NOTORIETY AND BLOWBACK In June 2014 the Supreme Court of Victoria made a press release to make sure that the notoriety of this author/artist and my co-exhibitor in a 2009 art exhibition would be disseminated far and wide. The screenshot from the Supreme Court website (below) is from the evening of the ruling. IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THE COURT SOUGHT TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF MYSELF AND MY CO-EXHIBITOR.
When we arrived at the Supreme Court to hear Kyrou hand down his verdict, journalists were already seated in wait. Somehow a case that had been avoided by the media throughout its entirety was suddenly considered to be an important event that required their attendance. Kyrou's "finding" was reported on most of the media throughout all of Australia, on the internet, on the radio and in print (screenshots of on-line reportage below) and resulted in people, with whom we had never discussed the issue, referring to our "notoriety". Mission Accomplished. Well done Supreme Court of Victoria and Emilios Kyrou (Αιμίλιος Κύρου).
HISTORY AND ITS CENSORSHIP - THE COURT'S INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM
The big problem for the Supreme Court of
Victoria was, and will for ever remain, that the judgement
pertained to an historical event: Hitler's support for the
Muslims of Palestine in the Muslim quest to make "extinct" the
Jews of Palestine, which had nothing to do with my exhibition
in 2009, but which I was forced to address by the owner of a
gallery I had exhibited my works in. In that exhibition Islam was criticised. So too however was Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (as well as Hinduism, criticised by my co-exhibitor, Lee-Anne Raymond). The director, Robert Cripps (who now runs an entertainment venue, Ruby's Music Room) claimed that the criticism of Islam was both "racist", and aided the "Jews and their state in Palestine". Without a solitary reference to "Palestine" or Israel, Cripps associated criticism of Islam with being an act beneficial to Jews and their cause. It is hardly unknown that "Palestine" was a Nazi cause, that it was pursued by Nazis like al Husseini, who himself was supported by Adolf Hitler, and it was pursued prior to the existence of Israel. It was this "comparison to Hitler", or "likening to Hitler" (as it was reported by the media outlets), that Kyrou, the judge, proclaimed as having "no basis in fact" AND WHICH AUSTRALIA'S JOURNALISTS REPORTED VERBATIM. Unfortunately, notoriety does not always go the way one or another party wants it to. BLOWBACK Not everyone is oblivious to history as is the Supreme Court of Victoria and its judges. However, the court is an institution that is given power without checks or balances. Adolf Hitler is very well known for his support of the cause of “Palestinians”. A multiplicity of tomes exist on the subject. I will refer to only one here:
The notoriety the Supreme Court of Victoria/Emilios Kyrou courted and sought, resulted in a book published in Israel as well, where the history that Kyrou claimed has "no basis in fact" is actually known. Suddenly a matter that no-one had heard about has drawn international attention courtesy of the Supreme Court of Victoria. An entire chapter of this book is about that which Emilios Kyrou proclaimed has "no basis in fact".
Supreme Court of Victoria: Notoriety of its own making. Any prospect of a fair trial? The outcome is being appealed, and it is being appealed in the same court that sought to make an example of myself and co-exhibitor, the same court that found that actual history has "no basis in fact", and ruled that antisemitism is not actually antisemitism. Notoriety, bullshit and BLOWBACK.
In my experience, the less well known or noticed the matter was, the worse the trial outcome that resulted. Notoriety of itself might cause a more considered judgement. Who knows? Logic is not something the law deals with very well.
And so, as I write this, some pious Muslims, not "Islamists" or "extremists" (refer ICV) have just killed a number of Jews in Paris, because they set out to "punish" cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo (whom they had already killed). Apparently, because the cartoonists, not the Jews, had drawn caricatures of Mohammad (as well as other non-Muslim religious figures), the Jews had to be targeted. In France these pious Muslims claimed criticism of Islam somehow constituted support for Jews and Palestine, a claim made against us in 2009 simply for having criticised Islam. My essays of 2009 criticised specific passages from the Koran, the Old Testament, and New Testament. There was no "mockery", this was not caricatures that ridiculed. However, like Nazi Germany, my art was declared to be degenerate art ("offensive") by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where being a surrealist, which means being an atheist, was in true Nazi fashion, declared to constitute support for a Jewish aim, which permitted a court to destroy me because of an "association" with Hitler, which was nothing more than my knowing the actual history, but a history that the court has deemed unlawful to mention. The Supreme Court of Victoria has made ALL of my art unlawful. More discussion? (potentially even an appeal
technically exposes the law to "scandal")
Ultimately Australia's courts are protected by lese majeste law; a blasphemy law, based on the "divine right" of the monarch to rule based on James' "Βασιλικον Δωρον" and on whose behalf the courts exist. Any law that seeks to protect truth being exposed because truth harms reputation is contrary to the Human Rights of the citizen which this nation has pledged to protect. When truth harms reputation, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE LAW. When laws exist to protect the court from the same laws that the rest of us are answerable to there is a problem. Can the Law police itself? I believe that it cannot, especially since it was the court itself that courted the extensive media coverage to make an example of me, though there are examples that sometimes the court does police itself. I will wait and see.
|
|||||
