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/

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