by ‘experts’ such as Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman of the CAA (who testified for the prosecution). Reasonable members of society would not have the knowledge of Falter and Silverman. He suggested that a ‘malicious communication’ has to be directed at a named person, but Chabloz’s songs were not so directed: she did not know that Falter and Silverman would ever see the videos.

He argued that there is no evidence that ALL Jews would understand the songs. ‘Hava Nagila’ (the melody used in Chabloz’s ‘song’ (((Survivors))) “may not be a song with which secular Jews are familiar” (!).  And “It cannot be said that all Survivors are Jewish”. And  “attacking Irene Zysblatt doesn’t constitute an attack on all Jews.” And finally that old chestnut so beloved of antisemites: the IHRA Definition of antisemitism “makes all criticism of Israel illegitimate”.

The verdict is due on 25 May…………………………..