A blogger who posted videos online of her performing songs in which she denied the Holocaust took place, mocked survivors and described Auschwitz as a “theme park”, is on trial at Westminster Magistrates Court.

Alison Chabloz, 53, who describes herself as a “Holocaust revisionist” is accused of posting three antisemitic songs on YouTube in September 2016.

Two of the songs, one called (((Survivors))), and another called ‘Nemo’s Anti-Semitic Universe’ were performed at a conference at the Grosvenor Hotel in London hosted by a group called The London Forum, which describes itself as “a conference group for nationalists, identitarians, thinkers and commentators”

The third song is entitled “I like the story as it is - SATIRE”, which she performs with a guitar in front of a microphone.

She is on trial at Westminster Magistrates Court charged with five counts of improper use of a public electronic communications network which are described in the charges as "grossly offensive, indecent or obscene".

Ms Chabloz is represented by barrister Adrian Davies, who represented Holocaust denier David Irving at the the court of appeal in 2001.

In court on Wednesday she was joined by more than 20 supporters in the public galley. After the playing of one of the songs, members of her support applauded, which led to district Judge John Zani warning them they would be removed from the public gallery.

The case was originally brought by a private prosecution by the charity the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism but has now been picked up by the Crown Prosecution Service which previously had refused to take it on.

In the song (((Survivors))) she sings “We control your media, control all your books and TV, with the daily lies we're feeding, suffering victimisation."

It continues: “Sheeple have no realisation, you shall pay, all the way, until the break of day.”

The song also mocks Holocaust survivors Irene Zisblatt and Elie Wiezel, insinuating their accounts were made up to make money.

She also questions the authorship of Anne Frank’s diary, which she again claims was a money making scam by her father.

The court was told the use of the three brackets in the songs title was known as an “Echo” which is “a symbol devised by far right extremists to make Jewish figures more easily identifiable for the purpose of online harassment”.

As the song was played in court Ms Chabloz was seen mouthing along and her supporters were swaying along with the music.

In lyrics to her song entitled “Nemo’s Anti-Semitic Universe” Chabloz branded Auschwitz a "theme park" and gas chambers a "hoax" and described the holocaust as a “Holohoax”.

She also sang “Isra-hell is a genocidal state with no right to exist, everyone knows the score under international law”.

It also includes lines such as “Did the Holocaust ever happen? Was it just a bunch of lies? Seems that some intend to pull the wool over our eyes.”

The song goes on to say “Now Auschwitz, holy temple, is a theme park just for fools, the gassing zone a proven hoax, indoctrination rules”.

The performance goes on, saying: "History repeats itself, no limit to our wealth, thanks to your debts we're bleeding you dry.”

Prosecutor Karen Robinson said: “The songs target Jewish people and no others and it would appear that the defendant’s work is motivated by discrimination.

“The songs, specifically the language used within them, have been carefully considered and composed with the language chosen deliberately.”

She added: “These are songs, their lyrics, about matters of the utmost seriousness, music.

"The music the defendant uses, which is traditional Jewish song music is part of her attempt to mock and provoke.”

The prosecutor said: “The prosecution contends that the defendant's songs go way beyond the mere expression of an unfashionable opinion about serious matters and that they go way beyond permissible satirical or iconoclastic comment.

“They are antisemitic, they are targeting the Jewish people as a whole and use both their content and their tone to ensure maximum offence.

“It may be well be that some of the alleged humour is derived from the level of offence to the Jewish people.

“The songs are designed to provoke maximum upset and discomfort. By the standards of an open and multi-racial society they are grossly offensive.”

Giving evidence, Gideon Falter, chairman of the Campaign against Antisemitism, said the songs were “extremely hurtful and extremely offensive”.

Under cross-examination he said: “Ms Chalboz has caused all of this. 

"Had she not committed a huge effort to spread antisemitic hatred then we would never felt the need to bring a private prosecution.”

He added: “All Jewish people, and not just Jewish people, just right-minded people who have studied and come to understand what happened in the Holocaust would be extremely offended by what is a particularly gross attempt to paint the Holocaust as some kind of money-making hoax perpetrated by Jews to further their own power in the world in order to make money.

“That is what is so grossly offensive.”

Adrian Davies, acting for the defence, put to Mr Falter that he was just against Chabloz’s “revisionist message and her pro-Palestine message” and he wanted to “silence her and stop her spreading that message”.

Mr Falter said: “You are saying the reason she is doing this was her interest in Palestine

“I would say what is of greater interest is her inciting hatred of the Jewish people and to drive them into the sea.”

He said he knew plenty of people who were pro-Palestine and “do not call for Jews to be driven into the sea”.

He concluded: “To be clear if she read this song in a deadpan manner then I would still consider she committed an offence.”

The court also heard evidence from Stephen Silverman, director of investigations and enforcement from the Campaign Against Antisemitism.

When asked to describe the videos he said: “It is quite possibly one of the most appalling expression of antisemitic hatred I have ever seen.”

Chabloz, of Charlesworth, Glossop, Derbyshire, denies the two counts of sending by public communications network an offensive message.

She also denies two alternative charges of causing to be sent by a public communications network an offensive message.

She also denies a further charge of sending by public communications network an offensive message relating to a third song.

The trial was adjourned for the defence case and closing submissions to be heard in March.