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

Is That Your Lovely Bottom?

In June 2009 at the opening night event of an exhibition of my work in an art gallery in Melbourne, the Director of that gallery, Robert Cripps, approached a woman viewing a painting picturing a rear facing female nude and asked her 

"Is that your lovely bottom?"

This was not a question asked by someone with insider knowledge expecting that the woman was actually the model for the work, but a straight out sleazy pick up line, delivered poorly and in inappropriate circumstances. The painting was one of mine and the woman Robert Cripps asked this question of was my manager from my place of work.

Several things are wrong with this picture. A male asking a woman such a question has obviously checked out that woman's bottom and made a distinct comparison. Clumsy and dumb, not complimentary as the deliverer assumes. It is intrusive and sexual objectification in the classic sense. And, worse, it was not only intrusive and embarrassing for my manager, and mortifying from my perspective, it was not just in poor taste, it was unlawful, which I will cover. 

"Is that your lovely bottom?" - digital collage - 2013

Not unexpectedly the relationship with my manager hit some issues as a consequence of this event. It created an awkwardness and a distance not previously present between us that I can only put down to this event. She had gone to see the art and to support a co-worker she supervised and had experienced sexual harassment in doing so. Though this was not as a consequence of my art work per se, the implication for it being used as a pretext for the making of such an intrusive enquiry is pretty clear. The experience she had of viewing my art work came to be associated with an unpleasant and sleazy encounter in her mind and understandably so.

Cripps had as well inappropriately questioned me, during the installation of my work and the work of my co-exhibitor Demetrios. Cripps pointedly asking me had I modelled for any of Demetrios' works? We had been rearranging the pieces together and I laughed out loud at the time at such a suggestion, mainly at the blatant simple mindedness of it, and informed him firmly no we use professional life models. It was a ludicrous question and one I had been unprepared to receive from anyone let alone the Gallery Director. Demetrios asked me later what was all the hand cupping motions Cripps had been making whilst talking with me, at the other end of the large gallery space? Cripps, I explained, was enthusiastically telling me at that point he loved "all the soft flesh", and the cupping motions he made at the same time were to emphasise the shape of the bottom of one of my female nudes. It was a low point for us in terms of our opinions of this Director who'd by then already demonstrated unreliability and unprofessionalism in other ways. Later when the hanging was completed I checked with Assistant Gallery Manager, at the time, Stacy Jewel, to confirm if everything in her opinion was in order, and whether she knew if Robert was happy, overall, with the presentation? Her reply was an emphatic "Oh Robert, will love it, he will love all the flesh!" This stunned me to a silent nod and a bit of a weak polite smile. It was before the "lovely bottom" incident but was another example of the tone set within this gallery by a director not particularly interested in the art or of the ideas that have inspired it, but more interested in who appears naked in the art.

There is more to it than that though, these are not simply acts of general inappropriateness or a lack of artistic qualification by a person incapable of taking the work seriously or behaving professionally around it, it is more serious because, where and under what circumstances these acts took place, actually constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace which is unlawful. 

Examine the following from HREOC's website

"In what circumstances is sexual harassment unlawful? 

The Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a person to sexually harass another person in a number of areas including employment, education, the provision of goods and services and accommodation."

My work manager attended the art show at my invitation. The person asking her the intrusive questions, as she worked out, was the Gallery Director, Robert Cripps. His actions as well put me at risk by making me a party to an unlawful act due to my having an agreement with the gallery. Witnesses to such conduct are by law considered party to it if they choose to ignore it, which was our situation when I was informed about the "lovely bottom" encounter. 

(According to Section 105 of the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984, we have legal duty to "not permit" Cripps to act in this way, because "for the purposes of this Act, [we could] be taken also to have done the act." (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/s105.html)

SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 - SECT 105 - Liability of persons involved in unlawful acts

Cripps' questions of me as a client of his gallery constitutes "circumstances [for] unlawful sexual harassment". Cripps' staff and volunteers are protected as well by the act should they have ever experience forms of unwanted, uninvited, non consensual inappropriate proposals of a sexual nature, insults or taunts of a sexual nature, or repeated requests to go on dates…HREOC's advice is quite clear. All of this taking place in an "employment, education, provision of goods and services…" context is unlawful.

"Sexual harassment is not interaction, flirtation or friendship which is mutual or consensual. Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) makes sexual harassment unlawful in some circumstances."

How many others did Cripps asked these types of questions? What was his conduct towards his staff and volunteers, who were largely female? The full answer is unknown to me however it goes to reason he did likely utilise any opportunity that may have presented itself. 

Robert Cripps' actions, subsequent to his inappropriate comments to my manager, deteriorated so much further into the absurd that any steps we might have taken to tackle this with him were subsumed by his further belligerent actions he conducted to degrade us and our art completely. He declared the show and us racist at the end of our opening night event, kicked us out in front of a crowd of onlookers, repeating this on a second occasion, and subsequently barred us from all access to the gallery. He is now suing us for writing about that which he forced upon us by repeatedly denying all responsibility for doing so on the several occasions we attempted to reason with him.  

The sexual harassment aspects of his behaviour alone have him in a great deal of bother. In Cripps' original April Fools Day writ his inappropriate "lovely bottom" comments were denied. They were instead claimed to be malicious falsehoods by me written when it was known they were not true, and on account of his denial he was claiming $140,000.00 in losses*. He has since admitted to approaching my manager and asking her if that was her lovely bottom, however I am still being sued for "defamation" by him. 

April Fool's Day Cripps Writ - "Injurious Falsehood" - click on image to read.

*$140k? Yes, the demands made by Cripps were and remain unreasonable as are the claims what we wrote of constitute "Injurious Falsehood" at all. Later in the same year as this first demand of $140k Cripps acquired a Steinway D Grand concert piano which go for around that amount retail minimum. Interesting.

As a final point, to create a contrasting perspective, consider this last image with the first image at the top of my article. Would it have been complimentary, okay, appropriate, for men to be asked the same? Did Cripps ask men or was Cripps himself asked "is that your lovely penis?" whilst viewing the paintings shown below? I'm betting not.

"Is that your lovely penis?" - showing on the far Left "the fucking press", centre "kore of the industrial age (girl)", on the right "kouros of the industrial age (boy)" - all by Demetrios Vakras as exhibited during "Humanist Transhumanist" at the failed Guildford Lane Gallery run by Robert Cripps in 2009.

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?

Australians, the State Knows Best

Art with a message the State disagrees with had better watch out in Australia. Censorship by the government is the way the State puts limits on certain thoughts being expressed publicly and with which the State disagrees or perhaps it considers may cause public unrest? north-korean-artists-banned-from-australia  These North Korean artists were commissioned by the Queensland Art Gallery to supply works for exhibiting but they were not allowed entry to Australia to explain their works. This might upset the thoughts of a free thinking secular democratic Australian public, so they were denied visas. The Australian public is here being told that in certain matters they must not be permitted to think for themselves and they must be protected from the expressions, words, ideas, thoughts of others. 

Is the Government overstepping its role? I am concerned it may not matter to Australians as much as it should. Whatever the message art, literature, speech may deliver, the silencing of it by-way of laws designed to limit free expression is much worse.