ADDENDA 11- 13 September 2011:

[THE PREVIOUS version of this page as it stood on 7 June 2011 can be accessed here]

As has already been mentioned Robert Cripps owner and director of Guildford Lane Gallery in Melbourne is suing myself and my co-exhibitor Lee-Anne Raymond for our respective summaries of our experience with him when we held our exhibition at this venue in 2009. Cripps is claiming to have been "defamed", claiming that what we write is an "injurious falsehhod".

[the account of Lee-Anne Raymond]

To begin, as I write earlier on the page (to quote myself): "During the course of the exhibition he, by his actions, circumvented our capacity to promote our work."

As can be clearly read from the screenshot of the email that he sent 26/6/2009 (refer screenshot above - the screenshots are not decor - it is Cripps' response) Cripps' demand is that he be contacted personally by phone to arrange entry to the gallery at all, but only IF he was there. Remember, Cripps runs Redleg, which means he is as likely (more likely?) to be somewhere other than the gallery delivering the works of other artists. Indeed, his email addresses Lee-Anne Raymond only, who was not in a position to come in to the gallery during its hours of opening, not myself, who could. He had already told me not to come in at all. However, Cripps' demands, both oral and written, are in breech of the agreement that we both had with him.

In section 4 of the contract, "Gallery's Responsibilities", part "c" the gallery "ensures that the Hirer has access to the Venue from 8am until 10pm 7 days a week during the Hire Term."

Cripps made this demand/change despite section 11 of the contract, "GENERAL" which clearly states in part "e": This Agreement may only be changed in writing signed by all parties" and he did so despite the contract also stating that if agreement cannot be reached then the terms of the original contract are to be adhered to which is in section 10. e of the contract.

And, as the contract also describes the gallery's role in "Section 11", "General", part "a": "the Gallery is not the Hirer's Agent and is not entitled to a commission for the sale of the Hirer's work, nor is the Gallery responsible for the production, sale, administration, marketing or direct agency of the Hirer", Cripps' unilateral alteration served to, as I wrote, circumvent our capacity to promote our work. Indeed, he denied us the capacity to even sell our work which was the purpose of exhibiting in the first place.

Cripps then attempted to void the contract by claiming that our exhibition was racist (this would have breeched Victoria's Religious Tolerance Act (Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Tolerance_Act_2001). If we had breeched the contract he could keep the money we had paid and then thrown out our show. The part of the contract that he was attempting to claim we had breeched, which would have allowed him to keep the money we paid and thrown out our shaow at the same time, is section "6", "Hirer's warranty and indemnity", part "b": "...that the event does not contain any illicit, dangerous, illegal, unethical or seditious material or content to the Hirer's knowledge under the Hire Agreement, and the Hirer indemnifies the Gallery against any and all claim".

Despite repeatedly being asked by Lee-Anne Raymond on 24/6/2009 to identify precisely where the racist content could be found, Cripps did not and could not intentify it.

[NOTE: subsequent to this disastrous exhibition Lee-Anne Raymond exhibited works of hers (which were still in preparation during our exhibition at Guildford Lane Gallery) that cover essentially the same theme (in the context of the treatment of women by Islam). This exhibition took place at another Melbourne gallery. And as at Guildford Lane Gallery, her works were accompanied by a written explanation. Both the works and the accompannying text can be found on Lee-Anne's site PhantastSurreal.com. Lee-Anne Raymond then exhibited a short movie which featured these same works in the One Law For All exhibition that was held in London. No complaint or problems arose as a consequence of this.]

Finally, the contract contains a "Disputes" clause. None of its protocols were ever followed by Cripps. According to 10.a.i of the "Disputes" clause complaints are to be made in writing. Our written complaints were made to him by email so that we would have a record of them. None of the issues, such as the "misrepresentation of our art" were ever addressed. The email response by Cripps in the screenshot above is his response to one of our complaints. He clearly failed to address the matters that we brought up.

NOTE: What is written and appears on the black (original) part of this page is a cut-and-paste from written complaints made to Cripps in 2009 which were made in accordance with 10.a.i of the "Disputes" clause!

We have recently submitted a claim against Cripps to VCAT.

To quote the concluding summary

"The exhibition was to augment our artistic profile and bona fides. We made a business agreement, in the form of the contract. We had a reasonable expectation that this contract would be honoured in full and not be subject to unilateral alteration at the whim of the gallery owner. We were, contrary to the contract, denied access to our show to support it, and given no means of redress despite that means existing within the contract. Our exhibition essentially was abandoned. Our artwork and the intent of the exhibition suffered from the misrepresentation of it as racist. As a for-hire gallery which is not dependant on commissions from sold works to cover costs, it does not need to promote the works for sale, or even to sell them (even though that is the gallery's purpose and our reason for hiring it) if the gallery decides not to do so as it gains nothing additional from doing so. Rather than augmenting our artistic bona fides the gallery damaged them at our financial expense."

Our VCAT claim

ON TO DEFAMATION

Australian law defines defamation as, in essence, something communicated to a third party that has made that party think less of the first party. Reading between the lines truth, unlike the laws of the US, does not quite seem to mean that a person has not been defamed. In Australia it seems to mean that defamation has occurred, and that TRUTH is used as an EXCUSE that allows you to get away with it. It is a very Australian law (as is Terra Nullius).

Any person is due their "natural" fame. The TRUTH should be what defines any one person's NATURAL FAME. The TRUTH should not be defined as, essentially, AN EXCUSE TO DEFAME LEGALLY! The law with regards to this is logically flawed (kooky).

Let's move on. Let us say that Cripps has been, defamed, and that the truth is only an excuse, several questions arise.

ALREADY OF BAD FAME
We have evidence that stretches to the early 1990s of artists who have been warned off dealing with Cripps. Surely then, he was "defamed" a long time ago, and what we have written is consistent with his already well established "bad fame". As he is already of this fame, then we cannot have defamed him. That is, people already think little of him. (How can you defame someone already of that fame?)

RELATIVITY
Also, there is the question of 'to whom was he defamed'? Relativity: okay, Australian politician Lee Rhiannon is associated with a campaign that targets Israeli businesses, simply because they are Israeli (according to what I write here, I say - fair comment - that she is a racist the new-left Nazis). Journalist Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun writes that their campaigns are not dissimilar from the Kristallnacht campaign in NAZI Germany. I agree with him. I would expect that Cripps would be a cause celebre to this group, and to journalists such as Coslovich who never responded to our emails and who condemns criticism of religion as racist, as well as to very many others.

			The Australian arts sector demonstrates a consistent predisposition to anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism is funded by all tiers of Australian government. Left: screeshot of the website of the company that created the site "Virtual Palestine" where viewers could hurl "virtual" rocks at Jews. It was designed for Arabs and Australians to throw metaphorical stones at Jews. It was the means by which Jews can be vilified. It was funded by the Federal Australian government and the government of the state of NSW. To quote: "with the support of the Australia Council and the NSW Ministry for the Arts developed an innovative internet arts project Virtual Palestine . ( www.virtualpalestine.org) . This project was developed with young Arabic people in Western Sydney".
	I would suggest, that for the bodies that fund such groups, as well as for the groups themselves, Cripps' actions would be seen as praiseworthy.

And it is not as if anti-Semitism is a recent phenomenon in the Australian arts industry. In 1939 an exhibition of modern art was held at the Melbourne Town Hall which included works by Picasso, Leger, & Dalí (amongst others). It was violently attacked by the cultural intelligentsia:
"Lionel Lindsay, whose prejudices had not mellowed with age, flew into a hysterical anti-Semitic fit and wrote a book about modern painting, based on the show, entitled Addled Art. In it, he set out to prove that Picasso, Matisse and the surrealists were pawns in a vast Jewish conspiracy." p. 142, The Art of Australia, ASIN: B002I5KGGS, Robert Hughes.
[refer here for anti Jewish ("anti-Semitism") in the Australian art scene. This page has been on my site since 2004.]

I do not think that I have to point out that the Mein Kampf has been a best seller in the "occupied" territories for quite a while, bought by the very "Palestinians" for whom I lacked sympathy (though I never mentioned them). Having read the Mein Kampf I am familiar with its rhetoric when I hear it.

	In an article published in the Telegraph UK titled "Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic" dated 19 March 2002 it was reported that "An Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf which has become a bestseller in the Palestinian territories is now on sale in Britain … In the preface, Luis al-Haj, the translator, states: 'National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star.'" Url: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ 1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Arabic.html Screenshot of article, left.

Nor do I think that I have to point out that the Mein Kampf is a best seller in Turkey...?

"Hitler book bestseller in Turkey" published online by the BBC and dated 18 March 2005 reported that "Adolf Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, has become a bestseller in Turkey - sparking fears of growing anti-Semitic feelings in the country. The book has sold more than 50,000 copies since January. A cheap paperback version selling at the equivalent of $4.50 (£2.30) is currently among Turkey's top bestsellers. Ogus Tektas, the owner of Mephisto, one of the publishers which re-issued the 500-page book, told AFP news agency Mein Kampf had always been 'a sleeper, a secret bestseller'." Url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361733.stm

...or maybe I do?

Both Lee-Anne Raymond and I, on more than 3 separate occasions (during the opening night and then on 24/6/2009), told Cripps that his position on Jews was itself racist. This was in specific reference to Cripps' repeatedly stating that he “objects to the Jews" and that he "objects to the Jews and their state in Palestine”. Cripps is not expressing a dislike of Israel, but of Jews, who he is claiming have occupied some one else's land and created a state within it (a point Hitler makes in the Mein Kampf). Whenever we pointed out to him that his dislike of Jews, as a people, was itself racist, while our criticism of religions was not, he would shrug and respond “so?”, "and?", "yes, so?", "and so?" "what of it?" etc. He would then restate his claim that our inclusion of criticism of Islam in our criticism of religion was racist. ON HITLER Hitler REFLECTED the “anti-Semitic” sentiments prevalent in his time and expressed these sentiments in his Mein Kampf. It is these very same sentiments that the contemporary left express in their hatred of Jews. It does not mean that the sentiments of the left, or of Cripps, derive directly from Hitler (though indirectly, as will be elaborated, they do): both Cripps (and the left) and Hitler tap (tapped) into the same wellspring of racist sentiment; that is, they share the same sentiments. Those of the left are so blinded by their own prejudices that they prefer not to acknowledge that they hold the same position as that held by Adolf Hitler. THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS In the introduction to the Manheim translation of the Mein Kampf into english, D.C. Watt writes: “There are those who would sooner let his ideas lie: some because his memory is something they would like to be forgotten so that their own advocacy of similar ideas might be unhindered by recollection…” p. xii, (ISBN 009112431X) The idea of the Jews' occupation of the lands of others, the point made by Cripps, is expressed by Hitler in the Mein Kampf: “... a Jew never thinks of leaving a territory that he has occupied, but remains where he is... He is and remains the typical parasite, a sponger who like a noxious bacillus keeps spreading ... And the effect of his existence is also like that of spongers: wherever he appears, the host people dies out after a shorter or longer period. Thus the Jew of all times has lived in the states of other peoples, and there formed his own state...” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 276-277, Manheim translation. To reiterate, when the left cites Palestinian grievances on Israeli "occupation", it is with the explicit omission that claims of an "Israeli genocide of Palestinians" paraphrase the Mein Kampf (as the above quote from the Mein Kampf clearly shows). It is a matter of convenience for the left to also omit form their consideration that "mein kampf" translated into english is "MY STRUGGLE". It is of additional inconvenience to the left that "struggle" translated into Arabic is "jihad" ("In Arabic, the word jiha¯d translates as a noun meaning 'struggle'." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad ) However, to repeat what has already been written: Palestine and the conflict was not in any way a part of our exhibition AT ALL. Criticism of religious-based values was.

I stand by what I wrote on pp. 25-26 of Humanist Transhumanist.

As I write in the "offending" pages of Humanist Transhumanist, "Any Muslim (or someone formerly Muslim) who does openly concede to the existence of such passages such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and openly renounces them is actively pursued by faithful followers of that religion, as this is considered apostasy and apostasy elicits the death sentence ." With regards to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes in Infidel (purchased after this exhibition): "Other articles blamed [the 9/11 attacks on] the Americans' 'blind' support for Israel and opined that there would be more 9/11's until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved. I didn't completely believe this ... If the hijackers had been nineteen Palestinian men, then I might have given this argument more weight, but they weren't. None of them was poor. None of them left a letter saying there would be more attacks until Palestine was liberated ... it was about religious belief, a one-way ticket to Heaven [Koran 9.52]. "Most articles analyzing Bin Laden and his movement were scrutinizing a symptom, a little like analyzing Lenin and Stalin without looking at the works of Karl Marx. The Prophet Muhammad [the Koran] was the moral guide... "Video tapes of old interviews with Osama Bin Laden began running on CNN and Al-Jazeera. They were filled with justification for total war on America... Bin Laden's quotes from the Quran resonated in my brain: 'When you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck.' 'If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put others in your place.' 'Wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush them.' 'You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them.' Bin Laden quoted the hadith: 'The Hour (of judgement) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.' "... I picked up the Quran and the hadith and started looking through them, to check..." pp. 270-271, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel, ISBN 9780743289696 Ali does not provide the passage numbers for Bin Laden's quotes from the Koran. These passages are, in the order that she quotes them: 47.4; 9.38; 9.4-6; 5.51. When Bin Laden was quoted in the Australian media, it was never revealed that he was quoting the Koran. His statements were labelled "rants" that incited violence. "Palestine" is the bogus crutch used to prop up bigotry, refer New Left Nazis, but was never mentioned in our exhibition.

In late 2001 the Australian state of Victoria introduced Impiety Laws [read my comments of c. 2002 here] which took the form of the misnamed "Religious Tolerance" act. The first victims of this ill-conceived legislation were 2 Christian pastors who had quoted form the Koran. Muslims who had entered the sermon claimed that they felt frightened/threatened by having the Koran quoted. (As has already been stated on this page) It is in this context (in part, that I believe) that Cripps was asserting, while walking into me as I backed away from him, that I threaten him, in the hope that by this means he could void the contract and keep what we had paid. As an atheist, the idea that religion is beyond analysis or criticism is anathema. By virtue of Australia's version of Impiety Laws the application of reason against god could now be illegal. The problem is, was, and for ever will be that atheism is: 1- NOT a belief (like religion); 2- NOT a belief that god does not exist; 3- but that by the application of reason the concept of god has been assessed and found to have no logical basis. [read my comments of c.2002 "Atheism: my raison d'être"]. This assessment of whether or not god exists includes assessing the religious texts. Rational criticism of religion also involves whether it might nevertheless provide sound guidance for human conduct even if the idea of god was debunked. Matson's book The existence of God ISBN 0801490456, and Smith's book ATHEISM, the case against God, ISBN 087975124X, both contain chapters that debunk notions of religion serving as a "moral" guide and source of ethics respectively. And this is accomplished by citing examples of "moral" or ethical behaviour as they are propounded in religious texts. In my student days at the University of Melbourne I was a member of the Atheist Student's Society and subscribed to their publication The Children of Paine (NLA link) "the magazine for freethinkers". This is the same Thomas Paine who asserted that religion should be based on reason and who challenged the legitimacy of the Bible in his book The Age of Reason. "Fearing the spread of what they viewed as potentially revolutionary ideas, the British government prosecuted printers and booksellers who tried to publish and distribute it." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason) The "Religious Tolerance" act, apparently was never intended to limit artistic or academic discussion. However, how it was applied in the Catch the Fire case exposed it for what it was. In the context of atheism this legislation is an attempt to silence atheism which is arrived at by reason. That means that to be an atheist now, it's okay as long as "atheist" means that like any Christian or Muslim kook you believe in an idea irrespective of whether that idea can be supported. AT THIS PONT IT SHOULD BE EMPHASISED that Australia is a signatory to a number of UN resolutions. To date the various tiers of government that legislate the laws of this nation have done so without much regard as to whether they conform to the constitution and to the international acts to which Australia is signatory. For example, a recent decision by the High Court found that the federal government's asylum seeker legislation was inconsistent with this country's international obligations. With regards to the Catch the Fire case, the persecuted pastors were eventually assisted by the US Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: "…based in Washington, [The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty] intervened on Pastor Daniel Scot's behalf, and attempted to engage a dialogue with the Attorney General of Australia. The firm sent multiple letters of concern that touched on Australia's Human Rights record. Part of the first exchange stated that: "Australia is obliged by international conventions to protect rights of conscience, freedom of expression, and equal protection under the law as Australia has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its enforcement mechanism, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The free speech, belief, and religious exercise provisions of Articles 18, 19, and 26 in the ICCPR protect the right freely to preach about and analyze religious truth-claims of competing religions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Tolerance_Act_2001. I should point out that late in 2006 the Christians were eventually exonerated of the charge of vilifying Muslims simply because they had read passages of the Koran. This overturned a bewildering earlier decision (in 2004) which had seen the charge of vilification upheld by a judge who clearly was out of his depth. [Andrew Bolt's commentary on this] Like the Christian's idea of god, the god of Islam is perfect in every way, including goodness. The Koran, written by god is an example of such perfection. "Goodness" has nothing to do with human values. Thus, if god orders you kill unbelievers, it is by necessity good..., hence such passages in the Koran as: "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you  may hate a thing although it is good for you..." Koran, 2.216 Dawood translation. A Koranic passage that would appear evil to anyone applying human values to it is, instead, actually a passage calling for an act of great good, as any command in the Koran can NEVER be evil. The "vilification" occurs when you or I describe it as "evil", as that is illegal in Sharia because nothing in the Koran could ever be evil. Simple hey? It begs the question of when we became a Sharia state? Continuing with the Catch the Fire case Were it not for the intervention by a body outside of Australia, the Christians would not have been able to mount an appeal. And, as the Becket Fund notes on its site (repeated on the wikipedia page and quoted above), this Australian act is in itself illegal under international law. As the Becket Fund write on their site "the Victorian courts have become sermon review boards; serving as the arbiters of orthodoxy by determining the boundaries of 'valid' religious belief". http://www.becketfund.org/islamic-council-of-victoria-v-catch-the-fire-ministries-inc-australia-2005 You would think that Australia as a nation would be embarrassed. It is not. The law in question is still law in the state of Victoria, and still in breech of international laws to which Australia is signatory. The earliest mention of the case against Catch the Fire was in an article in Melbourne's Herald Sun (reproduced below) on Tuesday 28 May 2002. It was the front page story of that newspaper on that day. The article was continued on page 4. "… the three Muslims who attended the conference were shocked and disturbed by what they heard. They felt scared for their own safety…" As I wrote earlier, Cripps' claims on 24/6/2009 of feeling threatened by me, appeared to be based on the claimed fears of the Muslim spies at the Catch the Fire sermon who had claimed to have felt threatened by having the Koran quoted.   The Koran exhorts followers to commit acts of good To continue from the point made earlier. The Koran defines what is and what is not good. Among the acts defined as good is the act of killing unbelievers. Unbelievers are defined as "evil". Verse 3.140-142 (Imrans) appears to be the defining/guiding verse: “... if you are true believers you have the upper hand - if you have suffered a blow, they too have suffered one like it. We deal out such days among people in turn, for God to find out who truly believes, for Him to choose martyrs from among you - God does not like evildoers - for Him to cleanse those who believe in Him to destroy the disbelievers. Did you think you would enter the Garden without God first proving which of you would struggle for his cause and remain steadfast?” 3.140-142 (Haleem translation) [Alternate translation: “If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound has touched the others. Such days of varying fortunes We give to men by turns: that Allah may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks martyr-witnesses to Truth...Allah’s object is also to purge those that are in Faith and to deprive of blessing those that resist Faith. Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard...?” The Family of Imran 3.140-142 (Ali translation)] [Dawood's translation of the same passage can be found here ] The call for believers to avail themselves for the pursuit of war is intended as a means by which can be demonstrated proof-of-faith; and killing is a demonstration of proof-of-good-deed. Unbelief is proof-of-evil. A believer killed in the process of waging war proves that individual's faith. Being killed is proof-of-reward; the person killed has gained immediate entry to paradise. Death in war is a reward for the willingness of a believer to place themselves in harm's way. It is not a punishment. Death in battle proves that god has chosen you for your fidelity to the faith above others on the battlefield. Death on the battlefield is proof-of-fidelity-to-faith. Being killed by the unbeliever in battle is NOT proof-of-victory of the unbeliever over the believer, but the proof-of-defeat of the unbeliever. Both Haleem and Dawood include footnotes to this passage, p.44 & pp.419-420, respectively. Commentary in the Arabic usually appears as Tafsir ( "Arabic: تفسير‎, tafsīr, "interpretation" is the Arabic word for exegesis or commentary, usually of the Qur'an." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir ). This Koranic passage concerns the loss in the battle of Uhud. It is this military defeat that appears to be the catalyst for all other exhortations to wage war that appear in the Koran. The Koran makes clear that Islam is about overcoming our humaneness, our human values, our human sympathies, our innate human instincts. A Muslim, as a human, has the same humanity as I, or anyone else, but the Koran is the compulsion to OVERcome that innately human bond we each share with one-another, our common humanity. Islam is about the OVERcoming of human-derived values. In the case of 3.140-142, military defeat is attributed to a failure to OVERride human values. Islam is the faith of the OVERman. In German the OVERman is Übermensch. And it is Nietzsche who provides Western audiences with the first clear articulation of the OVERman; meaning man who has overcome his innate humanity; the OVERcoming of what Nietzsche believes are the sentimentalities of our humaneness (a "weakness" which he attributes to Jews & Christians). Confronted by the Koranic passages that call for the committing of Islamic good, the atheist, Buddhist, Christian, or any other non-Muslim, applies their innate humanity in their assessment and finds these calls to be calls to commit evil. (Harking to the Catch the Fire case; this was a point that was beyond the capacity of the original judge hearing that case to understand. This indicates an ignorance of Islam. This underscores the absurdity of the proviso of blind justice being a necessity to a fair outcome. The judge believed himself to have applied justice "blindly" - that is without personal prejudice - without his realisation that his conclusions were drawn by the prejudice of his cultural/religious background. Blind justice is justice applied with the bias of presupposition. In overturning the original ruling the conclusions of that original finding were summarised: "the Tribunal was satisfied that Pastor Scot was moved or caused by the religious beliefs of Muslims to make the statements which he did at the Seminar, and that an ordinary reasonable person who was not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined by Pastor Scot’s statements to hate Muslims." From the section Analysis of the Tribunal’s reasoning url: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html The premise is loaded. Who is a "reasonable" or "ordinary" person who would be inclined to hate Muslims after hearing passages from the Koran? A Christian? a Jew? a Buddhist? an atheist? Indeed the answer is that any non-Muslim will be horrified by the Koran. Automatically, any non Muslim who cites the Koran to another non Muslim is bound to "incline" that person to dislike Islam. Does that mean that only non-Muslims are "reasonable"? Does that mean these passages can only be read, analysed, assessed, or commented on by Muslims alone, because any non Muslim will be "inclined" to dislike Islam by either reading these passages or hearing these passages read from the Koran? Other than itself (along with Zoroastrianism which found it virtuous to destroy elements of Ahriman's "counter-creation" - which included unbelievers), only Islam holds these ideas to be deeds of great good and appropriate values to guide a believer's conduct in life. The ideas of destroying the "counter-creation", within whose ambit "unbelievers" falls, is part of Islam's Persian (Zoroastrian) inheritance. The consequence of this judge's ignorance was to punish the messenger for failing to provide the impossible, a "balanced" account of Islam consistent with that judge's assumptions on what Islam is. How should that "balance" have been achieved? by praising the rights of Muslims to kill Christians (or anyone else) for being "unbelievers"? How can anyone provide the "balance" demanded by the original judge? The original judgement penalised the Christian pastors because these passages actually exist! This decision was based on laws intended to quell inquiry (CENSORSHIP). This law and its implications are odious. As an atheist I rebut theism. However this law appears to require that I "balance" my rebuttal of theism with concessions that theism might be valid (it is NOT), or might be of some good (it is NOT), or some other such stupidity.) In Humanist Transhumanist I discuss the word "Over" - in the context of over-realism=surrealism. The English "Over" is Über in German, Ύπερ (yper) in Greek. It is this übermensch, the OVERman, who Nietzsche believed had been repressed by what he considered to be the foibles of Christian sentimentality. In Anti-Christ Nietzsche writes that Christianity is the religion for the "ill-constituted and weak" (segment 2, p.116); that Christianity is a symptom of the "sick animal man - the Christian…" (seg. 3, p.116); that there is a "higher" type of humanity, but that "[Christianity] has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man" (seg. 5, p.117); that "Christianity needs sickness almost as much as Hellenism needs a superfluity of health - making sick is the hidden objective of the Church's whole system of salvation procedures" (seg. 51, p.167). The übermensch is not, as the Anglophone renders it, a human augmented with greater capabilities such as strength, intelligence, etc ("superman"). This is a linguistic fallacy of the English language. On reading Nietzsche it is striking how his idea of the OVERman concurs with the Koranic idea that believers must OVERride their sense of humanity. This is precisely the conclusion drawn by the Turkish propagandist Gökalp: "He believed that a modern state must become homogeneous in terms of culture, religion, and national identity. This conception of national identity was augmented by his belief in the primacy of Turkishness, as a unifying virtue. In a 1911 article, he suggested that 'Turks are the 'supermen' imagined by the German philosopher Nietzsche'". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziya_Gökalp) Nietzsche's writings confirm Gökalp's assertion. In Anti-Christ Nietzsche writes: "Christianity robbed us of the harvest of the culture of the ancient world, it later went on to rob us of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish cultural world of Spain, more closely related to us at bottom, speaking more directly to our sense and taste…because it was noble, because it owed its origin to manly instincts…" (seg. 60, p.183). All quotes from the Anti-Christ translated by R.J. Hollingdale, published by Penguin, ISBN 0140442073. CLOCKWORK ORANGE: HOW TO OVERRIDE HUMAN VALUES "Dad prayed his children would die" Article from the Herald Sun, June 25/6/2011 by Shelley Hadfield. "AN extremist dad living in suburban Australia prayed his children would die as martyrs before puberty so he could enter heaven honourably, a court has been told. The man sat his daughter, who was not yet three, on his knee to watch videos of executions and suicide bombings, slapping her if she became distressed, his former wife testified. A federal magistrate accepted the man taught the little girl to 'chant enthusiastically and joyously over the death and mutilation of other human beings'. The man was born in Libya and is of Palestinian origin. He and his ex-wife were devout Muslims. But a federal magistrate said the case was not at all about the man's religious beliefs, rather his broader belief system…[adding] 'I struggle to understand how a parent could possibly derive any joy from the thought of a child's death, let alone enter into a prayer or plea to have a child taken from them when so many of parents in so many societies, including the present-day Palestine, experience that pain,' Mr Harman said." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/dad-prayed-his-children-would-die/story-fn7x8me2-1226081641510 It is incredible that the judge's unfounded assumptions on Islam in this case led him to conclude that religious belief is NOT responsible for this man's actions. Such assumptions are given weight by laws, such as those in Victoria that have resulted in inhibiting Koranic based criticism of Islam, laws which are obviously intended in keeping us ignorant (CENSORSHIP). What Christianity lacks when compared to Islamic bluntness, it makes up for in its sophistication. OVERriding human instinct in Christianity George H. Smith's account will suffice: "Another important teaching of Jesus is passive non-resistance to evil. 'Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…' (Luke 6.27-28). 'Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also….' (Matthew 5.39-41) My first response to these precepts is: Why? For what possible reason should one offer oneself as a sacrificial animal in this way? …because [Jesus] is interested only in obedience, not in presenting rational arguments. In fact when viewed in this context, these commands begin to make sense. We are not to judge others, Jesus says, which is merely another facet of suspending one's critical faculties. We are to tolerate injustice, we are to refrain from passing value judgements of other people - such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil; they require the kind of intellectual and moral passiveness that generates a mentality of obedience." pp. 324-325, George H. Smith, ATHEISM: the case against god, ISBN 087975124X. This poses the following question: Does the obviously Christian Australian legal system expect that we are all to consider Islam as would Jesus? demand that we, in Christian fashion, suspend our critical faculties and not judge for ourselves… lest we be judged? ON "BALANCED" criticism "Balance" though can be achieved by other means. Criticism levelled at Christianity, at Judaism, at Zoroastrianism and at Islam would fulfil the consideration of "balanced" criticism because it is criticising all of these faiths, not one in isolation of the others. However, this does beg the question: if an atheist critiques Christianity, why should they be required to critique Islam as well? or vice versa? or is this "balance" necessitated only when critiquing Islam? and if so why? It is an absurd requirement. Of course if the definition of who might take offence is broadened it will include anyone who believes that a god exists. Any theist could then claim to have been "vilified" or "hurt" by what I, or any other atheist, writes. At this point any atheist, which of course includes Buddhists, will be found to have "vilified" theists simply by criticising theistic belief and having shown that this belief is no more than an absurd wishful fantasy. This of course leads back the purpose of this law which, in the way that it was framed (and executed against the Catch the Fire) showed that it was always intended to enforce compulsory and non critical belief in even mutually exclusive god-conceptions. It is an Impiety Law in which innate human rights are secondary to those "rights" designated to us by fictional gods. It is a law that has it that all god-worship along with concomitant claims that god is great, perfectly good, beyond rational criticism … and whatever other nonsense theists believe in, is compulsory. We can expand the ambit of this Impiety Law in other directions too: If we keep in mind that domestic laws apply to people who live outside the state of Victoria, or even Australia, but whose views which are expressed in books or websites are available to people of Victoria or Australia, then these authors such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whose publications can be purchased here) would be guilty of having caused Muslims offence too; firstly because she is an apostate (already offensive to Islam) and secondly, because she points to the Koran as the source of Islamic violence, not "extremists" who are often claimed to have distorted that faith. The criticisms made by Ali are close to those made by Catch the Fire, and she uses pretty much the same material that Catch the Fire used. We then reach that part of the judgement in the original finding with the Catch the Fire case that condemned the Christian pastors for not "balancing" their presentation with the views of "moderate" Muslims. As Ali, originally a moderate Muslim, who on account of her moderate views was condemned as an apostate can attest, these Koranic-based views exhorting violence are not the views of "extremist Muslims", (a "lunatic fringe") but of ALL MUSLIMS. As Ali points out: "But it is about Islam. This is based on belief. This is Islam." (p. 268, Ali, Infidel, ISBN 074289692). The only true "moderate" Muslim is an apostate. THERE ARE NO "MODERATES" even if in Australia the pseudo-atheists too claim otherwise. With regards to Ayan Hirsi Ali; she is a guest speaker at an atheist convention for 2012. On their website they write that her "willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence by Islamic extremists." http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/ayaan-hirsi-ali ). Again, as Ali points out, it is not about extremism, IT IS ABOUT ISLAM. The Christians critiquing Islam were (in the original judgement) condemned for not providing an example of "moderate Muslims", even though no such group exists. One is reminded of the lauded British "moderate", Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who in his book writes: "… my view is that the real job of Muslims is preaching of Islam throughout the world rather than attaining a power for total elimination of unbelievers from the earth and establishing an Islamic State everywhere… However attempts (through Aggressive Jehad) must be made against hostile and non-compromising non-Muslim states to subdue them in order to be safe from their mischiefs… taking initiative for jehad is not only permissible but at times obligatory and a means for reward from Allah… the entire history of Islam is full of such jehads… [The] Muslim's sword has, however, been raised to establish the grandeur of Islam. If anybody wants to stay in the darkness of disbelief, he may do so, but the rule of Allah must prevail in the world created by Him. Muslims wage jehad to raise the name of Allah and subdue His rebels." Usmani, pp. 124 - 125, Islam and Modernism, ISBN 8174351973 (on Usmani as a "moderate" Muslim, re: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece ). Such are the views of moderate Islam. Religion and the Australian "CONSTITUTION" The Australian "constitution" can be found online on the following Australian government page: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution The section governing religion can be found in: "Chapter V. The States." "116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." In Australia state governments have been introducing legislation that, contrary to the "constitution" IMPOSE religious observance. None have been challenged in the High Court. In the context of the "extremist dad" (above), it is obvious that the judge was loathe to admit the religious basis for this man's actions solely on the part of Ch. V, sect. 116 which reads that no law shall be made "prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". It is only a matter of time before such issues do make their way to the High Court. And what then? As I state in Humanist Transhumanist, will I be executed as anti-Christ with reference to 1 John 2.22 , 2 John 7, because the "constitution" cannot limit the right, with the example of Christians, to exercise their faith? Below, screenshot of the Australian government site showing the relevant section of the "constitution" (highlighted):

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

I have grave misgivings about the Australian legal system. But I have to have some faith that it will function reasonably... Any legal judgement would have to weigh a number of considerations. In this instance, what is written is written about an exhibition, an open-to-the-public display, not a "keep private". The expectation is and always was that it was intended to be viewed, commented about, written about, made public and not kept private. Thus the only concern should be one of truth.

It seems fairly improbable that a judgement would find that our account should have been less than honest, because that would mean that there is an expectation that we are required to be dishonest. A dishonest account would be a misrepresentation on the following grounds: as practicing artists we are each a business; we are registered as businesses with the ATO and have the ABN to show for this. Our sites are the way that we represent our business to the public. Though our sites are a promotional tool, they are not a platform for us to misrepresent ourselves and our business (false advertising). To expect that we should have written about a "great" exhibition at Guildford Lane Gallery, or to have described it as a success, would mean that the court is expecting that we as a business should misrepresent ourselves, and our product: our art. Any such prospective judgement that concludes that we should have either lied, or omitted events (omission is also to misrepresent ourselves) would then set a precedent where any business has a legal obligation to mislead (even by omission) lest the truth be harmful to another party even if it is the truth. In our case such a determination would mean that we are expected to lie, and so misrepresent ourselves which would mean that we are expected to deceive those who view our sites.

Our websites are the means by which we approach galleries, as we did Guildford Lane Gallery. Any such determination would make it mandatory that we - as well as other businesses - should lie and therefore mislead those whom we approach, or deceive those who visit our sites to garner information about us or our art. A finding that has it that we should have omitted mention of the exhibition and what occurred would be one in which the concept of truth has been hobbled, and would limit the concept of truth in cases of defamation. This would lead to a greater complication, and a greater capacity for defamation law to be used for the purposes of chilling commentary as truthfulness would no longer be necessary.

When we look at the exhibitions pages on the websites of other artists we expect that they are writing truthfully, and not misrepresenting the event - or themselves - because some law expects that it is their legal obligation to mislead so as to not offend a third party. We are talking about deceptive conduct here.

This then leads to the question of freedom of speech. Of course one should have a right to freely express oneself (though there is no such right enshrined in Australia's constitution), but with the proviso that such expression is based on truth. Any judgement that might find that we should have lied/omitted, or by some such other means misrepresented the matters of our experience with Guidlford Lane Gallery so as to appease another party (in this case Cripps) would be making a judgement that would have implications on free speech well beyond the ambit of this current case. I cannot see such a conclusion surviving any legal challenge.

ALSO, for the sake of artistic bona fides, artists have to show that they are constantly exhibiting. This forms part of the motivation of exhibiting at all. Exhibitions are held so that they can also be listed on an artist's CV page. A CV that refers to many exhibitions comes across as the sign of a successful artist. An omission of mention of this exhibition would mean, especially in my case, that I no longer practice art, or exhibit, as my last exhibition was the one I participated in 2004. It would make this exhibition a $13,000.00 expense when we could have kept our art in storage for virtually nothing and achieved the same result.

FLOTSAM AND JETSAM

One of the more bizarre, in my opinion, ideas in this defamation suit is that Cripps' legal team claims he was never given a right to respond.

To repeat: Lee-Anne Raymond and I both wrote to Cripps, by email, and outlined how his actions misrepresented our art, misrepresented our persons, and circumvented our ability to promote and sell our works. We did so as per part of the disputes clause 10.a.i of the contract. CRIPPS did respond. His responses can be seen in the example of his email of 26/6/2009 (refer screenshot of email above); and in his email of 10/8/2009 which is quoted and reproduced (in the screenshot) on this page:guildford_lane_gallery-addenda.html

Indeed, his response of 10/8/2009 can only be seen as an acknowledgement of his actions, but for which he wants to spare himself legal ramifications.

ACT OF MALICE

Cripps claims, among his many other claims (to repeat what I wrote of earlier), that it is an injurious falsehood that I write "During the course of the exhibition he, by his actions, circumvented our capacity to promote our work.", and claims that this page and the page exhibitions.html prove that. However, his email of 26/6/2009 (again, refer screenshot above) clearly shows the means by which he achieved such a circumvention, and shows that what I write is the truth. His SOC against us includes a printout of the page which actually contains the screenshot of his email which is the evidence that proves what I say to be true! To pursue such a claim against us is therefore undertaken out of malice. His lawyers are either sloppy, lazy, blind or malicious. Maybe they are, as Aristophanes wrote, attempting to make the weaker argument triumph over the stronger. As far as we can tell the intention of this litigation is to cause us injury.