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?

An Islamo-Phobia for criticism

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

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

What is a declaration of false racism?

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

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

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

When is racism, real racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bite your tongue and trade in your freedom

Freedom II

Three months ago in Jerusalem, Pediatrician Dr Channa Maayan "bit her tongue" when told a male colleague would have to accept for her an award for her publication and work advancing knowledge on hereditary diseases common to Jews. The acting Israeli Health Minister decreed the event would be conducted under strict ultra orthodox conditions. Women and men in the audience, male and female guests were segregated, no women were allowed on stage. 

For a secular democracy such an occurrence lead by a member of parliament is a disaster. The New York Times article goes on to state many have not kept quiet (Dr Maayan would have been unprepared all she could have done is leave) and the backlash internally within Israel is building momentum but will it be able to resist what is a strong and increasingly belligerent religious orthodoxy? Recently in January 2012 at a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha [Jewish law]” all women were banned from speaking and the audience segregated on gender. In addition there are "rules for playing Kosher Music" and a "black list of non-Kosher music" controlled by a religious committee.

These very public examples of ultra orthodox interference in Israeli public and political life demonstrate Israel is a secular democracy under stress from internal religious fundamentalism.

Concessions have been made by successive Israeli governments to either, at worst, simply win votes from this growing community sector or, at best, to demonstrate an altruistic tolerance. Which is not an exclusive Israeli mistake as even in Williamsburg, Brooklyn Hasidic leaders complaining women who ride bikes represent a "safety and religious hazard" were appeased. If mostly as an attempt to be inclusive and tolerant it seems it, appeasement and concession  isn't a success particularly as the examples above demonstrate it requires that  the human rights of others are detrimentally affected. In Israel not only is this ultra-orthodox section of the community becoming more intolerant of its internal neighbors it is doing so whilst ignoring the external equally intolerant religious forces attempting to annihilate them and their fellow countrymen and women. As a community within Israel they are purportedly an overrepresented drain on the social welfare system. Though the women generally do work, amongst males there is high unemployment as they are permitted by their community and their state to focus upon study of the Torah rather than gainful employment, joining the army, learning other skills or pursuing education other than for advancing their religion and knowledge of it. The only productivity of note from the community it seems is it's high birth rate, which, if nothing else changes will only increase the stress on the already stretched social sector a worrisome fact for the future of Israel. 

It begs the question what is wrong with religions where it is the case that for it to be practiced human dignity, freedom and advancement, must be subsumed and suffer reversals? Separation of religion and state is the cornerstone of successful secular democracy. Without it we would be required to weigh all matters in the context of all religious edicts/laws/conventions.

Orthodox Judaism and Islam particularly have problems operating within a secular democratic context, one that separates the Church and State. Each it seems desire or demand they have access to their own religious courts. Each particularly are at pains to control female believers (and those who simply cannot escape) by strictly regulating their conduct within the community confines and outside it. Female believers are 'confined'; in dress, education, work, social connections, marriage, sexual activity and procreation functions, behavior and social position all aspects are controlled and monitored with zeal. It is a zeal supported by the religious texts which focus upon the female as a sexual possession, a commodity as a wife, booty in war or acquisition to trade family reputation or wealth upon(1). Whether we reside by fortune in a secular democracy or not this is profoundly illegitimate to be continued and considered acceptable 'cultural' or religious practice. It is a denial of an individual's right to free-expression, free-association and self-determination. These are human rights abuses so we do not bite our tongues, as these abuses should never be tolerated within any secular democracy.

If freedom is the first casualty of religious rule then soon to follow is dignity, then imagination and finally concept of mind in the Platonic sense. Human nature embraces spirituality in our thoughts, concepts and metaphors (imagination) and we use reason with which to find structure and meaning within our physical world and attempt to understand the unknown. This is what religious law rejects. 

Crazy religious zealots bent on the implementation of religious law have little regard for human advancement and are destroyers of human dignity, just ask the 8 year old Israeli girl harassed and spat upon by Ultra Orthodox male Jews because they found her child's attire religiously offensive. Other women had reported similar treatment for a few years now but the child's report produced the overdue community outcry.

So, perhaps the paragraph above should begin …"If female freedom is the first casualty of religious rule…". 

As the referenced articles demonstrate Ultra Orthodox Jews ban women from public participation, denounce them publicly for religious transgression, and further to this enforce segregation within and without the synagogue. It is the imposition of Halacha or Halakha, Jewish law, upon a society built around secular democratic principles.  Similarly Islam is intent upon its own religious laws taking precedence with a push to introduce Sharia Law into UK family courts. Equitable pluralist secular rule of law, where all rights regardless of gender are weighed, is viewed as inferior if not blasphemous. Males have greater worth than females is what this religious message very loudly declares. 

Remaining silent for fear of backlash or causing offence isn't an option, biting your tongue to demonstrate tolerance of another way when it impinges upon your own rights and freedoms isn't an option. 

Women and men who enjoy freedom and human dignity with equal justice must be outspoken in defense of it, as they are free to do so. 

Notes:

1. Torah (Old Testament) Deuteronomy: 20.10-18; 21.10-13; 25.5-10; 31.17-18…

    Koran: The Merciful 55.46-58, 44.54-56; The Cow 2.223, 2.228; The Believers 23.1-3; The Confederate Tribes

33.49-51

Article Link Sources:

www.theglobeandmail.com

www.nytimes.com

www.bbc.co.uk

http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum

http://news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com

New Website for 2012 - leeannesurreal.com

"little reaper" see fragments gallery - a study for a larger
work not yet commenced. 

In lieu of being able to again produce, complete or put thought into new work and ideas proper I've just launched leeanneasurreal.com for 2012. Artistic pursuit is fragmentary at best currently, so this is a way to proffer some continuity.

Three galleries offer fragments, dreams (doodles) and things (more doodles) selected from as recently as 2011 though mostly from much further back, 2002 or earlier.

The fragments gallery contains drawings that are fragmentary in idea and are drawn onto torn or off-cut fragments of beautiful art papers (these paper swatches are a variety of art parchments, a gift from a friend). The dreams and things galleries contain doodles in pen or ink. These were mostly drawn/doodled during a variety of travelling or transit like situations.

http://www.leeannesurreal.com

The new site includes some of the very last precursory ideas I'd been working on until being sued by Cripps literally put an end to all artistic pursuits in April 2011.

Studio shot, taken whilst testing a new camera in April 2011 (pre-Cripps' writ). Not much has changed to this date. The drawing shown behind the lamp is the last one worked on "universal time" see fragments gallery.
My studio otherwise remains dormant.

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

Humanist Transhumanist - Is it Racist to Critique Religion?

www.cyberrefugee.com

Is it Racist to Critique Religion?
Humanist Transhumanist the exhibition was declared racist by Guildford Lane Gallery Director Robert Cripps for doing so.

This 2009 show-case exhibition of artworks with accompanying Catalogue - Manifesto produced by myself and Demetrios Vakras was intended to take advantage of a Dali Exhibition held at the same time at the National Gallery of Victoria. Our further intention was to counter the 'modern' surreal-lite interpretation and presentation of surrealism. With such a focus upon Surrealism in our home city it represented a one time opportunity to take advantage of enthusiasm for the genre and generate further interest in living, local artists of the surreal and fantastic.

Months in planning, countless hours at the easel and computer producing the works, publication and promotional material all culminated in high costs financially and it all come to naught.

Our presentation and execution was characteristically professional, on time, content rich and efficiently delivered for viewing.

Robert Cripps, the Director of Guildford Lane Gallery created a scene towards the end of the opening night event, publicly declaring us and our exhibition racist and demanded we leave his gallery. We had another encounter like this when we returned to attempt to properly document our show and examine the posting of disclaimer notices throughout and leading into our exhibition. He rushed towards us  demanding we leave, yelling at us the exhibition was racist and that Demetrios intimidated him (this was new). We offered to remove it for a refund and re-stated our right to attend our show in the hired space during gallery hours and according to the contractual agreement. I attempted to ascertain from him what was racist whilst Demetrios backed away (to avoid appearing "intimidating"). Turns out any critical reference to the religion of Islam was the racist part though he brandished the full show incomprehensible and vaguely with a sweep of his arm all of it racist. He had fixated though on the criticism of Islam from what we could ascertain. Other religions were similarly critiqued within the content and context of the show but this was not racist, this was okay because, according to him, those religions deserve it. So it is okay to critique Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Zoastrianism.

[We left, hounded by him to do so, or he'd call the police.
As the gallery contract instructs if disputes arise the dispute must be raised, communicated and a process followed to produce a mutually agreed resolution. We had attempted to raise our objections in person, this failed so we outlined our objections to his behaviour towards us and to his continual public misrepresentation of our art and character by email. He skirted around our complaints in a reply email, which appears to be drafted by someone else, making the further written claim that both he and his staff were uncomfortable in our presence and that we were to only attend the gallery when he was there and to always make prior arrangement to do so. This libel by him and a further unilateral change to the contract affected our accessing our own exhibition. We could only have attended again if together, not as individuals, as we could not trust what he might do, or might claim we did do, if we each went in alone. We had to forewarn the gallery as he would have to be there whilst we were. Which made us attending at all untenable.]

Our exhibition was from that point on abandoned, unmanaged, misrepresented by his posted disclaimers and his public declarations it was racist. For all we know potentially an ongoing slander of us was conducted in our absence. Not one of his volunteers or staff came forward to correct what he claimed, that he and they were all intimidated and made "uncomfortable" by our art and presence. We gave them opportunity to do so and the opportunity to do so remains available to them. Since none yet have had anything to say we have to assume therefore they were/are in agreement with Cripps claims made on their behalf. 

[For writing about our experience we are being sued and chased around the internet in his attempts to use whatever means and legal threats he can to have us hound us off the WWW. The truth may hurt but it remains what it is - some prefer to be defined by the truth whilst others prefer to suppress or ignore it because of what it can expose in us.]

So where has this "populist"and in some cases media supported moratorium on any criticism of Islam come from? It does seem to be the case that generally you are accepted to be a racist if you critique Islam.

Australia, purportedly, is a secular democracy as enshrined within The Australian Constitution Act (Chapter V. The States. 116.) Australia can be popularly defined in a number of other ways in addition, which have little to do with politics or religion; beer, sport and beach themes come immediately to mind. Australians (some or most?) like to foster this image and take pride in being considered as characteristically laid-back and even laconic. Citizens may openly critique the government and social systems which includes religions but the permission to do so is awarded conditionally. Laws regarding complaint or dissent limit our ability to publicly complain without fear of litigation, legal persecution and authoritarian intervention. In our adventures with Mr Cripps we've suffered all three in various forms and ultimately for exercising our right to critique all religions which includes Islam. When viewed with a critical eye this not only exposes the sensitivities of Islam to criticism of it but how successfully it has been transmitted that Islam is exempted. As those who do critique it are all labelled racist. That there are serious contradictions in this logic are obvious. Obvious or not it remains the case a tipping point has been reached with regard to public opinion on this matter. If you speak to anyone regarding a criticism of Islam they will clam up, prefer not to discuss it, become faintly horrified or outright state "isn't that racist?" or something to that effect. Why is it racist? The conclusion by many, that it is somehow racist, is not one arrived at by reason but more by absorption. It is a repetitiously received and accepted absorption through the media, through political and religious commentary and opinion, through popular commentators, through a desire to counter negative attitudes (fair or unfair ones), all coloured and shadowed by the not so vague sense of it all being a taboo subject.

Publicly others have already suffered the racism charge and other worse stigma, they are accused of having far-right political leanings and a racist agenda and/or have suffered in some cases much worse persecutions.

In a press-release by Maryam Namazi who opened the 2011 One Law For All's "Passion for Freedom" exhibition she mentions us amongst other artist and free thinkers fighting a much harder battle than we could ever imagine. We hold these people in high esteem and send them our respectful support. They are surviving much worse treatment than we are.

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/passion-for-freedom-breaking-the-last-taboo-and-sharia-and-children-act/

As a citizen of a free secular democracy I am compelled to offer more than a laconic, laid-back acceptance of what prevails on popular winds. Tolerance does not require we decline to critique a human rights abuse or systemic failing because it emanates from a particular religion, religious practice, culture or politic. It does follow that we as citizens and artists must continue to defend human rights even when we are in trouble for doing so and are persecuted for it.

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

Domain Name Hijacking and Telstra, the new Internet Police

leeanneart.com not available 15/10/11

Last Thursday our internet was cut off by Telstra and we thought that this in itself was bad enough.

Not so.

Sometime under the cover and distraction of Telstra’s removal of our internet connection our Domain names were hijacked (stolen). Read about domain name hijacking via the links at the end of this post.

leeanneart.com & vakras.com were taken by unknown persons and were no longer in our control or ownership. If we had still had internet access when our domains were hijacked we would have been alerted.  Our sites associated with these domains were hosted (stored) on our server which connected our sites to the WWW. When we were cut off by Telstra our sites disappeared from the WWW. 

If we had not first been disconnected, then the hijacking of our domains would have made our sites disappear from the WWW instantly. Because of the nature of the hijack we would have been aware of this the moment that it occurred. 

Under the cover of our lack of internet it was likely that the perpetrator held the expectation we would fail to notice in time to retrieve them, or felt that we would not have understood what had occurred. 

Who knew of our lack of internet? That Telstra had disconnected us? When to strike so that they could steal the domain names? Who might benefit from this?

All interesting questions. 

There are protocols and processes to secure domain name ownership. Through impersonation and deception or by the application of technical knowledge (hacking), or because of flawed security procedures these protocols can be breached, as has happened in our case. It is only through timely discovery and persistent, dogged follow-up that we now have both domains back under our ownership.

Fortunately we did discover the theft fairly quickly and alerted every authority we could. Melbourne IT, the domain name registrar, could not do anything over the weekend when we discovered this late Saturday morning15 October 2011.

The type of action Telstra have taken against us, described as "excessive", the timing of Telstra's actions, the consequences which have flowed from Telstra's actions, and the question of who stood to benefit from them, are all in question.

The Victoria Police Fraud Squad are actively investigating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hijacking

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf

Addenda to "The SLAPP"

Consequesnces 2007

Telstra (ISP real name now uncensored) has removed our interent access and static IP.

Demands were made to Telstra by Mr Cripps via his lawyers that we were to remove not just references to the 2009 exhibition debacle but our entire websites or Telstra would become a respondent in the Defamation matter brought against myself and Demetrios Vakras by Mr Cripps.

We had already acted reasonably and had under protest censored all the sections of our websites as per the demands made by Cripps, Cripps' and Telstra's various lawyers (all "BIG" company legal firm as per their own claims) sent to monster us.

We drew the line at removing our entire sites voluntarily. The removal of our sites and our internet access should constitute an outrage. We view this as unreasonable, unethical, bullying and harrassement by litigation. Without proof, without deference to innocence, without ethic, reason or the application of logic we are harrassed off the internet just as we were kicked out of our own exhibition in 2009.

Telstra'sresponse is that anything that exposes them to liabilty must be dealt with in this manner. Nothing was stored on their servers. They claim they can do this and indeed they have done this. They can do it to anyone. If you don't like what someone says just threaten Telstra or any ISP. Use the standard method, you are frightened, threatened, defamed and you will get what you want relatively cheaply in this country.

Cripps and his kind can merely threaten to make Telstra a respondent and Telstrasimply rolls over and exposes its belly to exhibit they are no threat.

Telstra disconnected us at 10am this morning.

At about midday we received a call from Telstra business customer service(sic) to ask how we "...were enjoying our plan"? I suspect our feedback will not "...be recorded and utilised for training purposes".

The following sites are currently gone from the internet:
www.leeanneart.com
www.vakras.com
www.phantastart.com
www.daimonas.com
www.phantastsurreal.com
www.humanisttranshumanist.com