Defamation law is the DE-Formation of Law

As it is currently framed Defamation Law is a law designed to enable censorship, where it normally would not be permitted to exist, by preventing the imparting of information. Understanding this is critical to understanding why it is a threat to a foundational element of our rights and freedoms.

The right to receive and impart information.

Book Devourer - exquisite corpse - L.Raymond & B. Dumaine Fig.1

We may live in a secular democracy (Australia) but our right to "freedom of expression" as it is termed is consistently tested and undermined by external and internal pressures. Defamation Law is one of these pressures. From within it prevents the imparting of information on grounds that a reputation may be diminished. From without Defamation Law presents a chink in the armour of secular democratic values to be undermined by religious or opportunistic internationals or trans-commercial interests.

In one such example HREOC - The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia) assisted in both an internal and external attack on our rights and freedoms. By unreasonable means via its "Combating the Defamation of Religions" report it attempted to assist to institute blasphemy laws world wide, laws intended to undermine our freedoms from within. HREOC participated in an externally driven attack sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference designed to prevent any criticism of religion, primarily criticism of Islam, by using as its template English (British) Libel Laws upon which the poorly framed Australian Defamation Act of 2005 is based. The aims of the OIC and HREOC was to outlaw all criticism of thought and ideas critical of or antithetic to religion/s by utilising and aligning the framework of Defamation of Religions with (British) Libel tradition. It very nearly succeeded. Why Australians were not more concerned about such an attack on their rights, which were indeed under threat too, is a fair question to ask.

Freedom of expression, as it is currently termed in Australia, is a verbal underplay of the importance of what is referenced, and a diminishing of what should always be termed the Freedom to Impart and Receive Information or Freedom of Speech. How it is believed to work is that however much an individual, or public, or private entity, may wish to suppress information about their actions and deeds this aim will be balanced by the right to freely receive or impart information without fear or favour. This  however, is not the case. Any purported balancing of the ambition to suppress any and all negative information and the imparting of information is instead neutered by Defamation Law. The OIC, and others like HREOC recognise this is the weakness inherent within Defamation Law and attempted, and perhaps will again attempt, to exploit it. Suppression of information, in what ever form and for what ever reason, is what Defamation Law is ultimately framed to achieve. It was an almost perfect fit.

Absurdly the "objects of the act" (s.3 (b).) of Defamation Law and its proponents proclaim it is framed to preserve the right to receive and impart information by not unduly limiting these rights. How so? By limiting that which it proclaims it protects? With a self negating paradox the law and its advocates uphold a farcical contradiction no one within the legal industry will duly recognise. A criticised individual need only claim they are aggrieved by the information imparted about them, their deeds and actions, to achieve validation and representation under the law. Their grievance makes it defamatory to impart material that they would rather was not shared and the law allows for it to be quashed, hidden, pulled from the internet/publication, apologised for and compensated. Deep pockets assist the aims of those interested in securing censorship of their actions or protection from criticism of their ideas with the added inducement of significant monetary compensation for all concerned except the plaintiff(!).

As PILCH points out the law defines defamation as:

Material will be defamatory if it could:

• injure the reputation of the individual by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
• cause people to shun or avoid the individual; or
• lower the individual’s estimation by right thinking members of society.

For a defamation action to be successful, three elements must be satisfied:

1. the information was communicated by the defendant to a third person other than the plaintiff (publication);
2. the material identifies the plaintiff (identification); and
3. the information/material contains matter that is defamatory, regardless of whether the material was intentionally published or not (defamatory matter).

PILCH's definition itself makes no distinction about the truthfulness of bad actions being defamatory. As PILCH imputes any information imparted can be considered defamatory and the defamed has a right to have such information suppressed.

There is not much in the way of the protection of one's right to impart information is there?

The OIC's intention was to utilise the various interpretations of libel/defamation law world wide to prevent criticism of religion/s by adapting a charter that would align "Defamation of Religions" to the concepts above and to acts of a criminal nature. HREOC in their report were only too happy to assist such aims.

HREOC's "Combating the Defamation of Religions 2008" Fig.2

Significantly the elements of "defamation of religion" were being technically aligned to and identified with defamation law. The assertion being that one's religion defines the individual holder of that faith, and so, to critique a religion, is to diminished and expose the individual, the faithful, to... "hatred, contempt or ridicule…" to "lower the individual's estimation…" and thus "injure the reputation". Here is how it would work. By critiquing a particular religion the critic "identifies" the faithful, the individual followers, of that religion with that criticism satisfying the three elements confirming defamation has occurred as criticism was: 1. communicated to other parties 2. criticism of religion identifies individual followers with religion 3. critical commentary causes one to feel injury and therefore defamation has occurred. All very circular reasoning designed to deploy a net of censorship so no ideas or actions may be critiqued.

As one who is enduring a defamation lawsuit I recognise defamation law as a law that is aimed to achieve censorship. If you want to prevent information being imparted you sue, just like Cripps has done with me and my co-defendant. The first legal letter we received charged us with committing a criminal act for which we could receive 3 years "imprisonment". The letter aligned itself to the concepts being discussed above, that is with "Defamation of Religions" by making specific reference to 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995. This same section is quoted in the HREOC submission "Combating the Defamation of Religions 2008"!

"2.4.2 Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) 

Under s 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) it is an offence to use a carriage service (which includes the use of the internet or e-mail) in such a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive."

Williams Winter acting for and representing Robert Cripps in February 2011 Fig.3
Williams Winter letters of demand

And, so Defamation Law brings about the DE-Formation of Law. A law that serves the legal fraternity and those who can afford to engage it and/or for aim$ other than the good proclaimed is intended by the law, making it a law not worth the paper it is drafted to.

Defamation Law must undergo reform or simply go.

As Defamation Law is practiced it manifests itself in contradiction to its claimed purposes and it functions simply for the suppression of information, for the suppression of the criticism of ideas, for the suppression of the right to hold an opinion (which the dictionary defines as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" which the Australian legal industry - judge$ included - ha$ decided mean$ $omething different, that does not square with the definition of the word opinion. Opinion as judged through the prism of Defamation Law becomes a thing that must be supported in fact, which is a perverse manipulation in itself by a $y$tem protective of it$elf above all, not the public good it claims to serve. There is no balance here, no protection of freedom of expression, instead it is a law designed to place "unreasonable limits on freedom of expression".

Defamation Law might eventually implode due to the manipulation and exploitation of its self designed weaknesses or it might undo all of our hard won freedoms. At the moment the law is doing a pretty good job suppressing our rights.

Further reading

Australian Defamation Law Vs the Muscular Citizen

This posting discusses arguments presented, and a review of, a 2005 Redmond Barry Lecture by publisher Morry Schwartz. My blog post title and discussion takes on the ideas raised and incorporates the quote "muscular citizenship". The blog discusses Defamation Law and the way it can be used, as in our experience, to erode rights unless a "muscular citizen" acts.

Attempting the Destruction of the Secular Muse
My counter argument to Robert Cripps' multiple declared claims the entire Humanist Transhumanist exhibition was "racist" purely for the elements critiquing Islam. Even though criticism of relgion/s formed one element only within a presentation of Surrealism consistent with its historical definition (see fig 4). Cripps claim was the entire exhibition was racist and due to any criticism of Islam and Islam alone. Cripps' epic misunderstanding of Surrealism was duly noted to him by us at the time, which he ignored and continued to dismiss, due to what I could and can still only conclude to be his complete ignorance of the genre and contempt of us.

Surrealism defined - taken at the National Gallery of Victoria by Demetrios Vakras (Dec 2013) Fig.4

ARTLEAKS-Artists exhibition critical of religion declared racist by gallery owner- ARE THEN SUED FOR WRITING ABOUT IT
A reportage to an arts community (like an online union for artists and arts workers) on the facts of our being sued and by whom and on what grounds.

Petition Calling for the Reform of Defamation Law - our petition calling for the reform of Defamation Law

Humanist Transhumanist Is It Racist to Critique Religion?

This blog post asks the question is it racist to criticise religion and argues to contend that it is racist damages our hard won freedoms. Comments contained in this blog independently confirm Robert Cripps did claim the exhibition was racist. Comments that confirm his action, that convey truth, but that (according to Defamation Law) now in their imparting defame him because they may make others think less of him and so are defamatory?

So any truth makes Cripps look bad, and that since the truth defames him, then ALL evidence is "invalid" because it is defamatory! So no evidence can ever be produced without that evidence defaming Cripps.

Such action by our plaintiff and his crack legal team suggests that this is the latest in a long line of last ditch attempts to quash his difficult critics (us) by complaining that our resistance to censorship makes us more "worser" more "guiltier" defendants.

The whole legal affair has more than a little of the sense of the ridiculous about it and it has developed to become an epic absurdity. So at odds is our experience with the law's self-proclaimed good intention to protect the imparting of information that it cannot be perceived to have worth at all as it fails all such claims.

Addenda - 3 January 2014

From HREOC's "Combating the Defamation of Religions" page - HREOC supports religion = race identity arguments and states the criticism of religion can be said to constitute vilification and hate of a group of people on racial grounds. A concept rejected by Justice's Nettle et al in the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal 2006 -

 "Appeal judges ruling in the Catch the Fire case in Victoria, (Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006): point 35 of the finding reads "The third difficulty with the Tribunal’s reasoning, as I perceive it, is ... the Tribunal’s failure to observe the distinction between hatred of beliefs and hatred of adherents to beliefs..."). The judges set aside a finding of vilification (made by justice Higgins VCAT) on the grounds that the criticism was of an idea (verses from the Koran), and not the individual(s) who held those ideas, and that it was not the intention of the law to protect ideas. In the current defamation act there is no such protection to criticise an idea, although the option remains that an appeal to the High Court will remedy this. Unless the law intends that an idea is legally protected from criticism, then criticism of an idea held by any individual cannot be considered defamatory of the individual holding it."  http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005

How Defamation Law Achieves Censorship in modern Australia

Defamation Law is purportedly about the protection of a good reputation. The assumption being that all reputation are good. Not so. Defamation Law is to protect reputation from factual information that can harm it. It is a common fallacy to believe Defamation Law is a just and necessary legal framework to protect good reputation. The not so commonly accepted aspect is that it is the intent of Defamation Law to suppress knowledge of bad reputation. Ultimately its proponents wish to spin the social service guff about it when in fact what Defamation Law protects, tooth and nail, is the bad reputation. The good reputation based on truth does not require such a law to any remotely equivalent level. 

thief (detail) 2010 © Lee-Anne Raymond

That a reputation is considered to be the most important thing a person can cultivate is understandable. Your good reputation can achieve good things for you and represents to the society in which you live a measure of your worth and contribution. A reputation for modern society as it was in antiquity is something to cultivate, preserve and use as if it were a commodity, but also to provided for us a reflection out to the world of who we are. How a reputation is critiqued therefore, it can be asserted, has meaning. 

Socrates points to the most important possession that a man can cultivate as though it were a precious jewel is his reputation. Those quoting this as evidence that a reputation must be defended then from any criticism forget that he also said...

The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.
and... 

The shortest and surest way to live with honour in the world, is to be in reality what we would appear to be - Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)  

Socrates is saying to be true unto yourself and that the pursuit of a good reputation is one best achieved through truth of your actions and behaviours.

Australian Defamation law though cares nothing about a person being true unto themselves. 

Defamation law is not about whether the truth of the criticism can be proven, truth is only a justification for the harm done to a reputation because the truth was made known. Australian Defamation Law contains a trap when a defendant motivated by truth maintains her position and commits to a defence of the accusation of having defamed an individual or entity (plaintiff) with her criticism. The trap is in defending yourself. The law classifies the defamation defendant as admitting to having defamed the plaintiff because they have written/communicated the truth because the truth only provides a justification for the defamation. Truth is not a complete defence  but must be proven to limit punishment. If that is not crystal clear I'll put it another way; the law views the defendant, by her own admission in defending the claim, as guilty, has defamed the plaintiff and even when demonstrating that truth and justification are established this will still mean she will bear up to 40% of her costs. The law merely disallows compensation to the plaintiff for damage done to their true character by it being exposed. The law intends that a good reputation is preseved despite that reputation being clearly shown to be otherwise.

What a defendant must show in order to win her case is all of the above and that the manufactured "imputations" are false, not proven. This is the rub as they say. The defence already hamstrung have imputations to hurdle in addition. Imputations are tools at the plaintiff's disposal allowing them to distort criticisms to mean something altogether more serious or completely different by claiming an imputation has be made other than the actual meaning behind what was stated. And, though it is possible to have an imputation struck out it takes much time and money to achieve. A case must reach trial to do so and as many defendants are not financially equipped to last that long with the escalating legal costs they cannot chose to do so. Who would opt for defence under these conditions if they had a choice? Not many, as not many would be in the position to do so, and not many could endure the stomach turning hypocrisy of its claim to be representative of a just model.

Much about defamation law, in the reality of its practice, is designed to threaten and bring about submission. In one scenario a defendant is threatened she must submit to the demands of a plaintiff (the aggrieved) as outlined in D) or else she will be: 
A) charged with criminal defamation (not technically possible in Victoria but the threat was made); 
B) required to pay for all the huge fees wracked up on both sides or; 
C) inclusive of costs in B/ have punitive (further) costs awarded against her for having mounted her defence and not opted for D) in the first place;

At the outset a defendant has this as an alternative: 
D) She can apologise, admit the criticisms made were a lie (truth is immaterial here) and pay excessive compensation to the aggrieved plaintiff anyway. 

Difficult choice being between a rock and a hard place so it best to go with the right thing to do.

Choosing C) to defend herself means she will be dragged to court and to a trial she is told should she lose she will incur potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs and punitive costs awarded to the plaintiff because she did not apologise to the plaintiff when she had the chance (truth being irrelevant in this legal framework). 

For a socially and civic minded, honest and fair individual D) as an alternative is diametrically opposite to these fundamental values, values that are qualities the State and its apparatus the Law purport to admire and uphold for themselves and the citizens they represent. 

But if it all sounds like system endorsed bullying to bring about censorship you'd be close to describing the actual achievement of Defamation Law.

It is a law to bully and gain acquiescence in order to achieve other aims one being censorship another being collateral (to punish or gain financial advantage over an opponent). It affords the wealthy with a weapon to threaten and if that doesn't work a tool to censor any undesirable content. It therefore assists undeniably aims, by those who can afford to use it, to limit public knowledge and debate. It is State legislated and thus State endorsed censorship in action. 

When individuals or the state control the message you have censorship. When it is a prerequisite that art in its content and effect should never offend you have censorship.

When an artist writes of a gallery operator's misrepresentation of her art and a defamation action is taken out against her for doing so you have legalised censorship.

When the State and the Law accept this behaviour the message is that the State and its apparatus the Law are complicit and in league with the censorship.

Open political, social, religious, cultural and artistic debate art is not served by censorship and all will suffer its stagnating effects. What do we expect of our thinkers, commentators and artists if not challenge, perspective and debate? We will as a consequence of protection of the reputation at all costs and in disregard of the truth engender a nationalistic, unimaginative, conformist, without innovation, characterless society.

A society advances through innovation not just but significantly through the arts by being exposed to new forms of content, new or transformed ideas, which take the viewer/listener into a new understanding whether they like it or not, accept it or not. 

Without the protection of freedom of speech, one of the inspirations for innovation, change and development, we may as well be at sea with a fixed rudder. We are fixed as we cannot robustly challenge the status quo of difficult or sensitive subjects nor can we challenge a behaviour or action of individuals or corporations for fear of an attack we cannot resist, no matter how brave our resistance. 

So, fixed we become gradually lost and unable to alter our trajectory we inevitably head toward the rocks.

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you. 

Karl Popper Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) 

Defamation Terrorism is Alive and Well in Australia

How the Defamation Terrorists win in Australian is through our legal system's blind eye to defending truth and its farcical fascination with preserving the beauty of its own navel forever to be kept in stasis so that one day, it may be reconnected to the umbilicus of the Great and Mighty British Mother Land. Gives you chills and goose-bumps at the thought doesn't it? Or, like me, does all the aping of Her transposed pomp and nonsense ceremony, bowing and scraping to bewigged puffed up buffoonery dismay you too? How can we take this seriously? Why is it that the Australian legal system (industry) cannot see that what it desires and apes for itself is not what the people of Australia want? Defamation laws or wigs, their acceptance as the way things are meant to be are formed from the same illogic. If it is from the Mother Land it is to be emulated as it is good.

Justice Generic Bewigged - incognito © Lee-Anne Raymond 2013

Well, Your (bewigged) Worship, you and your ilk, who would determine my fate, are asses and peculiar ones to boot. How are we to take you seriously? No, seriously why should we not laugh and point at your clown like bewigged appearance - which according to NSW Court of Appeal Court Spokeswoman Sonya Zadel is because a wig affords judges in particular a sort of protective shield:

“In criminal matters a wig gives a judge some anonymity … it’s an issue of safety and security,” lawyersweekly-2007-judges-ditch-wigs  

Nonsense Sonya.
The wearing of wigs though not enforced in law grew in tradition from the 17th century on as a type of "fashion statement" alternative to bad hair and into hierarchical symbolism (though in my view the original aims were based upon establishing hierarchy and elevated difference). The wigs and gowns suggest a uniform of sorts a bit like a religious order, shocked as some in the legal industry may be to have such an association made. The wigs and robes represent within the industry and to the public the status of the wearer. The garments separate and elevate the lawyers from the public to create a hierarchical authority over the client and identify their level or status within and to the order.  Other elements of significance come into play such as the age the wig looks to be being relevant to how important you are, its style and length etc along with the types of robes worn are all very important markers of elevation and status. History-of-wigs

But I digress. Of course with the title of my post I am adapting the label of "Libel Terrorism" which applies to offended plaintiffs (wealthy ones) dragging defendants into UK courts in order to seek damages outside of unfavourable jurisdictions like for instance the USA which protects the right to free speech. Libel terrorism developed out of the legal phenomena known as libel tourism (coined by Geoffrey Robinson). Even the UN finally noticed enough in 2008 to point out the flaws in British Libel legislation allowed for serious human rights implications as they 

"served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism." 

I am labelling ALL Defamation Law as being a way to threaten, attack and wipe out criticism in order to censor and/or extract monetary gain. The mere threat of the damaging effects of defamation law are enough in many cases to silence the right to impart and receive information which is a human rights violation. Why would we want to allow free speech which might lead to robust criticism and to more free and open society/s? Yeah crazy talk, isn't it?

Following political and public agitation in 2010 the US "Committee on the Judiciary" and President Obama concluded the use of the UK's "Militant Libel Laws" threatened the freedom of speech and was effectively a "chilling" of the fifth amendment rights of US writers and journalists. So they have now passed protective laws called The Libel Terrorism Protection Act to block supply to the libel terrorists/tourists. Hell, there was even an episode of "The Good Wife" (which I have blogged on earlier) that seemed to pick up on some elements from a known case - Funding Evil where author Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued for libel in the UK (by a non-resident plaintiff) as 23 copies of the publication in question had been purchased through UK online bookstores. 

Anyway with such decisive action by the US courts...take that you British scoundrels...loud applause and hoorays from all...came the backlash. Backlash? you ask, who'd protect such ludicrous laws? The libel terrorism industry protectors and benefactors (the lawyers and judges specifically) in the UK of course. Sure the odd individual beneficiary might have been paid out bazillions of nefariously acquired libel terrorism bucks too but these sensitive malcontents are the least of the issue. Where the real interest lay in keeping the backdoor open is in the legal industry that had built up around the demand. Where the legal industry, like any industry, sees a market it fills it, justifies it and cultivates it. And, now their beautifully fattened up law and their ability to continually suckle at its ever ballooning teat had been taken away.

Does this mean that a potentially never ending source of financial resources and source of social aggrandisement would be affected? Well, shit yeah! But, not without tantrums being thrown from within The House of Lords (the most bewigged and robed attired of them all) it wouldn't. Loud cries of "You shall not pass!" were heard...okay apologies to J.R. R. Tolkien and Gandalf, but you get the gist. Quite right too, how on earth will they ever afford their rented castles and wig makers now?

Rachel Ehrenfeld at the time noted...

"A recent speech by a former senior judge of the appellate committee of the House of Lords, Lord Leonard Hoffmann, expressed strong opposition to the US legislation. He also attacked the UN human rights committee's finding in July 2008 that British libel laws, especially those that facilitate libel tourism, are chilling free speech worldwide. Libel tourism is a phenomenon in which foreign claimants exploit plaintiff-friendly defamation laws to sue authors and publishers in countries in which they have not worked or published." 

All defamation laws and jurisdictions are flawed, expensive and shamefully tawdry in intent, some more so than others. Even the US version has problems, though it at least limits defamation significantly by clearly declaring the truth cannot defame. And it does so without the security of protective wigs.

Defamation/Libel Laws in their current forms do nothing to sufficiently defend the so called defamed and are anti human rights. No one has the human right to
- not ever be offended
- subvert the truth to achieve censorship
- conceal a lie in order to achieve censorship
- elevate reputation above the right to receive and impart information
- utilise laws, poorly framed or not, for a collateral purpose

Truth may offend but it cannot harm a reputation by being known. If true then that is the reputation revealed as it exists. If you don't want others to know you expose your dangly bits to unfortunate school children, defraud, lie, burn, bomb, rape or pillage, then don't be that sort of person/company. Be better, be good and deal with the truth when it comes out by facing it and its consequences honestly. Expose a lie when it is a lie, but don't develop out of such an aim an industry which in reality has the goal to eliminate truth and all knowledge of it. There's a good world citizen.

What is needed?
Reform ** (view the petition and please sign to support Australian defamation law reform)

One follower of our case "couldn't" sign our petition as it doesn't "go far enough", the law should be completely abolished in his view. I can't disagree but I can't see how we might get such an outcome in reality. That said there could be a framework which upholds the right inform on truth and informed opinion.  Wait, isn't that the US Constitution's 5th Amendment? I know but stay with me. Where in addition such a framework channelled complaints through an Administrative Tribunal. One providing democratic access to ones own representation to prove truth or demonstrate a lie. Complete with severely capped potential payouts thus blunting the current windfall component of defamation law that encourages litigation for collateral purpose and authorises censorship which in turn encourages an industry to be built up around it in order to service the litigious and censorial.

Petition calling for Defamation Law Reform in Australia

think, speak, see, hear no evil

This petition that I am a co-author to aims to highlight the problems with and required remedies needed for the reform of defamation law in Australia. 

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005

My co-author and I draw on our real experiences. We think the debacle we have endured should not be endured by others but know it will continue to happen over and over as long as truth merely limits punishment for having defamed. Truth needs to be central whereas as it now stands truth can only form part of the justification to defame. In our petition we argue that if truth is demonstrated there can be no defamation. Truth is not capable of defaming. Due to how it is currently framed defamation law can be labelled a censorship law. Because it limits, if not severely impedes, the ability to receive and impart information. 

The following characteristics of defamation law reveal it is the intention to censor: 

1. to confirm truth of what was imparted admits guilt, that defamation has occurred;
2. that truth is only a defence which may or may not limit damages a defendant will be liable for;
3. truth is characterised as harmful and only available as justification; 
4. that a claimant need only state they are aggrieved to be defamed by what was imparted, truth;
5. that fear of expensive litigation inspires self-censorship if not a complete chilling of speech;
6. that defamation law is so expensive this deliberately limits its access to wealthy litigants;
7. that wealthy litigants with an interest to conceal truth will use the cost of litigation to deter defendants with lesser financial means;
8. that the law due to its expense and further financial punishments act as a standing deterrent and threat for plaintiffs to unfairly influence (coerce) legitimate defendants into backing down;

I could go on...

How is it that the law is framed in such a manner that it so limits the freedom to receive and impart information for fear one may be sued and delivered into financial ruin? As it is close to doing to us.

Freedom to impart information comes with responsibility but our laws should not be framed so as to shoot the messenger for imparting truth. This is Australia not medieval Britain. Australian freedoms and rights to receive and impart information are at stake here. This law looks backwards to outdated concepts of Lèse-majesté. Retaining such antiquated conventions only drives us further backwards in our thinking and behaviour. It is a diabolical manifestation of the cultural cringe in action. 
Time to step up and away from the UK. 

The "New" Atheists are BAD okay!

In an article in the Herald Sun Newspaper, in Melbourne, Australia on 17 December 2012 self proclaimed atheist Rita Panahi complains that atheism as a "movement" is being over run by zealots.
(The online version of the newspaper article doesn't allow non-subscribers access. However, you can read the full article published earlier on 16 December 2012 here.) [Though no author is attributed it is the same article]

Panahi makes so many nonsensical claims in this article that can I hardly accept she is an atheist let alone one capable of "critical thinking". She describes atheism as a "system of belief", because she does not quite grasp that atheism is not a belief system, but a rejection of any belief system. It is as if she is saying that science should allow belief and reject empiricism. I am in fact unsure why Panahi thinks she is an atheist at all and it is almost as if she is confusing her politics with her position as, what appears to me to be, that of a tentative or confused quasi agnostic-atheist.

She describes Atheism as being formerly "a quiet celebration of reason". How quaint. She describes several contemporary robust critics of religion, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as, "aggressive"with the "aim to drive religion out of public life", for their consistent subjection of religious belief to logical argument and their rejection for the necessity of religion to form any part of our educational, political and public life. Yes? And, what is the problem you have with this? I'd ask Panahi. These aims are completely consistent with atheist theory, old or new. With a church, mosque, temple or place of worship of some sort on the street corners, hills and thoroughfares of our towns and cities religion obviously has a presence, if not an overbearing one, in our societies. Where it strictly does not belong is in our schools, government or official media; after-all, if religion belongs in any of these arenas, then which religion is it? and what becomes of those not of the chosen religion? And, yet our politicians declare their religious convictions as a means for gaining voter approval amongst other reasons and open our parliament with "The Lord's Prayer", some of our official and popular media place emphasis on religion holding a position of only good and exempt from examination or criticism, and religious groups press for a presence of their particular faith in the official curriculum. Its all harmless isn't it?

Atheists have the odd conference or two to allow for discussions of contemporary thinking and provide a forum for discourse and this is seen as controversial if not down right inflammatory towards religious groups. In the image below Muslim protestors turned up to the 2012 Atheist Convention in Melbourne. "Atheism is the cancer, Islam is the answer" reads one placard another declares "ISLAM The only monotheistic Religion" another references "Hell Fire". Amused atheist delegates began to chant in response "Where are the women? Where are the women?" Highlighting the distinct absence of females in this group and of course the poor position this religion holds on gender equality issues. To contrast if a bunch of atheists were to do a Pussy Riot protest in front of a mosque, synagogue, church or temple in Australia they'd risk being labelled racist, and inciters of hate against religion. Particularly if they did so in front of a mosque. I wonder if chanting might be all they'd receive in response to their protest should one occur.

Main Placard reads - "Atheism is the Cancer Islam is the Answer" 

Panahi by her argument would have us accept there need be no quiet reflection for the religions of the world whilst requiring a respectful silence in response from atheists. Panahi should realise is that she is complaining that atheists are no longer obscure but that they should remain respectfully uncritical of religions and avoid committing any offence to them by resisting testing the faithful with valid critical analysis and questioning. This is a call to censorship and the protective exemption of a particular section of society from critical analysis. It is a position which whether or not she realises favours current disturbing moves to implement blasphemy laws (via the UN). Under such laws simply declaring you are atheist can be considered offensive to a religious person or group because your atheism is a denial of their faith which holds the existence of a higher being sacred. A sacred being responsible for the presence of chosen peoples on planet earth. To allow criticism robust or not is apparently disrespectful of the "prophets of any religion".

In fact the call is for no cartoons, no jokes, no movies, no logic, no disbelief. To criticise Islam is to be guilty of Islamophobia and a crime against humanity according to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

Panahi has one point. The quiet atheist is invisible. In societies where to be openly atheist is to be labelled an "anti-Christ", a "blasphemer", a "heretic", or an "apostate" so it makes sense be "quiet" in your so claimed "celebration of reason"as it can mean self-preservation over persecution. In some Muslim jurisdictions we know apostasy is a crime punishable by death. Indeed Islam does not recognise atheism as the absence of belief but as another form of apostasy because for Islam one is born into their faith, as one is born with their skin or eye colour. Christianity believes atheism is a sin. Being atheist has not been and still may not be popular or safe. It has been challenging for people past and present to be openly atheist within their communities. As a young atheist from the late 1970s - 1990s I felt the flexibility to explore religion if I wished to do so but atheism was still shunned if not feared as something utterly sinister. Young friends asked me in horror "...aren't you afraid of the Devil?" As if I'd already been somehow possessed by the nastiest of fallen deities. If I'd been born elsewhere I may not have been so lucky in my youthful explorations and coming out an atheist.

Religions are and can be no more exempted from analysis and criticism than any other group or area of society. The argument that criticism of religion is harmful is a dangerous one because it is an unacceptable limitation on free speech, thought and expression.  

Why are we now seeing, hearing, reading more atheist views, ideas and literature? A number of possibilities come to mind. Not just through the horror of the attack on the USA. Islamic terror was alive and well before September the 11th 2001 though a defining point in history on a number of levels it arguably is. It became a last straw for well known critics such as the, in later life and post his death, much maligned Hitchens. He bluntly informed particularly the socialist left and those with leftist political bona fides of necessary home truths, you've been duped and you continue to declare your support for the intolerance you claim you fight against. He saw the hypocrisy and pointed it out without fear or favour to friend or foe. Tough love was required. The zealots, I'd argue in agreement with Hitchens, reside in the left, in denial and blinkered by their fantasy that religion is not to blame but the terrorist distorters of religion. That is similar to the argument of gun lobbyists who trot out the guns don't kill people kill argument following the latest mass murder spree. More guns it is argued is the answer. More religion is the same argument of the religious. Problem for both form of zealot is they've already demonstrated the redundancy of such a push because more religion or more guns has created the problem in the first place. Do the religious have the right to harm others in the name of their religion? Does the gun crazy US citizen have a right to hold onto his semi-automatic firearms in a country so awash with guns any person, good, evil or mad can obtain and use a weapon to kill to make their point.

As I see it these are the main conditions conducive to the existence of more atheists in our midst:
- The existence and gradual strengthening of the secular state - still way too infiltrated by religious symbolism and observance as discussed above.
- The rise of education and an educated middle class
- The rise of democracy contributing to prosperity allowing for better education, time for cultural pursuits and the exploration in and freedom of the arts.
- The rise of human rights advocacy and its application in democratic society's laws and legislation world wide. (of the type not hijacked by quazi-religious agenda)
- Recognition of the equality and human rights of women
- The WWW and the Internet where unimpeded by government control.

What can and will threaten this self-aware state of mind held by free thinking individuals is the push by human rights organisations, and their successful infiltration by religiously motivated political organisations such as the OIC (The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to pursue internationally binding blasphemy laws to enforce upon all, which would make atheism illegal. Making it a criminal offence to offend religion is an enormously backward step for all humanity. Panahi and friends do need to consider carefully what it is they are proposing when they ask atheists to quietly pursue a gentler(?) kinder(?) atheism in a manner that will not hurt the feelings of the religious. Or, what? Should be the next question by atheists from now on. "Or, what?" To be atheist may soon be enough to be deemed "offensive". What helps threaten our freedoms and rights and helps to instil and normalise the concept of a religious world at all cost are addled quasi-atheist commentators such as Panahi, and an anti-atheist media such as The Herald Sun. Both obviously find the person who constitutes more of a threat to be the one with an absence of belief rather than the one with a blind adherence to a faith.

What does Defamation Law Cost - Part 2

"Newspapers, afraid of Britain’s strict libel laws, decided not to publish their suspicions, although several had conducted their own investigations over the years." 

(Extract: Shield of celebrity protected Savile for decades)

This quote from a recent article on the Jimmy Savile case underscores a point contained in my immediate last post What does Defamation Law Cost? which was that bad laws protect bad behaviour and this needs to be pointed out loudly and repeatedly.

Threats of and actual legal action are financially crippling to defend. It is not as if it is any secret that defamation laws are used to silence critics through these means. This activity it seems is routine with defamation actions and when it succeeds it is an effective tool to further dissuade other potential critics from doing the same. Such criticism of legally sanctioned bullying is dismissed by the legal industry as so much sour grapes it seems or simply denied to be the case.  Take the Jacob Zuma matter in South Africa as a case in point. Fortunately Zapiro and his supporters stood firm. It would have been difficult. South African defamation laws take their lead and inspiration from UK's libel laws  just as do Australia's. 

© 2012 Zapiro / www.zapiro.com (All Rights Reserved)

Britain's "strict libel laws" are what the Australian Defamation Act 2005 and earlier iterations are based on. Prior to the 2005 reforms, which came into effect January 2006, the separate Australian States administered different versions of the act, it was administratively worse than it is now. Reform included in part enhancing the defences permitted for defamation defendants though did little to improve matters of balance overall. A defendant is considered guilty of defaming on a plaintiff's say so, regardless of truth and even though the act appears to support that truth is not actionable (see "Dancing in the Streets…" below). 

The defences that apply have to establish justification and/or establish why a the monetary liability of a defendant to a defamed plaintiff should be limited. The burden upon a defendant is considerable because establishing truth though perhaps not difficult is less important than establishing justification for making truth known. Even then if the system actually worked these steps could be followed by a justified defendant. But those who have experienced our legal "industry" know there are obstacles thrown at every turn to hamper and unduly lengthen the straight road that could be taken to reach resolution. 

If indeed it is the case that truth is not actionable why are so many barriers to establishing truth permitted?  It is a very rare event where there is found to be no defamation to answer. The statistics for why this might be the case, I would hazard a guess, are likely to be skewed as most defamation matters do not reach trial at all due to the burdens the law places upon defendants over plaintiffs, with the effect they either wipe out motivation, or finances or both. In the Zuma case the fortunate outcome after years of crippling attacks upon the cartoonist Zapiro and his newspaper employers (see above) was that Zuma recently withdrew the complaint in which he'd claimed millions in damages to his reputation. The tactic had been of course to affect the motivation of the defence by imposing so punitive a claim they would quickly backdown. Censorship has been dealt a blow in South Africa that they did not capitulate.  

What these defamation acts/libel laws variously demonstrate is they are relatively unconcerned with truth. Reputation good or bad is the protected element. In Australia's case the act itself helps to set up the ludicrous situation where circular reasoning establishes that it can be used (even in matters where the truth is clear). See if you follow: If a person is aggrieved by what another publishes, and claims defamation, then defamation has occurred, because that person is aggrieved. They need not present proof of falsity to do so. The PRIMA FACIE burden is all on the defendant. A plaintiff declares it defamatory, so it is considered defamation, that a criticism is true has nothing to do with it, it is the reputation which receives the protection of the law. The rest of the legal process is just about ensuring what level of remedy is owed by a defendant.

The Hon Justice Michael McHugh AC in his paper "DANCING IN THE STREETS – THE DEFAMATION TANGO", presented at the 2005 Australian Bar Association conference in Dublin just prior the alignment of the defamation act across all Australian jurisdictions, clearly notes... "In the common law States of Australia, truth alone provides a complete defence to a defamation action." just prior this sentence he notes "The plea of truth confesses that the matter is defamatory of the plaintiff but asserts that it is not actionable."

So what does that actually mean for the justified defendant? If the defendant in a defamation case demonstrates truth in what they've published, written or transmitted then they have confessed guilt that they have defamed the plaintiff. Furthermore as the current Australian defamation act confirms defendants must correspondingly rely upon and only upon the permitted defences for defamation to limit the "costs" that will be awarded the plaintiff. Eh!? A plaintiff it seems has the sympathies of the system more so than a defendant regardless of truth and any plaintiff with an interest in suppressing truth has the processes and the law in effect onside. This isn't balanced this is the privileged class weighting the law in their favour in order to retain status.

The imbalance is because:

a) the law is weighted to defend reputation (good or bad) by automatically presuming falsity of the claims made against an aggrieved plaintiff, And…

b) as McHugh writes "The imputation based approach has been criticised in that it 'fosters complex interlocutory skirmishing and distracts from the real issue.' Removing the imputation system is designed to reduce the complexity and cost of litigation, a result that, if achieved, would certainly be a positive development." [my emphasis]

Well unfortunately we do still suffer the "imputation based approach" so this criticism of the system remains. A litigious plaintiff will use the weapons of war made available to them and will launch countless spurious imputations in the attempt to detract from what was actually transmitted  by a defendant to increase and exaggerate the effect and ultimately claim more damages. This achieves the further aim to provoke fear of crippling financial damage so the defendant will back down quickly, and (as I say as a rort) to extort further financial recompense from a defendant by threatening "exemplary or punitive damages" if it goes to trial and they did not comply when they had the chance. 

This is an abuse on many levels but as the Australian act clearly states in s37 "A plaintiff cannot be awarded exemplary or punitive damages for defamation.". 

So why do lawyers for a plaintiff and even the mediation process attempt to compel the justified defendant to back down by levelling such threats? Attempts to convince a justified defendant they could face financial ruin are frequent and insidious. The "guilty" (defamation defendants justified or not are all considered guilty under the Australian act) it is determined will likely lose so must be warned of the consequences? I guess from experience I believe there exists a less noble reason for this tactic. If the act clearly states otherwise why are the plaintiff's lawyers, the system, and the mediation process constantly advising it could/may/will occur if you don't capitulate, apologise and pay up before it goes to trial? It is a blunt scare tactic. The system looks the other way and at least it appears there is no mechanism to limit such tactics. Other weapons at a plaintiffs disposal are to prolong interrogatory and defences processes so that the case drags on and on in perpetual concentric circles - logic and reason might suggest this is because the unjustified plaintiff does not want the case to get to trial. In any event these tactics are all designed to break the resolve of a justified defendant able to rely upon truth.

McHugh in the same paper goes on to defend the retention of the "presumption of falsity" in the Australian jurisdiction, adding; that a reputation is good, or not, is not the question to be answered. Essentially a reputation is presumed to be good and the defamer must first, if they claim truth, accept they are guilty of defamation, prove truth and then demonstrate justification of transmission, whether the reputation was good or otherwise upon release of  the information. Harm is measured in costs to a degree but it is not clear how this is measured. The question defamation law asks is does the transmission defame the person (could be a company or political entity) to a third party and was dissemination justified. I've no argument with the necessity that claims must be backed up by truth but the problem here is the law clearly marks the defence as presumed "guilty" in contrast to the plaintiff (and their reputation) which is without exception presumed "innocent". There is neither balance in this nor logic. The parties are presented with uneven ground from the outset. And though truth may be upheld, defamation according to the law likely will still have occurred. In the face of the assertion by the act that "truth is not actionable" then this is circular reasoning and is at best an unsatisfactory result in terms of justice.

So are the problems in the law or in the processes which under-pin it? 

As a brief an answer as I can muster I'll finish with the following experienced observation. 

In its current state, as administered and procedurally practiced, the Australian Defamation Act 2005 is easily wielded as a weapon of fear to extract censorship by threatening the very real consequences of ruinous litigation upon a defendant. Ultimately the worst excesses of British Libel laws are retained in the Australian Act and continue to operate within it as a disincentive to transmission of unfettered criticism, and free speech and this is a disservice to our country, state and community overall.

As long as defamation laws are weighted to protect reputation above all else I cannot agree with McHugh that there exists a "workable balance".

censorship