Use of Greek script judged “racist”, “sinister”, “anti-Palestinian". Only in Australia.

View of exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" 2009

A Supreme Court of Victoria judgement released in June 2014 endorsed the racist claims made by plaintiff Robert Cripps.

In the trial it was declared that “text labels, 50x100mm pinned below each painting” included words in an “alternate script” to that of the “English alphabet” (sic), making it possible to reasonably conclude that the text potentially communicated “anti-Palestinian”, “sinister” and “racist” messages.

It was argued, by Cripps’ council, Christopher Dibb, that because Cripps was not of Greek background he could not properly interpret or understand what was written on these "text panels". The only conclusion, that was available to Cripps, was for him to deduce that the use of Greek script was potentially “sinister, racist and anti-Palestinian”. Under examination Cripps could not explain how this was so in his testimony.

Justice Kyrou, in his judgement, found this was the reasonable conclusion to make and that Cripps had responded reasonably with the actions that he took. In doing so Kyrou has:

1. Validated perjury.

- No labels were pinned under the paintings. This was demonstrated by the evidence provided in trial which included photographs taken prior to the dislcaimers that Cripps posted. Cripps had testified that he posted disclaimers as a reaction to labels which are clearly absent in the photographs. Emails and documents cataloguing the exhibition content reveal that the photographs of the exhibition match what was discussed with the gallery prior to the show. The evidence demonstrated there were small numbers pinned under the paintings to reference against a gallery catalogue of works list for all viewers to consult, just as had been discussed in the emails between the artists and the gallery. The evidence and the facts they conveyed were all dismissed by Justice Kyrou.

2. Validated and up-held racism towards an Australian-born artist of Greek heritage. 

- In finding it reasonable for Cripps to have concluded what he did and taken the actions he did because of the presence of an alternate script to English (sic), Greek, Justice Kyrou agreed it could be considered to convey sinister, or racist, or anti-Palestinian messages to use Greek words. A finding that is in direct contravention to S. 9. of the Race Discrimination Act.

The Australian-born Greek artist, Demetrios Vakras, has for many years signed his paintings in Greek and as part of his artistic oeuvre long sought to elaborate on the ancient scientific and cosmological meaning behind many Greek myths. In doing so he is manifesting his heritage, a protected attribute under the Race Discrimination Act, (S. 9).

In Humanist Transhumanist there were a handful of Greek words used in context of two paintings with essays pinned beside the associated paintings on A4 size paper (No 50x100 labels under paintings ever existed). These Greek words were methodically translated into Latin text for an English speaking audience to comprehend. The context of these essays was to elaborate on the meaning of the visuals in which the artist anthropomorphised myth-concepts to reveal a holistic, cosmological explanation exists behind Greek myth pertaining to, for example, the Pythia (the Oracle of Delphi) depicted resting between, χαός (chaos) and χασμός (chasm), in another Χριστός (Christ) is referenced as is σοφία, (wisdom). It is therefore these Greek words that Justice Kyrou found in his judgement to be potentially “sinister", “racist" and "anti-Palestinian” in agreement with the plaintiff.

Justice Kyrou, in his judgment, also concluded the art and exhibition to be “offensive”.

On much Justice Kyrou and Robert Cripps were in agreement.

Justice Kyrou awarded record financial damages against the artist Demetrios Vakras and co-Exhibitor (this author).

If the absurdity of the claim that the use of Greek text could be considered in any way to convey a sinister message is unclear refer to any Wikipedia entry on χαός (chaos). Is this sinister, anti-Palestinian and racist?

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then compare it to the actual text from the exhibition in question, "Humanist Transhumanist". Is this sinister, anti-Palestinian and racist?

Pages 30-31 Humanist Transhumanist Catalogue.

The author has used Greek words in this posting. Is this sinister, anti-Palestinian and racist?

If one is sinister, anti-Palestinian, racist, then they all are. Or, is it only the case when a Greek does so?

It is valid and correct to ask why is this judgement is not considered one of the biggest failures of the Australian Court System? Do the courts have more rights than the people they exist to serve?

If this is the Australian justice system working then it is as unjust and backward as any one can imagine produced under totalitarian regimes and Australians who claim to advocate for our human rights or to “keep the bastards honest” are silent. 

The matter of Cripps discriminatory actions against Demetrios Vakras is being pursued in the Federal Court.

Refer Justice Emilios Kyrou Judgement [on Austlii]
Refer Justice Emilios Kyrou Press Release - alerting the media of his judgement [Supreme Court of Victoria website]
Refer Cripps V Vakras & Annor - full Trial Transcripts [Link]

Art and thought in Australia is as dead as dead due to a fear of critical thinking

"Freedom of expression in Australia is not just governed by the laws of defamation, obscenity and blasphemy that vary from state to state but by hidden disciplinary forces, systems of control that seek to create a reality of their own making." Dr Marcus Bunyan, Sept 2013 

Lee-Anne Raymond near text panel describing the aims and origins of Surrealism -
National Gallery of Victoria 27/12/2014 - Modern art section 

Australia is governed by a deeply protective, institutionalised, conservative moral philosophy that is reinforced by a self-interested cultural sector, legal authority and legislature. Rather than acting to resist in the erosion of freedom of expression these authorities and cultural bodies keenly maintain the status-quo preferring the entitlement this brings above overthrow, evolution, revolution and therefore change. The art of Surrealism has at is core the nature of transgression. As an art-form, as a way of life (as many of the original Surrealists experienced it), the genre observed the world in which they lived through a critical lens reflecting reality and truth to demonstrate what was the real illusion or delusion - the perception of the accepted reality as being all that was good and beneficial. Now in more enlightened times, we see the Surrealists as cause célèbre fighting against evil and oppression, yet they remain marginalised fringe dwellers in our public art institutions. In their time the Surrealists were roundly rejected and marginalised for their unflinching criticisms of authority and of the political and societal institutions in which they lived. They were labelled “offensive”, “immoral” and “negative” and their art “degenerate". They had many enemies but fortunately a few influential allies in addition.

Metamorphosis with Nicab (detail) 

In Australia 3/4 of a century later judicial institutions protect themselves by enacting religious like decrees, edicts, to prevent criticism and will and do punish their critics for transgressions, artistic or not. Individuals within or who are outside beneficiaries reinforce their own position and tenure by ensuring no steps are taken to question either their own or the institution's role. No mirror may be held up to liberate the truth, let alone allow for the kind of truthful self-reflection that might allow for illuminating change. In Australia there is a distinct and entrenched perception that to question authority is simply wrong, to challenge it or expose truth “negative”, “intemperate”, "racist", "immoral", “offensive” and perhaps “degenerate". To be critical is to be “aggressive", to be transgressive, “intemperate” and “immoral" and therefore repugnant to society. 

It has become so very Australian to be squeamish about speaking out against anything, be it an idea, an organisation or a person for fear of causing offence. This is in no small part due to the fact there exist written and unwritten laws to deter and prevent criticism. The unwritten laws will have you socially and professionally shunned. The written laws have the critic fearful of attracting financial repercussion and legalised persecution. 

Additionally there is an Australian characteristic, perhaps transposed with force by colonial, antique (European), magisterial beginnings, that is now a self-sustaining conservative moral. So, although born from more imperious beginnings (lèse-majesté), keeping silent for fear of experiencing physical harm, has transformed into a distinct Antipodean fear of expressing critical thinking because it can and does attract financial penalty and social ostracism. In my case criticism of how a Director of a now defunct gallery behaved toward us during an exhibition by myself and fellow artist has resulted in record penalty and complete ostracism from commentators in the arts or political communities. Presumably this is because they might agree with what is a truly bizarre judgement in the face of the actual trial evidence, and, or are too fearful of receiving the same treatment, to object or question it. Logic and reason are the enemy of our judiciary if as it transpires the evidence regardless of the facts are what the judge says they are. 

Australians and the institutions that are intended to operate for their benefit are intolerant of anyone who would seriously challenge such institutionalised authority, effectively shunning those who speak for freedom of expression and thought. Unwittingly (one would hope) by their acquiescent silence Australians who could or might normally speak up are merely reinforcing their own censored existence, and the persecution of those who do attempt to resist it. 

When we legally constrain our artists and thinkers who might criticise us, deter criticism through the actual application, or threat, of law and punishing legal fines we are assisting in the creation of our own end of times. When we enact laws to limit critical analysis and thought of a subject, an idea, an uncomfortable history, an authority, a religion in order to protect these concepts from harm (defamation) we are limiting our own freedom of thought and expression.
In a liberal, secular democracy, where dogma (religious, political, cultural) and its protection above all is allowed over a flexible application of logic and reason it is the beginning of the end of that social framework.

To be an atheist, an artist, a thinker in Australia is to court trouble and rejection particularly in the court system which is heavily peopled by the practicing faithful. Atheism, art critical of religion and political contradiction, art which provokes thoughts and ideas that challenge the status-quo are by their mere mention controversial. Australia's squeamish conservatism would have us believe that to criticise culture, policy, politic is to be subversive and “negative” if not seditious. It is considered better, more acceptable and more safe to reject the critic and then their criticism and protect authority even when logic and reason suffer. When this is most evident it is where any criticism of the Islamic religion and doctrine is shut down instantly with cries of “Islamophopia” or “racism”. Atheists long critical of Judaism, Christianity and the gods of antiquity are now automatically labelled “racist" and “Islamophobic" when Islam is critiqued. All atheism is viewed with some contempt and suspicion by the general religious majority but the Islamophobia slur has been so effective that even some self-described atheists consider other atheists critiquing Islam to be somehow phobic and suspect.

Add to this the insidious creep towards official censorship within elements of our own human rights institutions supportive of oppressive blasphemy laws that utilise defamation law to further a cause that claims critical debate regarding faith systems is "defamation of religions”. It is a peculiar and malignant marriage of convenience representing the biggest self-made threat to the universality of our human rights in recent history. They propose laws that would legislate religions and doctrines deserving of special protection from harmful criticism as they are an attack on the human rights of the faithful who are defamed as a consequence of any criticism. The result if successful (several attempts have been made at the UN) would be catastrophic as it will criminalise blasphemy on a wide scale. As Dr Bunyan notes above ultimately they would succeed in shutting out all "dissent" by creating a "reality of their own making".

To depict in my art real criticism of religious doctrine i.e. Islam is a transgression too far, one that goes against conservative, institutionally reinforced Australian moral sensitivities. Critical art is considered “offensive” art because Australians fear critical thinking and its consequences. We must work hard to protect our rights, many are unwilling, or too uninterested to do so. 

So the NEW-Moralist declares an artist “racist" in public and receive judicial sympathy and support for it. Thus an unbalanced legal system further punishes the artist for communicating truth, and, to object to what is categorically unjust and a persecution becomes further evidence of malice. The artist is labelled the “liar” and the bully is rewritten as victim. The evidence becomes what the judge says it is.

Fed and endorsed by its colonial parent legislature Australian courts, the Victorian Supreme Court as a case in point, are leading the way onwards and downwards towards censorship and protection from criticism any idea particularly those held by the religious. It is an implementation by stealth of "defamation of religions" law. 

To critique religious doctrine is, simply put, as valid a form of social questioning as to critique a judicial system. Both are off limits in Australia. It is credulous to believe that in this country we have support for real forms of artistic expression or critical thinking under such conditions. 

If you are a critical thinking artist, an atheist and a free thinker in Australia then you are considered offensive and racist and you will have no supporters come to your aid to argue otherwise.

Note: Top: Quote extracted from the research paper 
Transgressive Topographies, Subversive Photographies, Cultural Policies
Dr Marcus Bunyan - posted online here http://artblart.com/tag/defamation/

Burden of Proof

The Good Wife episode 2 "The Death Zone" (season 3) aired last night on Australian TV. 

If you need anymore straightforward a contrast between UK Libel laws and US equivalent laws you need not go past this line from the UK Council character, the evil Mr Thrush, who taunts  "Do you know the key distinction between the libel laws in you country and mine? The burden of proof is reversed." 

Australian Defamation law with some variations pretty much slavishly follows the UK model. 

What will not quite be clear to those unaware of Australian/UK Defamation laws, though hinted at in this episode, is there is a further noxious element to this reversal of burden of proof. That though the initial burden may be met and truth demonstrated, one can still be found to have defamed the aggrieved complainant because a reasonable person may be caused (by the writings or statement) to think less of him, the aggrieved party.

So there is even more burden on the defence to establish, not only truth but as well demonstrate there is a pattern of behaviour which can then be shown contributes to a "Duty to Inform" and, as inThe Good Wife episode, that there can be a successful defence mounted of "Qualified Privilege".  

Under the Australian/UK model who benefits?

Freedom to Receive and Impart Information

baleful-worship-submission

The Internet is a publishing vehicle for the transmission of information and ideas to the World Wide Web. It isn't unusual that people will use the tools available to them in order to communicate or receive information.


The European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." (Article 10, 1.)1


This is an open statement which does not preclude the type of publication or form the transmission of information and ideas assumes [takes]. It can be argued the Internet has no frontiers or boarders, only ones created by deliberate interference for purposes of good or ill. It would seem to deliberately interfere could be regarded as being in breach of this convention. 
[It is relevant to note that Australia though a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human rights which includes Article 19 upon which the European convention is based only recognises this right in a limited form.
Australians have an implied right to freedom of speech on the basis of the UN Declaration but this comes with limitations being that this right is only recognised within the narrow ambit of political commentary. Known as: "Freedom of Political Communication".]


Within the ambit of a publishing an article to the Internet, any claim that the article might contain "defamatory" elements creates confusion in Australian law with regard to who is the publisher. Who can be blamed or held liable on the charge of defamation? The law is confused as to whether the ISP (Internet service provider), who hosts the content, is as much a "publisher" as the author uploading the content. So in Australia who transmits this content as well as who authored and uploaded the content to the Internet is jointly a "publisher". An ISP may host hundreds of thousands of sites, all with different content providers who perform their own uploads; these content providers "author" then "publish" content to the Internet. The basis for this confusion is likely due to the case of Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited2, in which anonymous comment, claimed to be false, was posted on a forum. As the originating author could not be established the court reasonably held the ISP responsible. However, to view all activities surrounding the actions of a known author as complicit in the claimed publication of false comment makes a mockery of this judgement. It is without logic to consider a Host Provider of a connection to infrastructure to be a publisher.


So who is ultimately the publisher? In the case above the author was not known so it was the ISP. As this ISP did not remove the content as it would cyclically self remove anyway, they became the target of the defamation action. In Australia an ISP needs no further warning than the demand to remove claimed defamatory content even if the author and publisher is clearly identified and identifiable. It does not matter here. Even a telco like Telstra will force the removal of the content though they cannot claim to be any more than a connectivity provider, an entity that merely provides connection/transmission to the internet (as happened in our case). A telecommunication provider connects an ISP to the web via the telecommunication infrastructure. With regard to the intent of Article 10, 1 forced removal by an ISP, of claimed - not proven - defamatory content is a true hindrance to the freedom to "...receive and impart information". However, cutting off a self hosting ISP author from the telecommunications infrastructure establishes a vastly different level of "interference" on a "public authority" scale.

Internationally, the publisher of online content is the uploader of the content. Above is a screenshot of Adobe's web publishing and authoring program, Contribute. It is described as "a powerful web publishing and website management tool that integrates authoring, reviewing, and publishing in an easy-to-use WYSIWYG HTML editor". Other html editors such as SeaMonkey, freely available on the internet, include a publishing component, that includes the means by which content can be uploaded, published, to the internet. Somehow Australia's techno-dazzeled legal fraternity disregard the international definition of "publisher". 

In the USA or Sweden for instance a court order must first be obtained, in most cases, before pages or sites are ripped from the World Wide Web. Australia Law fails to protect defendants of defamation claims where the internet is the form of publication and essentially is complicit in an act of censorship on a public scale. All of which is irrelevant to the substance of what is being transmitted being true or false. No hearing or submission of evidence is required, the demand is made and the claimed defamatory information, and more, is immediately suppressed.


Australian Law (a derivative of class defined English Common Law) in prosecuting argument for a defamation case holds the Internet in an unnecessarily separate light to other forms of publication. It basically does not understand the Internet (fears it perhaps?) and views it with suspicion. The Internet is the Gutenberg Printing Press of our time. The transmission of information in terms of its rate and timeliness is extraordinary but is it any different in effect? Information is imparted and received. This discriminating lack of understanding overly complicates the defence position when embroiled in persistent, unreasonable and deliberately damaging defamation action. 


Outside the defences for defamation, Truth, Duty to Inform and Fair Comment, a defendant must additionally justify (against what measure?) the transmission of the claimed Defamation over the World Wide Web. In the context of publishing one format is essentially as public as another, Internet or not. Because the Law misunderstands the Internet as being something other than another publication tool this aspect is then exploited as a weakness by plaintiffs to then be used to delay, suppress, or legally slow the process to trial causing higher and higher expense for a defendant. In the case of a defendant with less financial means than a plaintiff has this ability to legally harass with the aim to delay trial if not make it impossible to get to trial creates an imbalance for equivalent engagement in the legal system by both parties. Where truth is not a problem for the defence and where a  "...claimant is incapable of further defamation..."3 this tactic is utilised.


In Australia, unlike the EU, we do not have the right to freedom of expression as defined by the EU Convention nor a right to freedom of speech as enshrined by the US Constitution. Neither of these jurisdictions encourage or support a citizen's right to publish lies about another and there are stringent laws protecting an individual or entity with mechanisms and rights for the defence of their true fame. My co-defendant* calls this "natural fame". It is the fame one has developed and earned from their own actions and deeds. Publishing the "natural fame" of another is hardly defamation, the reputation earned and won by their actions has already affected the perceptions of others as to their character and person. Particularly if these actions and behaviours have had years of repetitious airing across countless public forums. The truth will confirm already held opinions rather than form them.


Defamation Laws favour the privileged with an interest in maintaining false reputation. The laws are wielded as a useful weapon against the less privileged whether by a corporate Goliath like McDonald's4 or a well off individual. Both have the financial means to manipulate process via intentional delay5 and censorship in order to affect an opponent's financial or motivational resolve before a complaint ever sees the inside of a court room. 


Apart from the freedom to do so truth is an essential component of any quest to receive or impart information. Truth is the responsibility of those imparting the information, in fact or by establishing grounds for honest opinion whilst ensuring the receiver has an interest in receiving the information and the freedom to check its validity. If a defendant can tick these boxes then they should simply hang on as "natural fame" will rise to the top.


1Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
2Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
3Wikipedia on Defamation
4English_defamation_law_The_McLibel_case
5The Mickelberg Stitch


*Demetrios Vakras

Australian Defamation Law Vs the Muscular Citizen

Silence, 2011

A SLAPP is intended to, censor and silence truth.

My partner Demetrios Vakras and I, both artists, are currently experiencing the expensive, contradictory and labyrinthine qualities of current Australian Defamation Law. My research to better understand and defend our legal position led me to the State Library of Victoria transcript of a 2005 Redmond Barry Lecture by publisher Morry Schwartz, "A Balancing Act: The Rightful Place of Defamation Law in Open Society". For this post heading I borrow from a portion of the lecture where Schwartz points out how we in Australia have no legislated right to freedom of speech and how within the context of an "open society..." this undermines the type of "...questioning that makes for muscular citizenship." 

As artists predominately in the Surrealist genre my partner (in particular) and I represent a continuum within the Surrealist ambit of challenge to and criticism of societal structures and mechanisms that make up our socio-political and religious belief systems. It is from within what is supposed to be a free thinking secular democracy that we make our observations and point to contradictions through the vehicle of our visual art and writings.  As Schwartz stated in 2005 we as citizens have a responsibility to question matters "of freedom and democracy". (See the full transcript here)

In 2009 Demetrios and I held a joint exhibition, Humanist Transhumanist, launched with accompanying self published Catalogue. Though much of the exhibition was of the "chance meeting of a sewing machine and umbrella on an operating table" (as was once remarked by Lautreamont), another part sought to reaffirm Surrealism's gritty tradition of challenge and revolution. In our exhibition and our accompanying publication are critiqued the four super religions of our time: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism with strong human rights and socio-political commentary. We challenged the view and assertion that religions represent peace and are just and necessary systems of belief to control human conduct. Our arguments and imagery provide contrast to this mainstream view. We provide reasoned conclusions that religions are not peaceful, are unjust, are gender biased and utilise supporting quotes from the Bible and the Koran. The challenges we make were not undefended nor ignorant statement. 

The night of our opening the Director of the Gallery unexpectedly made a scene, publicly declaring the show and us "racist", and ordered us out of our own exhibition. Upon another return to the gallery he again publicly repeated this charge of racism. Efforts to ascertain what he thought was "racist" revealed he thought only the criticism of Islam was "racist" and that he was "... against the Jews' state in Palestine". This conflict was not mentioned in any of our literature and the contradictory nature of his own statement was completely lost on him. 

He denied ever misrepresenting our work and he further refused us entry to support our exhibition, going so far as to threaten that he would call the police to evict us simply for entering to photograph (document) the show. We had to abandon it entirely until take down some 3 weeks later. 

When this occurred, July 2009, we accepted we may have to put a bad experience behind us, legal considerations were rationally beyond our means and energies. We instead posted each our own account of the experience to our respective art websites. This Gallery Director is suing for what we write, claiming that it is all injurious falsehood.

These website pages and links to them have been pulled by successive web Host providers who caved to legal threats by his lawyers to make them a joint defendant in the defamation case against us. In the latest attack on our websites our entire internet was pulled by Telstra, see the posts immediately prior this one. This "chilling" has dogged us for several months and will no doubt continue. We have now yet again made alternative hosting arrangements and have reinstated our pages and our websites. (see below)

The intention for writing these accounts and maintain them is to counter the claim of the "racism" attack on our character and our art work and art practice spanning some 30 years in the case of Demetrios who has been challenging religions since the early 1980's in his art and writings. To critique religion isn't illegal or menacing it is the nature of secular democracy that we critique it and the systems which do, or are seen to, under-pin or contradict it. Not a novel occurrence. However, now in Australia to critique Islam has been declared "racist". In Australia, it seems, Islam is immune from the same criticism levelled at the other major religions. The result is a mussel of any criticism of not only Islam but a flow on to other religions seeking the same immunity.

If it is the case that to critique religion in Australia is now to be a "racist" then what limited free speech we currently enjoy is under serious threat. To remain silent or be compelled to silence because your argument is not palatable for some is not an acceptable outcome for any society claiming to be free thinking and progressive.

Even with truth as our defence our fate at the hands of the Australian court system and its handling of defamation matters is frighteningly unknowable. It appears to us one we are alone and fairly impotent to alter or affect the outcome, so we will continue to tell our story and hope someone is listening. 

http://leeanneart.com/guildfordlanegallery.html

http://vakras.com/exhibitions.html#exhibitons_in_2009

How Australian Defamation Laws Chill

"In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."

Secrets prologue, 1997, oil on canvas, Lee-Anne Raymond

This is Australia 2011, and I am being sued for defamation. What have I learnt?

I have learned freedom of speech as most modern democratic citizens may understand it is not a right of citizens in this country. Indeed laws governing defamation in Australia are weighted against any critics who may publish or publicly present unfavourable or critical opinion, argument and ideas, be they; artists, authors, journalists, publishers, newspapers. Australian defamation law, the way it is framed, even following the unification of the 2005 act, effectively "chills" free speech.

I have learned what is meant by the term "chilling speech" as the direct quote above from Electronic Frontiers' FAQ regarding defamation law defines, it is of course to censor speech. Within the same FAQ is discussed ways to; minimise risk (of action being brought against you, should you be one at 'risk'), dealing with threats (of legal action against you) and, the defences you can employ should you be facing action. All very informative and I have to thank this and other organisations for sharing and making accessible this information online.

Within this particular FAQ I noted the heading of one section which struck a cord, "Defamation and Safe Speech". A tips section for how to say what is needed but not expose yourself to a charge of defamation. Personal and societal ethics and values aside the existence of helpful tips like this make me cringe in horror. It is saying couch the truth because they will come after you if you do not fudge it. This underscores that there is no freedom of speech, not only under our system of law, but in addition, within our conceptual grasp or perhaps societal character (Government ministers enjoy the privilege of a kind of technical parliamentary free speech). We are as a country governed by a secular democracy that is cowed into expression of only flaccid and inoculated "safe" forms free speech.

What does this mean?

As a person no longer simply at risk of being sued for defamation this is moot. Now that I am being sued I know personally about the chill and its insidious effect. My website host were threatened and the page on which I wrote an account of unprofessional practice of a gallery director back in 2009 was pulled down. My partners similar account as well was pulled down. This is the chilling effect. We are not celebrities, rich, influential, nor associated with a publication, our pages being pulled meant no discussion or opinion could be conducted about what was or was not defamatory, nor even available for anyone to have reported the matter.

A reference placed on another page to inform others I was being sued to explain why the link was unavailable was further to this taken down after an additional threat was made to my host provider. Does this mean I do not have the right to convey to a third party that I am being sued? The lack of clarity is universal. I believe I do have a right to inform my, audience (website visitors) that I am being sued and the page you are attempting to link to is down because of what I wrote about a poor experience with this gallery director in 2009. The public writ itself names Robert Raymond Cripps as the Plaintiff vs Demetrios Vakras and Lee-Anne Raymond the Defendants. It is a matter of public record. I must as well, apparently, take care not to too fully explain the context nor circumstance which has led to my being sued, even though this as well is a matter of public record.

In my experience of the law it seems I may discuss or comment only if I am enjoying the rights of parliamentary privilege (doubtful that will ever happen), or as a witness before the court, or a reporter of statements made under privilege in these contexts. As I am neither a parliamentarian or a reporter of my issue or yet a witness to it in court I apparently have no right to provide my audience with information surrounding my being sued. To the rational and logical thinker this is Kafka's, The Castle, a reality in which one must obey pre-prescribed rules and laws which have no rational explanation. As my partner observed, the legal system acts an awful lot like a religion. One is expected to simply "have faith" in the various proclamations and protocol however irrational, ridiculous or inconsistent.

Effectively without proof or conviction I am expected to accept being gagged by multiple threats of further legal retribution by the plaintiff in this matter. I do not accept this is the spirit of the law and, unlike the plaintiff, I take responsibility for my actions and restate the exhibition with his gallery was a disaster at the gallery director's hand. Declaring the show and my partner racist, barring our attending our own show, causing us personal and professional damage from which we are still recovering is no small event. In addition it was a public event and these matters played out in public at our expense. These are the reported facts behind the case and which he claims defame him. Defamation is considered proven if what was disseminated was out of malice (untrue) and caused the complainant's reputation harm. The truth we fully support with evidence. The plaintiff's reputation, good or bad is subjective. However, as our experience with the plaintiff is one shared by others prior to our showing at his gallery it would seem any reputation he had is self-earned and pre-existed our exhibition and commentary.

The penalties, if a ruling (if we ever get to court) is found against you, are indeed odious and severe. Laws are meant to work by modifying behaviour (seen as poor) and gain compliance (good behaviour). I argue that the penalties alone are a form of chilling, preventing free speech. In addition though it is how defamation law in particular is framed in law which is most concerning, as the laws assist to amplify the chilling effect and mussel fair and rigorous criticism.

To elaborate as discussed the cost of responding to the litigation alone represents a burden of such a punitive like nature that one, as an individual defendant becomes pauperised or cowed by this real threat before a matter is even heard in court. I maintain the law *By law, I mean our justice system*, works against individual citizens in this arena. This is not just because the threat of financial devastation is so real, but in reality the law is so badly framed that it appears to hold the defendant as guilty and as having defamed regardless of the court outcome. All that is decided upon is how valid are the defences for the defamation. This means defamation is assumed but perhaps there was a valid reason to do so.

I maintain to be silent is acquiescence, and this can and will be construed as an admission of guilt.

Is this a demonstration of the law working?

What really is chilling is that the law (justice system) may not care if it is working or not.

Post Script:

With different hosting arrangements now in place the pages are available and my professional art website now remains intact.

http://leeanneart.com/guildfordlanegallery.html

View the catalogue for Humanist Transhumanist Exhibition http://www.humanisttranshumanist.com/