"Australia" the exhibition - you're boring

"Marking the first major survey of Australian art in the UK for 50 years, this exhibition spans more than 200 years from 1800 to the present day and seeks to uncover the fascinating social and cultural evolution of a nation through its art."

Australia - Exhibitions - Royal Academy of Arts

The Australian National Gallery with its "Australia", the exhibition, presented at the Royal Academy in London confirms and reinforces the acceptable Australian Art code. The Landscape and its parochial, slavish depiction, is what defines the accepted Australian Art and artist model. What it does do rather than "uncover a cultural evolution of a nation through its art" is reinforce a cultural myopia through conventionally accepted modes of transmission. Weary artists attempting to break this mold will weep a few more tears of frustration yet. 

"snapper" 2010

Australian artists outside this model, this arts code of conduct, already know that leaving Australia is possibly the only way an artist, practicing in opposition to this format, will escape permanently living a life and career in the underground.

It is an underground to which I belong. Not just outsider artists are relegated to these lower rungs to which no arts institution curator will ever visit, as to do so would be too adventurous and risky, as it would take them outside the accepted boundaries of the main stream which they must reinforce. The art of permanently ignored "bottom dwellers" will never see the light of the acceptable arts scene in Australia and will remain in the shadows…unless someone foreign takes an interest…and even then…this will only be cemented if the interest emerges from the mother-land UK. 

The culture and personality of the Australian art scene as manifested in this exhibition is tainted by a servitude to the depiction of a nationalistic and conventional art form/s that include and reinforce the view that the theme of landscape is what defines Australians as being uniquely "Australian". This limited and landlocked perspective is as oppressive as a gulag to any professional artist attempting to break through such barriers. 

Nationalistic art-forms and the raising of their profile in a manner such as this contain not only bland cliches but are off key in tone and smack of the kind of political triumphalism encouraged by and for a political agenda. Government interferences however subtle in our arts and cultural expression contain the taint of vested interests which bear little relationship with truth and the reality of artistic aims, which are often intended to challenge the status quo a government wishes to present.

The arts must must not simply reflect what a nation wants to hear/see/feel about itself.

For our arts/cultural institutions to consistently reinforce that it is the landscape which characterises the Australian identity alone is a distortion. And, it is a truly unambitious perspective, so low in its horizons that the thinking viewer is brought to tears by their yawns. We must not be forced to reach only for the most basic of basic arguments and fame-work to describe a culture. This is the cultural cringe at its most uninspired and harmful.

Additionally, with its lack of breadth and challenge of the norm, this exhibition reconfirms perceptions that Australia and Australians cannot conceive of a cultural heritage and future without it being shaped to appeal to the perspective and for the approval of the mother-land. This exhibition is hardly a statement of the "masters" of Australian art because it reaches only as high as a biscuit tin depiction of it. Insulting to the viewers it is attempting to reach in addition.

As long as by Australian "masters" it is intended to mean those who depict the narrative of landscape then we will be regarded as the predictable mediocrity that this exhibition represents us to be. Depicting art works by landscape artists, as defined by the body of their life's work, or landscapes cherry picked from the legacy of a non landscape artist's oeuvre, narrows the focus to a blinkered degree. It also blurs the perspective so considerably that now viewers not knowing anything about Australian painters will perceive that they are all En plein air painters.

Every nation has its landscape, parts of Colorado, USA are like parts of outback South Australia. What is it that makes Australian's living in Australia's outback so very different to US citizens living lives in theirs. Nothing. The audience being targeted here is British living in a relatively lush Northern European climate. This distinction by landscape risks being little more than a travel-log and a culture has more depth than this kind of parochial approval seeking presentation can ever possibly hope to display. It is as narrow as the depiction of Germans in beer halls, Greeks smashing plates. 

Two centuries are showcased, using 170 artists, some who spent their careers depicting the landscape, others chosen have works that make incidental or no real reference to the landscape. Yet this aspect alone does not form the ideas or character of a nation. The ideas of a nation manage to emerge from elements from within and without. The landscape is not the shaper of a nation's DNA, the landscape holds our emotions and connections for memory yes, but with or without it were are collectively shaped by more than any passe theme of a (white?) man's struggle with "god and country" wilderness cliches.

Much of this is no "Heart of Darkness" (Joseph Conrad) either but a more predictable and somewhat embarrassing parochial grab at the surface of the matter. Ultimately it all has the ulterior purpose of being a promotional tool it would seem.

Artists who dare to dig deeper into the psyche of a nation and its people will be relegated to the Underground for their troubles. It seems that Australia has yet to reach a status where it is honest enough to show its warts and all messy birth and life to date. This dismal (at best) post adolescent mimicry of what Australian art is and says about itself is what it believes the mother-land want's to see and what the adolescent thinks it will approve of. I hope critics with more bonafides than I challenge it.

To me this exhibition is a great disappointment and bluntly an embarrassment. It hardly represents a unique statement from a country that can, via its art history, announce its emergence from questionable beginnings and fumbling adolescence into confident and promising adulthood. Because it lacks honesty and confidence the officially approved of version of Australian art belongs to a cultural back water held back in a time funk. It is a presentation that denies the art and artistic development of this nation in preference to the comfortable illusions (delusions) of its earliest memories. And, a flawed memory will always fail to observe its flaws.

"An Outbreak of Reason..." In Defamation Law? Unlikely.

Grendel's Mother 2007

At a Directions Hearing intended to assign yet another new start date for our case to be heard at trial Supreme Court of Victoria Associate Justice Melissa Daly remarked as a question to the appearing barristers "…it is possibly safe to assume there has been no outbreak of reason?"

Where Defamation Law fails is in its practice. The facts of a case, the truth, simply get in the way when all that defendants should do is back down in order to be seen as reasonable by the court. It is a flawed and insincere system that is the Victorian Supreme Court. 

I recognise that Justice Daly's comment may come from a sense of helpless frustration as it is likely connected to valid concerns of a congested and overworked court system. However, is this the fault of all parties associated with the attendant grid-locked cases? What I'd ask Justice Daly, if I could is, where is this complained of lack of reason actually present? The subject of reason is one raised over and over by my co-Defendant and I with regards it's relative absence in light of efforts, particularly by the Plaintiff and his lawyers in our case, but also by the justice system itself, to ensure the journey of the case has as little relationship with reason as possible. 

In Defamation Law the legal sanctions and burdens are all on the defendant. The constant rescheduling of our case at such a late hour is out of our hands, and, we've jumped through every fiery hoop one can imagine to get there. What is it that we could do to make matters more reasonable? Give up and lose our life's possessions entirely as well as completely shred our ethics and values?

Justice Daly's off the cuff remark, noted above, in part a defensively put apologia of sorts to the appearing barristers, presumes by its tone that problems or flaws only exist outside those caused by her own industry, and because it presents a perversion of reality I must point out the following:

1. I am a reasonable person the remark implies this isn't the case.
2. My co-defendant is a reasonable person the remark implies this isn't the case.
3. Each in our own way critique the assailing of reason by the forces of unreason in our art and writings. The remark implies this is irrelevant.
4. Justice Daly's off the cuff remark implies the court assumes there is a lack of reason on behalf of all parties to a case.
5. The remark and its attendant assumptions issued within an open court room embarrassed with its tone. And, those in attendance found the justice's remark to be amusing at my and my co-defendant's expense.
6. Reason itself has already been rejected on a number of occasions by officers of the court system itself…Daly has no weight behind her assertion that there is little reason on behalf of the parties when it is the court that has assisted to create the unreasonable circumstances allowing for the case to continue at the behest of an unreasonable litigant.
7. Defamation Law provides an unreasonable person, who has the financial means, the capacity to utilise the law as a weapon, as a tool of censorship to suppress knowledge of the truth.  As I've noted in previous postings Defamation Law is a known means by which to threaten critics, prevent criticism and quash evidence of truth and therefore apply limits to truth and free speech which the law claims it does not intend to restrict or limit. For further reading see: "Defamation Terrorism is Alive and Well in Australia" & "How Defamation Law Achieves Censorship in modern Australia" etc. 
8. Defamation Law contains no sign of reasonable checks and balances to prevent its misuse. Misuses are only identified at trial and are rarely punished. 
9. Those that finally get to trial to defend truth are labelled "unreasonable" by a court system that cannot cope with the self-created problems it complains it has become overburdened by. Our case being delayed is due to other newer cases usurping it in importance (as ours was delayed). This is an outcome we cannot affect. 
10. The over-burdened court, through its own unreasonable processes, has made a case string out to almost 3 years, then blamed those who are inextricably caught in the inevitable congestion for this outcome. Thus the court turns on those who have been victims once making them victims all over again by in addition blaming them for possessing a lack of reason.

The question of reason is one we put to the Plaintiff Robert Cripps. When Robert Cripps consistently spewed forth public diatribes containing accusations of racism against us and our exhibition (that we'd unfortunately held in his failed Guildford Lane Gallery) we attempted to reason with him. We challenged his ideas and pointed to the flaws in those ideas and complained to him of his behaviour towards us. The attempts we made to defend our reputation and art however simply further incensed an unreasonable person. 

Why the attempts we made to "reason" with Cripps so spectacularly failed is a good question that we'd like to have answered too. He either ranted more or denied ever having made the accusations we complained of. He further lied about steps he took to distort viewers' understanding of the content of our exhibition and his successful aim to deny us access to the gallery for the duration of the show. His behaviour was and is not that of a reasoned or reasonable person. 

I give you "Exhibit A" being the defamation case before the Supreme Court of Victoria brought by the Plaintiff Robert Cripps. It is not that I or my co-Defendant lack reason in being forced to defend ourselves against a person using an unreasonable system that feeds and nurtures his unreasonable sense of hurt. Robert Cripps, a person who has caused me and my co-Defendant harm, and the Supreme Court of Victoria have forced me to engage with them both, not the other way around.

Daly (et al) complain of what I see as a self inflicted - overburdened - system. It appears they have a different view since it is believed there must be a taint upon our character or the character of other/all parties to a case by association, as they will have us all lumped together as persons who lack reasonableness. 

It is Robert Cripps who detected the weaknesses in Defamation Law and who is now attempting to exploit it to his advantage. He like others before him see an opportunity, using defamation law to make up for complained of poor business practices and unprofessional behaviour. Defamation Law and the courts contribute to and validate such unreasonableness by not striking out cases brought to it that are clearly vexatious litigation. 

If Defamation Law is to maintain a valid place it must reform and tighten up its proclaimed "objects of the act". Where are the early phase checks and balances to avoid its misuses? It should never be used to prop or conceal a poor reputation in order that it may continue to cause harm. It should never be possible to misuse Defamation Law in order to make financial gain on the basis of concealing the truth of a pre-existing and extant poor reputation. 

The result is that in practice Defamation Law does exactly what is claimed it is framed to avoid, limit and restrict the imparting and receipt of information, as it dismisses truth as being harmful to a reputation and therefore defamatory. 

The only cause of any harm ever to Robert Cripps, is Robert Cripps. Perhaps he really should be suing himself?

If there exists any lack of reason it is in a poorly framed Defamation Law that does not care where, how or when it should not be used, in a judicial system that merely looks the other way as it is over-whelmed(?), and in Plaintiffs who will exploit these built in flaws.

Other Reading (image heavy): http://www.redlegvartists.com/fraud.html

We still have a long way to go but it might get easier for the next one and the next one

This last week in Australia a sitting Prime Minister was ousted by their own party. Again.

Thief! - Pencil on Paper 2010

For a second time in a little over 3 years the Labor Party rolled a sitting PM and their own leader. An impressive effort when you think about it.

Whether relevant to the Labor caucus member's own personal decision or not the PM they ousted this time was a woman. The main reason for it, which is supported by the facts, is that to go to the election with Gillard as the sitting PM and as Labor leader would result in political suicide for the Australian Labor Party. Gillard had lost the support of the electorate and Labor would emerge from the upcoming election a decimated husk. A long hiatus in opposition to rebuild is what the party needed argued some. The electorate preferred the previously rolled PM, Kevin Rudd. I am bemused by the public popularity of Rudd. He was rolled for good reason, he had lost the support of his colleagues, he'd lost his way dazzled by the position of PM rather than rising to its promise. It was clear to everyone something had to be done about Kevin as Kevin was all about Kevin. Gillard took on what most of her colleagues from both sides of politics would shiver at the prospect of, a political party in turmoil and disunity though they were very happy for her to do so. And, to give her credit she had the courage they lacked to do so.

Gillard became the first woman Prime Minister, bundled into the role following the ejection of a bumbling Kevin Rudd. Gillard then subsequently won at the polls a shaky hold on Government (a minority one) at the next election. It functioned due to Gillard's talent to unify her minority government with 3 independents. Rudd was never going to stand aside gracefully and happily embarked upon causing any and all destabilising interferences he could. He could be excused for some of this but not for behaviour that, due to its persistence, does point to one main reason for why the Gillard Government was never fully accepted as being legitimate. Rudd would not allow the country to move past his own personal pique. He chose to never accept the position he had arguably put himself into in the first place and demands we see him as one who can take responsibility. To me, like some sort of Prince Friedrich Hapnick, there he was in the background blithering around or pouting dramatically. A prickly, sulky destabilising force, which appealed to some obviously, blaming Gillard for his position and not letting anyone forget his version of events.

Knowing this one wonders how reasoned and thinking voters prefer Rudd to Gillard (or worse Abbott to Gillard). Rudd is a known tanty thrower, micro manager, self obsessed and self promoting. No one would accuse him of bringing an appropriate level of rigour and intellect to the high office of PM. Gillard defined in office that she is about the job and getting it done whilst eloquently deflecting what detractors thought of what she wore or whether her body shape complied to an acceptable fashionable standard. She also took on and won debates lesser intellectuals would have crumbled before. The problem for Gillard was the personal and gender related criticism never ceased. And some of the really grubby underhanded muck stuck firm in the mind of the populist voter.

Julia Gillard though was the first woman Prime Minister in Australian, a fact and a matter of history that cannot be taken from her. Many of us though liking such a fact as a shiny piece of political kudos to flash at our fellow democracies took it very much for granted treating it with less than the special care deserved. Gillard competently fielded valid criticism, too deftly and with a Lawyer's (political) manipulative flair she deflected fair criticisms. But so do all competent politicians. She also graciously endured invalid abusive and out of bounds criticism. Through her the government had gotten a few good things done despite the hung parliament, and it unavoidably and avoidably made mistakes. Some implementations were very good, some botched due to a too hasty pressure to perform and some were plainly wrong but persisted with out of a belligerence of Government which can delude those in power they know better than the experts who clearly advised caution and the public who say no that's too far, we did not approve this.

Gillard had failed to perform on some matters to expectation, the nature of the parliament she led made certain progress unattainable. It was were she failed on one matter in particular that confused her real supporters as well as the grass roots electorate. She declined to endorse the gay marriage bill instead she defined the status of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. We balk at such contradiction from a Labor Leader, a declared Atheist and person of reason. But this wasn't of concern to those who simply would never "warm" to Gillard. She both irritated and elated the electorate - she polarised but also pulled people together. Not simply but especially because of her gender Julia Gillard's government was most precarious as the classic double edged sword scenario of a hung parliament. Leading Government but at the constant mercy of Parliament. To carry the metaphor to its end running government on a such a knife's edge makes for dangerous political territory misstep and off with her head basically.

As Gillard gamely stated, when announcing she'd lost the party ballot to lead the Labor Party to the next election, there were good reasons to explain some of the struggle she'd had in the role as being due to her gender. It might not explain everything but it explained somethings...

"I have been a little bit bemused by those colleagues in the newspapers who have admitted that I have suffered more pressure as a result of my gender than other prime ministers in the past, but then concluded that it had zero affect on my political position or the political position of the Labor Party." 

How dubious an honour to be the leader of the Labor Party, male or female. A comment I make as a Labor voter my entire voting life. 

I happen to think that an element of timing is part of it. I'm grateful for her opportunity it may otherwise have taken much longer to see a Woman Prime Minister. I feel part of something as a consequence and some good must come of it.

Without a clear choice the electorate never "warmed" to Gillard on its own terms and Rudd remains a curiosity for anthropologists perhaps to some day sufficiently explain.

Attitudes To Women Matter - "If that does not suit you then get out"

In the last week Australian current affairs and politics has been peppered with reports of anti-women rhetoric and reference to anti-women behaviour and attitudes. When we hear about and read in the media of specific events concerning the deliberate and systematic maligning of women (such as within the Australian Military) we are hearing arguably about the tip of the ice-berg. If this is reflective of attitudes and behaviours within the wider Australian community it is difficult to confirm from my individual perspective. Arguably with the current mix of news items to select from it would appear to be reflective of attitudes of some strength in some quarters of our society. Though Chief of Army David Morrison does reflect the strength of the obverse view sexism and anti-women attitudes have never-the-less declared they are alive and well in 2013 Australia. Some might argue they had never left, for just a metaphoric scratch to a weakened section on the surface of our society allows them to burst forth like a hidden stream of magma.

As Prime Minister Julia Gillard discovered using sexism to promote a political agenda in order to create a more favourable political climate can misfire badly. Blow back for attack dogs can be very severe as well as Mr Howard Sattler is now discovering when cheap shots about sexuality backfire. When sexism is wielded falsely by men or women, particularly if politicians do so, the damage from backfire can range from being merely cringe worthy to explosively damaging, either way it is very public. The good that can come of it is that it is at least public where we can all see it, point out when it is used manipulatively and examine and investigate where demonstrated. The reputation of a politician on the sexism attack or the reputation of an attacker defending their sexist values can instead be truly revealed. The reputation of Government in the opinion of whom it serves is surely affected when bungles such as these are made. Of greater concern for us is when sexism is wielded secretly at the level of the political arena, the board room or in the home. It is out of public view that it is most damaging for women and harmful to society. Any disparaging anti-women behaviour that is hidden is a threat because it is hidden. Women who cannot rely upon the media coming to their aid find themselves at the mercy of social denial, apathy or fear of witnesses and the intransigence and belligerence of the perpetrator and the origins for the attitudes become reinforced. 

Accusations of sexism must be based in honesty and truth. And, clearly sexist or misogynist behaviour must be exposed. If the former is manipulatively biased intending to achieve a political, personal or social agenda and is untrue or stretches the bounds of the truth the latter is effectively weakened. False claims affect trust in very real and true claims with the tarnishing accusation of "cry wolf". 

Though they may be exceptional (in our modern so-called-secular democracy) such entrenched attitudes emerge from a deep pool. There must be a place, an origin for this belief - that women are inferior - that is kept safe from the light of reason and reality, and for where these attitudes have time to develop, form and become entrenched. It is difficult to comprehend some of these acts are viewed as reasonable (deserved) if not normal (accepted) to some people but they are. That women are weaker physically may be factual but is it a matter of her inferiority that she may be weaker physically than a male? Or more that too high a representational value is placed on physical strength alone. Some remarkably believe women to be mentally inferior - it escapes logic but founding psychiatry helped to endorse and entrench such spurious notions as scientific. 

The psychology formed from the belief that women are second, are inferior to the male, are more susceptible to criticism as they have suspect characteristics is a result of religious and socio-cultural reinforced influences. Women are religiously maligned by the doctrines they are compelled to or do follow and some even believe it because their faith tells them it is so; by being created second, or as an after-thought (presumably by an imperfect creator), or as a play thing for the perfection of the male (formed in Gods image so the more perfect creation), or to be reward for a pious male, or merely available for the very messy but necessary pro-creation purposes. 

Religion lumbers women before birth and throughout life with; original sin for their curiosity, cursed with a womb - that bleeds, or are just biologically compromised by it, hindered by childbearing - vacant, broken, barren if they do not bare children, hindered by a greater propensity for compassion, poorer of intellect and thus expected to be a supplicant in every realm of her life. The libellous disparagement goes on and on in religious doctrine. Texts which pervasively spill out their dogmas to inspire the destruction of a bus load of girls seeking an education through to endorsing cultural practices that determine female genital perfection is achieved through mutilation (FGM). The expression of anti-women attitudes can be brutal or more subtle but are never-the-less sinisterly linked to the concept of inferiority and subjugation. Strong words but when you are blown to bits or threatened with any measure of violence in order to subdue you are humiliated and subjugated as Charles Saatchi effectively demonstrates to his wife Nigella Lawson.  Every so often it is demonstrated that these ill conceived malignant deceits pollute the secular domain too, though purportedly impervious to such inequalities, because attitudes that are entrenched run deep and are difficult to dislodge until we expose them to the light.

Women are diminished by religious doctrine which followers view as law, diminished historically and legally in legislation, diminished in the historic arts of medicine and psychology, diminished in society. But it is not all bad and women are not perfect either. The point is women are equal to men - I prefer to dispense with arguments about what is intended with the word equal however clarity for some is always required - equal as in unbiased and of the same status.

Women are strong, are intelligent and competent, are contributors, and fortunately for me the society I grew up in now officially recognises these unassailable facts with some gaps here and there at the fringes. Not anything we cannot fix in time. Society reinforces what goes unquestioned whether this might be good or bad and it reflects on us and changes our society for the worse if we do nothing, question nothing when behaviour or attitudes emerge that are not good. Men do have to contend with social hurdles, bigotry, disadvantage due to birth and geography, life can be difficult for women in those ways too. I'm not arguing equivalent disadvantage but a similar position for most men might be to consider where homosexuality or a perception of being less manly and more womanly (= inferior) is observed, construed or used tactically in order to diminish them. It is this underpinning and fundamentally flawed psychology that needs to change along with valuing human reason over religious dogma. It is important to diminish the powerful role religious doctrine plays in creating perceptions that devalue women. 

Try to imagine living with the perception you are inferior to your gender counterpart, 24/7. It is a perception that exists, in some sectors of societies, in most major religions, I don't believe there is any purpose or reason to deny it by not pointing it out. If I were to compare the 1970s with the year 2013 I can say the situation with regards to sexism and  the treatment of women has improved and is continuing to do so in this country at least. And, as this last week has demonstrated we have much to be vigilant about and need to vigorously promote change in attitudes as they emerge from the depths because such change will only benefit society. To those who may have a problem with this, to quote the fine words of Chief of Army, David Morrison, "...if that does not suit you then get out.".

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?

How Defamation Law Achieves Censorship in modern Australia

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

thief (detail) 2010 © Lee-Anne Raymond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Popper Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) 

Defamation Terrorism is Alive and Well in Australia

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

Justice Generic Bewigged - incognito © Lee-Anne Raymond 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel Ehrenfeld at the time noted...

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

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

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

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

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

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