The Art of a Secular Atheist - "defamation of religion"

In 1999 I held my first solo exhibition "The Mysteries" and amongst paintings mostly celebrating a surreal and symbolic vision of mythology some were subtly, or not so subtly depending upon your perspective, critical of religion.

The Mysteries series of paintings were so titled to encapsulate the main interest and inspiration for their development, formed from ideas that had emerged through the study and ongoing interest in ancient Greek myth and mythology. It was from this relatively personal exploration that another strong theme has emerged into a broad criticism of religion. Then and since I continue to give as the prefacing title of such paintings Baleful Worship and with them I point to concerns about what a religious world would bring using canvas and oil paint.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)  © L. Raymond

Within The Mysteries began the first germination of the Baleful Worship theme where I assert the worship of a religion whether of a deity or a nothingness is a fatally flawed concept for humanity to adopt. History and recent events teach us religion provides a useful model and platform from which to develop and utilise negative aspirations for a nation state, race or a people. The negative aspects that manifest can include that a religion will have as an ultimate aim the purpose of achieving dominion over opposing religions and social if not socio-political systems. As such it is inherently a platform that does not tolerate criticism or dissent. It becomes Totalitarian in dominance and emerges a Theocracy, a political-religious State and system that enforces as rule of law a religion upon a country and a people and one that at its core is sensitive to any criticism of the doctrine which underpins it.

Islam today demonstrates it is particularly sensitive to any criticism claiming its critics instead must suffer from Islamophobia (sic) and have a racist intent toward Muslims (who are multi-race). It is effective propaganda, the more simplistic the argument the better for such a purpose, and is utilised like pepper spray to shut down argument by declaring it racism and intolerance when any critical examination of Islam's religious texts and practices are raised. Making it all the more important to investigate the doctrine as a consequence. All religions do not tolerate criticism well or unquestioningly (even though return argument is expected and welcome) but it is rare to claim the blanket accusation that all critics of a religion are racist and intolerant. The worst backlash from the Christian and Judaic sector currently has been to counter Atheist criticism for the most part with the label of "militant" or that they are representative of a "new" and unreasoned "radical" atheism. There exists racism and intolerance but it cannot be claimed to exist in all critics or opponents or uncomfortable arguments. The blanket declaration equates to a blanket ban, a censorship, a chilling of criticism of Islam at all, because it is a religion and somehow exempt. Hopefully that by doing so, in such uncritical blanket terms and so frequently, it is also becoming more obvious for the propaganda that it is.

Intolerance is the characteristic critics of Islam are branded with...that the critic is intolerant of Islam and not the matter raised referencing Islamic intolerance. Islam conversely is claimed by its followers and defenders to be very tolerant and peaceful so anyone claiming different is doing so because they, the critic, are intolerant. Simple propagandist argument that works to good effect as with the racism charge. And, in the face of violence performed on behalf of and in defence of Islam, the victims directly or other entities, Israel, the USA, military invasion of Islamic lands e.g.: Afghanistan, are instead blamed not the perpetrators of violence or the doctrine they use to support their violence and disgruntlement. Certain Islamic Clerics re-confirm followers of Islam are justified in conducting violent retribution against an opposition (infidel) who harm, dishonour, "insult" the peaceful and tranquil religion of Islam. Omar Bakri compliments a follower of Islam who hacked a UK soldier to death after first running him down with a car in a British street states:

 "The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That's a beautiful saying," he said. "May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions." reuters 

Baleful Worship and this recurrent theme questions the psychology and legitimacy of religion's to demand unquestioning and uncritical worship by its devotees and of course to demand retribution on its behalf.

A more recent Baleful Worship - Submission focuses on Islam for these main reasons:

1. The cheap and persuasive propaganda argument that if you criticise Islam, as the popular claim goes, you do so because you are racist and intolerant; works like riot police with pepper spray, indiscriminate but effective.

2. Islam via doctrine manifests a means by which to practice and defend misogynistic and other human rights abuse behaviours under a veil of protected legitimacy whilst of course claiming it represents the exact opposite and only lashes out in defence.

In my Baleful Worship paintings the female form is a generic representative of a prostrate or standing follower posed typically so as to appease a deity/doctrine. The alter or object/focal point for devotion has variously been, industrial machinery, a pile of debris, an organic phonic-boiler, an alien nursery, and lately a veiled tentacled monster. The underlying symbolism has become menacing. Is Islam menacing detractors/critics by declaring them enemies of Islam and valid targets for attack? Is the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam the fault of the religion's follower's interpretation of its doctrine or of its inadequately evolved doctrine? Can Islam under the Koran and Sharia be deemed tolerant? An if so tolerant under what definition. Does Islam indeed understand tolerance or does it have the interpretation that tolerance equates only with one's submission to it?

Under Anti-defamation of religion laws my questions would be declared intolerant. Which makes such a law a declaration of censorship of thought and idea and a nod to a return to a dark ages Inquisition style persecution of religion's detractors as a heresy. That one must not criticise religion, in thought or deed, based upon its doctrine (Koran, Bible, Torah) spells the resurrection of blasphemy law. Such law would make it illegal to critique, "insult" religion and if deployed any critic of religion would be a heretic and a blasphemer for doing so. With past and recent proposals to the UN human rights commission to protect religion from defamation 'aka' introduce world wide blasphemy law with the sole aim of protecting Islam from criticism represents a serious intention to limit the human right to freedom of expression of thought, and the transmission/receipt of ideas. It was found to contravene Article 19 of the  UN's Declaration on Human Rights and has been rightly voted down...again as recently as 2010. To criminalise criticism deemed to have harmed the reputation of religion as it in turn has harmed or vilified its followers is an extreme and dangerous step. Just ask Indonesian atheist Alexander Aan and unfortunately there are countless others.

The architects attempting to frame such a restriction on "the right to freedom of opinion and expression" consist mainly though not exclusively of nations where for the main the state recognised religion is Islam or where there exists a state Theocracy. The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission submission in 2008 treads a tight-rope balancing act, complimenting the "good intentions" behind it, though declining to endorse the proposal. HREOC's authors agree throughout the document that there is such a thing as "defamation of religion" that much needs to happen to "combat the defamation of religion" (though their preamble and introduction caution against use of the verb "combat" in the original proposal but then unabashedly use it themselves anyway). It was difficult to recognise HREOC's actual stance and, safe "fence sitting" appears to be the overall aim. The submission's authors revealed too that HREOC would like to have a more firm understanding in place at Commonwealth level of the condition they describe as "ethno-religious" (sec. 2.2) and that though aspects of some Australian State legislature have recognised it this is only under certain narrow conditions, that a person of a religion can have "ethno-religious" qualities and a claim to racial vilification. Leaving the door clearly ajar for all manner of subjective agenda to be applied in the future it will result in a distortion of human rights and equal opportunity more than an advancing of them arguably.

Defamation law already chills speech to a disturbing truth obscuring level in order to protect individual's or company's reputation as being only "good" - truth is not material in Australian law without proof and proof of accepted justification. Defamation law aims to obscure opinion which does not uncritically support that a reputation is good. Were defamation of religion to be its extension world wide then the same would apply for when ever anyone critiqued actions carried out in the name of a religious doctrine upon which a religion is founded or of the religious doctrine itself. To know a religion one must examine its doctrine. This would prevent critical examination and would enable a  return of blasphemy laws on a world wide scale. Imagine the level of inquisition that would emerge. Many critics against this push to implement a defamation of religion law have pointed correctly to how this would cause a damaging limitation on freedom of expression and thought and could lead the way for malicious litigation by the aggrieved claiming personal harm from criticism of their religion - because defamation law allows for this already. In doing so they are pointing out in part the flaws in defamation law that make it a playground of options for the aggrieved to take out their grievance on and to punish a critic with under the full gaze and assistance of the law and by extension the State.

So, why baleful?

bale·ful  

/ˈbālfəl/

Adjective Threatening harm; menacing: "Bill shot a baleful glance in her direction". Having a harmful or destructive effect.

Synonyms evil - sinister - bad - baneful - harmful - pernicious

and, worship?
Religion requires unquestioning devotion (faith) to doctrine in the name of an entity (God, Jehovah, Allah). The worshiper is informed they submit to, believe in, follow and if necessary defend the one true god delivered doctrine in the name of the faith and the faithful. It is because of this and other claims by religion that religious doctrine is therefore open for examination and criticism and those who would argue to defend their religious doctrine will have their arguments open to equal examination and criticism. However, the religious and clearly Islam, claim exemption from such examination because it is not permitted by their doctrine in the first place. Reason holds that one is not vilified by argument and examination one is educated by it and through their use. But religion claims exemption and with defamation law at its side and the concept that a religion can be classified as "ethno-religious" along with the concomitant support of a racial vilification and tolerance act in toe you can pull a trifecta of legal barriers to shut down all nasty criticism of religion.

Is this the world in which we want to live and leave for our descendants?

I believe in no religion and I know through reason that the separation of religion and the state must be upheld with the transparent exclusion of any religious interference within legislature and governance to have a truly independent government, democratic and free society. The opening of Australian Parliament with "The Lord's Prayer" for example must go. It does not belong in any part of our government procedures even as a nod to an earlier ritualism. If it is not already the case it can be taken to have more meaning than a ritual alone.
That I suppose now makes me a "militant secularist" too.

Paintings - oil on canvas ranging from 1999 - 2010 © Lee-Anne Raymond
 

Humanity can live without religion. The question is can we survive despite religion?

Blasphemy Laws, Atheism and Offending Religion

Australia's leading human rights organisation HREOC at the behest of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) decided along with a whole bunch of others that we needed more laws, and internationally binding ones, to protect religion from criticism by enshrining such law into the charter and covenants of the UN. It was yet another attempt by the OIC to implement blasphemy laws internationally through a UN resolution so as to make it an offence to offend religion specifically to combat, what they term as being, "Islamaphobia". The first time was in 1999 and the latest push beginning in 2007 was fortunately again unsuccessful in 2011 but another attempt is being made.

The primary aim for the proposed resolution was to specifically enact through jointly agreed international law the prohibition of defamation of religion, limiting comment on religion to that being of a positive nature only. To negatively critique or offend religion, primarily Islam, was to be deemed an offence, internationally. It was correctly defeated but they'd gotten closer on this second occasion. It is troubling that organisations such as HREOC cannot perceive the actual threat to human rights the implementing of such laws would be. Some of the major problems are that it would equate attributes held by an individual, such as race,  physicality or gender with organisations or concepts and ideas such as that of a religion. Ideas and therefore religions cannot be defamed through debate, criticism, through not "believing" them, through not accepting them and/or choosing to follow another religion. Neither is it the case that race can be assigned to a religion. Many followers of a particular religion may be of one particular dominant race (many are not) but religions are inherently multiracial. So how is that so many consider it or entertain the idea that it is racist to critique religion, in particular Islam? Race and physicality, including gender are protected attributes in sections of law designed to protect an individual from attack and persecution on this level. It is not permitted to discriminate based upon a protected attribute. Essentially the OIC and human rights bodies like HREOC are saying religion should be a protected attribute. In modelling the law along the lines of Defamation we have a way to cease any criticism of religion through an individual's right to access that law and claim the offence as being an attack on their person and religion as a protected attribute.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)

Taking this further to its logical conclusion if we allow for a world where there exists the prohibition of defamation of religion one can outlaw any and all unendorsed religion, commentary of any kind on religion other than by experts in scripture, other beliefs, and of course this makes atheism completely illegal. Atheism and atheists can by their existence be viewed offensive to the religious.

As what is considered non-defamatory commentary by one person, country, religion can subjectively be determined to be offensively defamatory by another person, country, religion how such laws might operate on an international or local scale other than in dictatorial or tyrannical terms makes one wonder about its proponent's ultimate aims and thinking. Clearly the State (international community?) would need to dictate the definition of what might be deemed permitted or offensive in law and by extension what religion/s were permitted or offensive in law. The result would be that the State (international community) would need to enact as law the legally recognised religion/s of the land (or planet) otherwise people might accidentally offend by not belonging to the endorsed religion/s. Further to this by not belonging to an endorsed religion or by being atheist one will have offended not only religion at this point but will have also offended the State and will need to answer not only for having blasphemed religion but having committed sedition for being anti-the-state by being irreligious. Not such an inconceivable result.

In Defamation Law an aggrieved party only needs to state they are aggrieved to have been defamed. Religious vilification laws have worked similarly. The religious perceived a threat and felt aggrieved and so are defamed by an act, a comment or reference made about their religion or religious convictions. Framed to mirror Defamation law the UN proposition to enact defamation of religion laws stinks not only of the most sinister form of censorship but by extension in addition the proposed abolishing of an individual's right to freedom of thought, ideas and expression. In the Australian State of Victoria, we already have an introduction of such limitations in the form of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, introduced by the Bracks Labor government in 2001

The Victorian Act was used in the now notorious Catch the Fire Ministry case (this link to Saltshakers blog has an excellent brief synopsis of the case and the ultimate outcome for the parties). The outcome, following a successful appeal by the defendants and instruction to have the case reheard, was arrived at during a fresh Mediation Hearing, with both parties agreeing that robust debate on religion was permissible.  This is just a mediated agreement between two parties though. It means nothing in terms of the potential for the further use of this deeply flawed law. This law has gouged a deep trench through freedoms of all Victorians and attempts are being made to deepen and make this trench wider and permanent by using it as a model to pursue changes in the UN.

The Catch the Fire case took 5 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend and presumably prosecute. The rational for which is overtly clear, protect religion from all forms of criticism and in particular the religion of Islam.

The right to pursue a religion must never entail that your religion or your conviction for it are exempted from examination, discussion and criticism by others. It is heartening the UN committee concluded

"48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.115"
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - General Comment No 34

The OIC will however continue to push their particular agenda to prevent criticism of Islam at the UN on an annual basis.

An Islamo-Phobia for criticism

Just read this post from Ophelia Bensen "there are other critics of the word islamophobia" and it prompted me to follow it up with some personal reflection and reiteration of the message therein.

Firstly I'd point out it is my position that those who declare all who critique Islam with a blanket accusation of "Islamophobia" are themselves phobic of criticism and guilty of a declaration of false racism, diminishing the suffering of those experiencing very real racism.

What is a declaration of false racism?

I recount the following experience as one example. Others will possibly have had more significant reportages than my slightly banal event but it illustrates my point never-the-less and it is my experience to recount.

When driving some years back my partner and I were very lucky not to be shunted into a rail-hoarding at a level crossing by the erratic overtaking of another driver. Unfortunately a little further ahead this mad man did smash into another car which was making a legal turn. We stopped to offer our assistance as witnesses and to make sure no one was hurt.

The erratic driver launched on a short tirade accusing us of being "friends, you are his relatives" of the driver he'd smashed into. He was of course referring to our race as we and the other driver must have all "looked" to be from the same race perhaps. My partner is from Greek and I from Anglo-Germanic heritage, the other innocent driver perhaps anglo? We didn't know the nationality of the erratic driver before or even following stopping, he could have been Chinese, it wasn't the issue. He drove like a maniac and caused an accident and damage. The other driver deserved witness support and we were in the position to offer it. We reiterated he'd nearly driven us into a rail-hoading and he was clearly in the wrong with the subsequent accident. Though this was obvious he was adamant he was being targeted by a racist agenda. Though he could have encountered much real racism prior our encounter, on this occasion his was a declaration of false racism.

When is racism, real racism?

Though born in Australia my partner has suffered direct racism most of his life. At school he was astonishingly informed by the then Principle that "his kind deserve what they get" when bullied by older boys for being "a wog". The experience of being treated as an inferior would emerge later at work, occur socially (then and still now!) and from strangers in the street "go home wog" as the most popular of the "enlightened" racist directives.

Real racism by example is therefore to be called or treated as a "wog", a term which, in Australia, is intended as a derogatory reference (there is some claim this is largely defused now and intended as a term of endearment between buddies - I'd like to see the survey data backing this claim up). If it is yelled out in the street by a stranger, or used in an argument to put down the opposition by declaring their inferiority based upon their race and origin, what does it mean then..."buddy"? Second and third generation migrants still suffer gibes and outright hate in public or private from other second and third generation migrants, as they presumably are from better European origins? Ultimately anyone not Aboriginal is a new-comer or born from migrant stock but how long before an Australian is an Australian? This is without covering, though not with the intention to ignore, the racism and abuse suffered by Australia's  first nation peoples, Aborigines.

Australia at a basic level struggles to acknowledge that racism remains as a distinct under current within its "nationalist" character. It is more than unacceptable to be yelled at to "go home wog" at all let alone on a street in your country of birth, though this happens still and it means this country has a long way to go.

All things considered though does this mean due to the obvious sensitivities surrounding certain sections of the community I cannot robustly critique German, English, Greek, Italian, Aboriginal or Chinese, etc., on grounds of politics, religion or social/cultural/political concerns where warranted, because it would be "racist" for me to do so?

One of the problems for anyone daring to be a critic of Islam is they are lumped in amongst those declaring unveiled intolerance and ignorance. Critics of Islam are very successfully dismissed as being "racist" because this message, though frequently intelligently challenged, this isn't as successful a message as the accusation of racism.

A primarily leftist social and political position supports and perpetuates the myth that the critic and the comment is "racist" first and due to a racism born of the critics' fear of Islam. Though effective, because no one wants to be considered "racist" or "islamophobic", this is is just a blunt object not any sort of valid counter argument and is one used to chill speech and stifle real debate.