vakras foetus unbowed atheist head

reason the enemy of belief

Unbowed Atheist first appeared as a Demetrios Vakras blog when 10 articles were published on 15 June 2013. These articles can still be found at



[gelded - re-edited, later]

vakras demetrios reflected on computer screen

Demetrios Vakras is an Australian artist born in Melbourne.

He rejects that any supernatural being, beings, or the stars can guide us, or can be prayed to, pleaded with, or worshiped, or give our lives meaning; he is atheist.

Demetrios lives with partner Lee-Anne Raymond.

In 2009 both held an exhibition at a now closed Melbourne art gallery run by Robert Cripps, who, on his own admission knew nothing about art, art theory, art history, and had the most difficult time understanding much of anything at all due to his limited education.

Nevertheless, Cripps described atheist criticism of religion as "anti-Palestinian" claiming that it would cause people to not blame Jews for conflict in Palestine.

Apparently being atheist can constitute support for Jews or Israel.

Both Demetrios and Lee-Anne were sued for defamation for writing about this.

Demetrios has not practiced his art since being sued.

vakras selfie in front of ngv

contact Demetrios:

ophion at

this is a framed site, for a reason

–to understand a publication one should understand the medium that publication appears in - Australian judges do not, with the most famous misunderstanding being that arrived at by Michael McHugh et al of the High Court of Australia in the Gutnick case. In that case judicial ignorance manifested itself as high farce posing as profound wisdom which took the form of the judgement made by the judges involved. That judgement still stands!

In the UK Openshaw made known to an international audience how profound the shortcomings of the English judiciary are - causing the British judicial board to invent an extraordinary excuse for him (below) to blunt the international scorn and ridicule directed at England's deficient judiciary. The explanation by the Brits was that Openshaw had utilised computers in the same way onagutans can utilise computers and this meant that he was "computer literate". Only a judicial board deficient in "computer literacy" could or would make such a claim and believe it proves a point.

english judges are idiots

english judges are idiots

 orangutans smarter than judges

Unlike the UK, Australia has no international exposure that would necessitate its judges or the judiciary to explain the shortcomings and deficiencies of its judges.

Of primary concern for the Engllish judicial system is that the confidence of the court should be maintained at any cost.


Beach and Kyrou disregarded the mode or manner of the publication. They both assessed the page as a static printed page. According to law their consideration of a static page constitutes them considering a different publication to the web-page over which I was sued. The webpage is only accessible via the internet without which no "publication" can exist. This, under law, means that the ordinary or reasonable reader accessing the publication in the "mode and manner" it is made, has available to them the resources of the internet when reading it and consider the meaning of its content in that context. Any ordinary or reasonable reader can read the Koran, or Mein Kampf, which are available on-line, or find out about "the Mufti", al Husseini, and therefore dispel whatever preconceptions and prejudices they have.



legalese WARNING 1!

 austlii logo

Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080 (2 September 2002)


Jones v Scully

125 In the law of defamation, the principles which apply in determining whether material conveys a pleaded imputation were summarised in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden(1998) 43 NSWLR 158 by Hunt CJ at CL (with whom Mason P and Handley JA agreed) at 165-166, where his Honour said:
"The ordinary reasonable meaning of the matter complained of may be either the literal meaning of the published matter, or what is implied by that matter, or what is inferred from it: ... In deciding whether any particular imputation is capable of being conveyed, the question is whether it is reasonably so capable (Defamation Act, s 7A, reflecting the common law: ...), and any strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation must be rejected: ... The ordinary reasonable reader (or listener or viewer) is a person of fair average intelligence ..., who is neither perverse ..., nor morbid or suspicious of mind ..., nor avid for scandal: .... That person does not live in an ivory tower but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person's general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs: ...
The mode or manner of publication is a material matter in determining what imputation is capable of being conveyed: ... The reader of a book, for example, is assumed to read it with more care than he or she would read a newspaper. The more sensational the article in a newspaper, the less likely is it that the ordinary reasonable reader will have read it with the degree of analytical care which may otherwise have been given to a book ..., and the less the degree of accuracy which would be expected by the reader: ... The ordinary reasonable reader of such an article is understandably prone to engage in a certain amount of loose thinking:... There is a wide degree of latitude given to the capacity of the matter complained of to convey particular imputations where the words published are imprecise, ambiguous, loose, fanciful or unusual: ...
What must be emphasised is that it is the test of reasonableness which guides any court in its function of determining whether the matter complained of is capable of conveying any of the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff. In determining what is reasonable in any case, a distinction must be drawn between what the ordinary reasonable reader, listener or viewer (drawing on his or her own knowledge and experience of human affairs) could understand from what the defendant has said in the matter complained of and the conclusion which the reader, listener or viewer could reach by taking into account his or her own belief which has been excited by what was said. It is the former approach, not the latter, which must be taken: .... The publisher is not held responsible, for example, for an inference which the ordinary reasonable reader, listener or viewer draws from an inference already drawn from the matter complained of, because it is unreasonable for the publisher to be held so responsible:..."

(emphasis in original)
126 The above principles were recently followed in this Court by Tamberlin J in Versace v Monte [2002] FCA 190 at pars [144] - [146]. At [145] his Honour said:
"In determining what will be conveyed to an ordinary reasonable reader, listener or viewer of fair average intelligence, one must not look at the statement or matters complained of in isolation. Rather, they must be considered in the whole context of the material in which they are published: John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Hook [1983] FCA 83; (1983) 72 FLR 190at 195. The reference to the "context" of the publication is a broad reference which embraces all the attendant circumstances, including both the surrounding matter and the mode of publication."

austlii logoLawCite (case law applications of above)


legalese WARNING 2!

 austlii logo 

Supreme Court of Victoria


Cunliffe v Woods [2012] VSC 254 (18 June 2012)

The meaning of the letter
6 The question of what imputations are conveyed by a particular publication (in this case, a letter) is determined by reference to the standard of the “ordinary reasonable” reader.[4] In determining meaning, one must look at the whole of the publication (letter). It is not open to the plaintiff to simply pick and choose parts of the letter which, standing alone, might be defamatory or might convey some different defamatory meaning.[5]



The shortcomings of judges' understanding "computer stuff" are not limited to the anglosphere – they are international. The Greek judiciary made itself an international object of ridicule. If only they knew!

greek judges ae retarded

 From bio page written in c.2002 and re-edited in 2004

The same criticisms made in 2002 were repeated in the exhibition Humanist Transhumanist in 2009. In 2014 Greek-born Australian judge Emilios Kyrou ruled that this criticsm could be seen to aid the Jew's cause for a state in "Palestine".

[Demetrios Vakras] Photographed at age 17 in 1980 wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "atheism shall prevail". 

In the Australian state of Victoria, new blasphemy laws (the "religious tolerance act"), inconsistent with an "implied" constitutional right to freedom of speech (as per Australian High Court) mean that any statement made regarding any religion, regardless of whether it can be demonstrated to be the truth, is illegal if it is seen to disparage members of any religious faith. Under this state law what I am writing here is illegal! This law has yet to be tested in Australia's High Court..... This surrealist legislation however deems it acceptable to incite violence and hate in the context of the practice of a religion! 

Much of my art intends to debunk human delusions... Religion, and its concomitant belief that we are an imaginary god's creation, is the most pernicious of humanity's delusions. It has caused inestimable suffering throughout history...An explanation of the art can be found: HERE

Unfortunately for all of us religiosity is as vigorous a force as it ever has been, and continues to compel followers of particular faiths to commit acts of violence against others not of their own faith. In 2001, for example, followers of the religion of violence, Islam, committed acts of terrorism in the United States, acts which though consistent with the exhortation of their sacred text the Koran, were instead attributed (by some) as actions by men acting outside that religion's teachings. Indeed, as recently as the Muslim terrorist train bombings in Madrid, the Christian consensus was, as expressed by the Archbishop of Madrid (25/3/2004), that "the terrorists will have to answer to god for their crimes". Thus a fundamental ignorance of the message of the Koran which promises divine reward for those who kill on behalf of god, elicits surreal and bizarre responses... 

There is a failure to realise that religious guidance is deemed morally good solely on the authority of a religious text - on its own say-so. Thus if violence  is demanded by a religious text on behalf of God the corollary is that committing violence is morally good. When the kind of moral and religious guidance of a "holy" book orders the pursuit of violence as does the Koran, eg The Cow 2: 216 "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you  may hate a thing although it is good for you..." you have a situation in which terrorism is itself an act of good as it is demanded by a holy book.

...thus we hit the pinnacle of madness that is the divine.

When Islam is criticised, for its violence, as it was by the former archbishop of Canterbury (27/3/2004), the response of Muslim leaders is one of outrage ... One suspects it is Islamic al-taqiyya  at work:  the moral right Muslims claim to have which permits them to mislead non-Muslims. As long as there is denial that Islam is a religion of violence then these responses of outrage serve only as an apologia for the violence Muslims commit and thus reinforces the Muslim self-delusion of being wrongly and unfairly targeted...: victims. As long as they maintain the delusion of victimhood Islam's predisposition to violence can only be exacerbated not resolved. 

(Pious Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran .... and the Koran demands that its followers commit violence against the unbelievers - wherever they may be found and that the faithful who do not commit acts of violence against unbelievers will suffer divine retribution! Refer: Koran, Sura (chapters): 9:123; 61:10-12; 9:41; 9:38; 47:5-6; 8:60, etc.,etc. 

The Christian New Testament isn't quite the book of peace it is claimed to be either: Matthew 10 : 32-34, Luke 22 35-38, although this is tempered by other passages calling for restraint and disavowal of the pursuit of violence.)




A belief is not the equivalent to a logical corollary. And, a logical corllary is not "an opinion". Australia's judiciary conflate these concepts and deem them to be of the same meaning.