|
|
UNBOWED ATHEIST
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 http://vakras.blogspot.com.au
SLEEP OF REASON
BREEDS THEISM
|
www.unbowedatheist.com/vag_dieu_droit_na_gig.html
(posted
4/7/2015)
vagina dieu droit na gig - new art
The purpose of this page is to
explain a new image, vagina dieu
droit na gig. To explain it means that I will
expose the Supreme Court of Victoria (and the entire
Australian legal industry - being those who profit from
the court) to the caustic light of reason. By exposing
the court (and the law) to reason I will be exposing it for
what it actually is, and therefore causing the law and its
institutions to be exposed to ridicule, derision and contempt.
The sleep of reason breeds theism. And, in the absence of
reason, we have law-courts that exist DIEU ET MON DROIT!
In the court's reasoning, anything that exposes it to ridicule
or contempt is "defamatory". AND "DEFAMATION" INCLUDES
INFORMATION - THE TRUTH. The court itself, in the
English system of law, has a specific term for the
"defamation" of itself, "scandalisation", which is punishable
with imprisonment for contempt of court. Though the court by
its own scandalous actions "scandalises", it is the critic who
expresses their criticism of the court's scandalous actions
who the court will find has caused the "scandalisation", not
the scandalous act committed by the court itself.
Governed by an absence of
reason (the irrational), the court shoots the messenger. The
scandal must be suppressed (censored). In Australia truth
(being that the court itself acted scandalously) is "not
necessarily" a defence to "scandalise"; in which "scandalise"
means to inform others. Apparently a scandalous act is not
scandalous until it is made known and it is not the committer
of scandal who is penalised.
And although the concept of
"scandalsiation" breaches the International Covenants
Australia is bound to observe, the court nevertheless reserves
for itself the right to prosecute, because ultimately in
Australia there are no human rights that can constrain the
court from acting however it feels even if that means
trampling on the human rights the government has sought to
give us.
|
On exposing the court to the
caustic light of reason thereby causing "scandal":
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2003/6.html
"scandalisation"; something "said
[that] will undermine public confidence in the Courts"
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s93610.htm
Australia is bound by international
Human Rights conventions:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html
"Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and
tribunals... everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law."
However, the court invalidates this
right because the court believes the right of others
to believe they will receive a fair trial, regardless
of whether they do or not, trumps the right to a trial
that is actually fair, competent, or impartial. It
would appear that the court uses the preceding get-out
clause:
"Article 12
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to
any restrictions except those which are provided by
law, are necessary to protect national security,
public order ..."
|
Though it is claimed that a
citizen of the state has a right to a fair trial, that right
is voided when the victim who has suffered an unfair trial is
capable of showing that a fair trial was not had, because to
show how a trial was not fair will lead to people to question
whether or not a fair trial can be had. According to the court
our greater "right" is to believe we will have a fair trial
and that this trumps our right to actually have a fair trial.
This is not a joke. It is a fundamental principle of english
law. To explain this differently; we have, it is claimed, a
right to a fair trial, which can only ever be fair, and can
only be considered to be fair, since it is unlawful to show
that a trail was not fair. The court supports itself with a
vacuous tautology.
The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria
(the court's current head), Marilyn Warren, declared in 2009
that anything that may suggest the court needs to be overseen
basically "undermines the confidence of the community in the
judiciary" the Age,
(http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/chief-justice-v-hulls-the-inside-story-of-a-highstakes-spat-20091014-gxcs.html
). Warren's reaction was to a proposal by the government to
set up an independent body to oversee the court - something
that the court sorely needs. However, such a body would likely
confirm we don't always get fair trials, which would undermine
our apparent right to believe we will get one which will
"scandalise".
Though the court (in Australia) is duty-bound to not prohibit
the imparting of information because it is bound by
international covenants, the same court is also duty bound by
the religious principles it is founded on, which means that
its religious obligations override its human rights
obligations when secular obligations adversely affect its
obligation to the church on whose authority it exists.
And so the court acts as a de-facto state-censor, answerable
only to an imaginary god, that exists above the law and is not
answerable to the very laws it adjudicates on. Consequently,
any reference I make to information (such as history) will
expose the court, and the religion on which that court is
founded, to ridicule and contempt. That is, information can
"defame", and the court can insist on censoring anyone
referring to that information (history), since truth can
damage how the courts are perceived, and the Bible forbids
this.
And it is immaterial to the court that this information
exists, is known to exist, and that it can be found by anyone
- because one must simply refrain from referencing it
(self-censorship), or have censorship forcibly imposed by the
court. The court could suffer an "egg-shell-skull" injury
without their right censor.
The Supreme Court of Victoria
coat of arms (or "crest"), as I discuss on the directory page,
proclaims that its “right” is given it by an imaginary god.
And so, for the law to function, bound as it is in an
imaginary being's existence, reason must sleep otherwise the
court will be exposed as having no authority at all. For the
court the fable of its imaginary deity has to stand, or it
falls.
Inspired by the coat of arms
with its declaration of the court's right according to its
fictional god, I commenced on designing a “vagina dieu droit
na gig” image. It uses the court's own symbols to show it for
what it is: a bunch of mindless (dumb) fucks. This image then
integrates well with the body of art that I have spent my life
creating; the series of fuckers, the medousa gammadion (part
of my mytheic series), and my general antipathy to those
stupid enough to proclaim the existence of imaginary friends.
vagina dieu
droit na gig © demetrios vakras
"Two fuck-guards protect the exit out of which will emerge the
offspring of the sleep of reason."
Vagina dieu droit na gig
belongs to a series of Sheela
na-gigs. These are explained later. Other "Sheelas",
such as "Lizzard Lizzie's anus horribillis", births various
persons via her anus (horribillis) - the series is to appear
on transgressivesurrealism.com
eventually
Where oh where do I begin?
The Supreme Court poses a conundrum but cannot decide on it.
And the conundrum posed by the court is whether it is the art
that is offensive? or the essay that explains what the art
means that is offensive? And, then there is the problem of
whether my saying something the court considers offensive
makes me offensive? or whether the statement (deemed)
offensive can be considered offensive, but in which I, the
maker of the (offensive) statement, remain un-offensive
despite the offensiveness of what I say. For, according to the
Supreme Court of Victoria, we can all love Adolf Hitler, adore
and idolise him, because we should never link the ideas he
held, with the individual (Hitler) who held them. In 2006 the
Supreme Court of Victoria, appeal court (judges Ashley, Neave
and Nettle), found that one may not hate the holder of the
idea, even though one may hate the idea they hold. Yes,
Supreme Court of Victoria, we all love Hitler… because though
we might detest his ideas, we understand we cannot hate the
individual who holds those ideas… which in this instance is
Hitler(!)
So, I begin on the essay that explains the “vagina dieu droit
na gig”, an essay which may be offensive, or might be an
explanation which of itself is not offensive, but deals with
offensive material, which makes the material offensive. The
court apparently believes there exists such a dichotomy, and
the judges presiding over an appeal I had before it in March
2015 sought to make this precise distinction.
Beginning with the symbology.
The coat of arms and heraldic lion.
I have written about this in the past (c. 2005 www.daimonas.com/pages/greek-basis-england.html
). The concept behind the coat of arms is incontrovertibly
greek, it is pagan, and the explanation here dissects that
symbology.
The lion is Medousa herself as
she is represented in Greek mythology with her tongue
protruding. The belt, described as a "garter", is obviously
Medousa's snake-belt, the belt-of-life (essentially, the
zodiac). Referring to the Kerkyra (Corfu (sic)) Medousa, we
see all the attributes that appear on the coat of arms which
is used by the state court as the “Victorian Supreme Court
crest”. These are, the belt, feline guards and and a (winged)
horse guard (Pegasus). For whatever reason the english
conflated the Medousa's face with the body of her all-beast
guard.
Before moving on,
"the crest" did not always feature a horse with a
horn, which is really a rhinoceros, kinda like a hippo
who is a river horse. Some renditions of the coat of
arms, such as that of Henry vi, show a fanged goat
instead of a horned-horse, which had once allowed for
goat-herders to feel that their station in society was
not nearly as lowly as they feared. Alas the goat was
replaced.
This image is from
http://1henry6.wikidot.com/king-henry-vi. |
What of the vaginas?
To explain this, I take a risk that what I write might be
construed to aid "Jewish interests" in "Palestine", because it
will necessitate my use of "foreign words". Bizarre though
this claim is, it is precisely what Emilios Kyrou, judge of
the Supreme Court of Victoria, found against me.
The word Medousa, is typical of many Greek words, a composite
of two separate Greek words. I take my cue from the
description of Aphrodite by Hesiod (Theogony) as "Philomedia,
the source of life". Although usually translated as
"laughter-loving", the translation of Hesiod by Athanassakis
into English explains that Hesiod actually used a spelling of
"media" that would make Philomedia mean phallus-loving
(philo=love, media=phallus). Medousa, therefore appears to
mean, "given for the phallus" (that the "dousa" element means,
"given for" should not be in dispute). This concurs with the
meaning of the Greek "gorgon", another composite which means
speedy (gorgo/gorge) "birther" (gonia). Of course this
etymology will be disputed. However, it is beyond the scope of
this essay to buttress the etymology I am proffering, and I
will therefore not provide it here. The reader should note
that I have avoided using Greek script to render ζώνη,
γοργό/γοργή, γονία and μέδουσα. Oops. Just did.
The Medousa is therefore something sexual, essentially, she is
a vulva, taker of the phallus, a life-creator of sorts, whose
death is necessary for new life to come about. In Greek
mythology Medousa's death resulted in the Pegasus and his
brother, Chrysaor, (whose father was Poseidon), neither of
whom could exist so-long as the Medousa lived. Medousa's
life-belt encircles her waist as does the earth-encircling
ocean which is the domain of Poseidon, the zodiac, the zone
(ζώνη, belt) at which that without life gains life (is
animated). The ocean was for the Greeks a serpent, the hydra;
hydra is both a snake and the Greek word for water.
(It should be noted that the
association of an earth-encircling serpent with water is made
in northern European religion, in which the “Midgard Worm”
dwells in the “earth-encircling” ocean.)
The Hydra, water-snake. I have
written on this in the past,
http://www.daimonas.com/pages/snake-worship.html . The above
image is from the Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(constellation) Though the
information from the Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of
(sea) salt.
The Sheela-na-gig
UK Sheela, above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheela_na_gig (The wikipedia
link is for the reader to reference - it is not the source of
my information)
A few other websites dedicated to Sheelas:
http://www.sheelanagig.org ; http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk
)
France Sheela, above.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconographie_des_modillons_romans
If my etymology on the Medousa is right (and I maintain that
it is) then the northern Sheelas are Medousa,
anthropomorphisations of the vulva.
For modern Greeks a gorgon is a mermaid - an acknowledgment
that the Medousa was always understood as a sea-entity (
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Γοργόνες_(λαογραφία) ). (To find
a reference to gorgons proper in Greek, one must consider
gorgons as "mythological"
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Γοργόνες_(μυθολογία) )
That gorgons were from the outset sea-entities is already
something manifested by Medousa's attributes, namely her
snake-belt, and her union with Poseidon. This association with
the sea was also made in ancient representations of gorgons
which depict a fish-tailed winged Medousa.
Medousa as a sea-entity shown
with fish–tail–cum–pillar. (She seems to have the forequarters
of a leaping lion?)
Illus., p. 107, Σοφία Σούλη, Ελληνική Μυθολογία.
Sheelas are found in both the UK and France. That the Sheelas
are the Medousa, is immediately evident when considering some
of the representations such as the "Rochester Figure", in
which the Sheela with her legs customarily spread apart by her
arms, protrudes her tongue - while pointing two fish at her
head.
"The Rochester Figure". The
image is from http://www.sheelanagig.org
(
http://www.sheelanagig.org/index.html#http://www.sheelanagig.org/SheelaRochester.htm
)which provides additional information. Other info:
http://www.beyond-the-pale.org.uk/zxRochester.htm )
And in another (not-quite) “Sheela”, a mermaid (gorgon to
modern Greeks) is depicted at St Helen’s, Bilton in Ainsty.
http://sheelanagig.org/index.html#http://sheelanagig.org/SheelaBiltonInAinsty.htm
Thus it is, as a giant Sheela, the Sheela's exposed vulva,
that I represent the coat of arms along with a phallus, ready
to be taken by the vulva that is ready to accept it, encircled
by a two-headed ζώνη, life-belt snake. I am rendering the coat
of arms as just another mindless fucker, of the kind exhibited
in 2009, (the exhibition which was found by Emilios Kyrou to
be helpful to the Jewish cause in Palestine, on the grounds
that it included "words written in another script" - even
though I have yet to have it explained to me how this has any
logic).
Robert
Cripps, at whose gallery the works were exhibited, believed
he could identify whether prospective viewers of the works
posed for the works. To do so meant he imagined them naked.
An example from the fucker
series: http://www.vakras.com/kouros.html
The fucker series depicts the mindless fucker. These fuckers
with genitals to fuck, a heart with which to pump blood, a
mouth by which to nourish themselves, are mindless mechanical
entities. There is no representation of a brain because there
is no need for the fucker to analyse ideas or to have any
reason for its existence other than to fuck mechanically and
multiply. The fucker acts on the impulse to fuck without
questioning why it is it should fuck. It is the blind
following of orders (in this instance, impulses to procreate)
without thought, without question, and it therefore acts with
a clear conscience. I am representing the court as a
self-fucking delusion, a grand tautology in which a circular
argument is all it has to explain the laws and its god-given
right to adjudicate on them. The sleep of reason breeds. Two
fuck-guards protect the exit out of which will emerge the
offspring of the sleep of reason.
The court, just another mindless fucker
The court does not bother to question the imaginary being it
acts for because it accepts a priori that its rights
conferred by this imaginary being are beyond analysis or
question. The court admonishes the prospective critic with a
demand that they feel shame for thinking evil of it … HONI
SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE! And the same court is armed to protect
itself against criticism. What could be so wrong with the
court's divine right, justification and guidance?
A lot actually. The same god
guided Hitler and was used to justify what he did.
When an imaginary god
- who does not exist - guides
An essay by Emilios Kyrou, of
the Supreme Court of Victoria appears on a fundamentalist
Greek Orthodox Christian website. This fundamentalist website
exists, on its own say-so, as a bulwark against secularism and
apostasy. A Greek Orthodox Archdiocese newsletter explains the
"doxology" given to the Supreme Court of Victoria, the subject
of which Kyrou writes about in ModeOfLife. The legitimacy of
the court is assured by the doxology. Those who are to appear
before the court can be assured that the court will act
consistent with the teachings and principles of the church,
otherwise the church would never have given the court its
blessing. There is, to use Kyrou's own words, a "QUID PRO QUO"
requirement that the court is bound by the church to act
consistent with its teachings, and not act contrary to them.
It is no coincidence therefore
that Emilios Kyrou found, in a court case against me, that the
most "egregious defamation” that can be made is an association
with Hitler, in which the only association that was made with
Hitler was Hitler's Christian basis for his racist genocide;
and Kyrou himself, as well as the Supreme Court of Victoria,
are beholden to the same imaginary god on whose behalf Hitler
committed his genocide. (Oops, egregious!).
In an art exhibition in which Christianity was excoriated
because Hitler's intolerance and racism were based on the
Bible, Kyrou made the following QUID PRO QUO finding against
me:
“Hitler is universally regarded as one of the most abhorrent
individuals of all time” (308) EMILIOS KYROU
"The Hitler Imputation unarguably defames... To associate
anyone with the views of Hitler is to profoundly damage
their reputation..." (307) EMILIOS KYROU
Defamation law and blasphemy - a Christian obligation
The court's legitimacy is not limited to declaring god -
Christ - as its guarantor. The court adjudicates on laws that
are fundamentally Christian.
Defamation law is a very Christian law.
The Defamation laws observed in Australia are defined by the
New Testament; in Titus (3:1-2) and Romans (1:30, 3:8).
The Court exists to enforce mindlessly its obligation to the
god who gives it its right to adjudicate on questions of law
that are directly derived from the Bible:
Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν,
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι, 2 μηδένα βλασφημεῖν,
ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς
πάντας ἀνθρώπους. Προς Τιτον 3:1-2.
Titus, 3:1-2 “Remind the
people to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be
obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander
no-one…”
(The New Testament is written
entirely in Greek. The word translated as "slander" in english
is actually "blaspheme", βλασφημεῖν.)
The law is unconcerned by
truth and unencumbered by logic (reason). The court's concern
is for the PROHIBITION of imparting information because
information will cause injury and the court ensures that we
obey the rules of our rulers without question, which the court
is charged to enforce. Knowledge might cause us to question.
The court makes sure we do not question.
The court believing its own propaganda
The court does not exist to defend our human rights.
Such a role is in clear contradiction to the historic role
played by the court which was always to limit our rights
according to whatever principles of an imaginary god were
deemed necessary to be enforced that limited our rights.
What rights we do have were gained not from the court, but by
those refusing to remain submissive, who agitated against the
rulers and authorities represented by the court in order that
they force change in law. Rights are gained by force, by
revolution.
However, the court, insists on self-serving propaganda,
proclaiming itself to be the protector of that which it never
has been and which it is still not. The Victorian Supreme
Court seems to believe it is part of a continuum of rights
established by the Magna Carta. It is not.
The courts are not and have
never been guarantors of rights of any sort.
Adolf Hitler’s crimes were
committed according to rule-of-law in Germany. Germans were
bound by law to do what was law. Law was enforced and
enforceable by the courts. This was the court's Christian
obligation.
The Nazis who were later
convicted of war-crimes in the post-war trials had been
following orders which, had they disregarded, would have led
to the German court imposing a penalty. The courts of Nazi
Germany imposed penalties that demonstrated that they, like
any other court, took their role to not deny "justice" to
those who came before it, very seriously.
Just as it was a requirement
in the Magna Carta to not deny justice, the German courts of
the Nazi era did not deny justice either. The Supreme Court of
Victoria peddles mindless propaganda.
We should be subject to rule-of-reason, NEVER rule-of-law.
Though it should not be necessary: below, Francisco de Goya's
The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleep_of_Reason_Produces_Monsters
|
Notes/Appendix/Whatever
Received wisdom has it that:
Honi soit qui mal y pense, pertains to a "garter"
that resulted in the "Order of the Garter". These
arguments are neither convincing or compelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
It should be noted that a multiplicity of ideas that
had not previously been in evidence, appeared in
northern europe at around the time of Norman rule
especially after the Norman-led sack of
Christian-Byzantium in 1204 by "Crusaders". As I
have already written, the lion, which came to appear
in the heraldry of that time, arose during this same
period.
It is evident that ideas that were
not Christian, but where from polytheistic greece
(not Rome), entered into the northern mind-set. What
is described as a "garter" worn by the warrior-caste
(knights) seems more like the warrior belt worn by
Hippolyta, the AmaZON queen. This belt is
otherwise referred to as a "girdle"; ζωστὴρ
Ἱππολύτης, which was given to her by her father the
god of war, Ares.
Australian law protects "the
dignity" of its heraldic crests from injury to its
"fame" (protection against blasphemy). Its ANZAC
crests, the word "ANZAC" itself, the coat of arms of
the commonwealth as well as the various coats of
arms used by the states are all in some way
protected. In Australia Americans are mocked over
laws that protect the American flag - ignoring
Australian laws equally worthy of mockery that
protect its various crests and heraldry.
Regarding defamation law. The
argument made is that defamation law is law made to
protect against injury to fame, that saves us from
shooting one-another dead by dueling, and it is
claimed that its precedent lies in Roman law - even
though English Common Law is not derived from Roman
Law. How curious. However defamation laws, such as
those of Australia that derive from English law,
arose in Christian societies directly out of the
Bible. The Bible (New Testament) refers to
defamation/slander as blasphemy; injury to fame. In
addition the etymology of the word "fame" proffered
by Anglophones is wrong. The claim made is that
"fame" ultimately derives from the Latin "fama". It
does not. The "pheme" part of blaspheme is Greek
(φήμη), and "pheme" predates the Latin fama by a
half millennium. Most famously, φήμη
was a component in the name of the "much famed"
Cyclops, Polyphemos, who appears in Homer's Odyssey.
The word blaspheme, βλασφημεῖν,
and its use in the New Testament; It should be known
that the New Testament was written exclusively in
Greek. Surprisingly, this, it turns out, is not
widely known at all. There are hypotheses on the
number of Greek source texts for the original New
Testament and speculation is that there was once a
primary "Q source":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source . Therefore,
that blaspheme, written in Greek βλασφημεῖν, was
used in the New Testament, is relevant to
understanding the origin and meaning of the word
"defamation" and accounts for the Biblical basis of
laws of defamation and the mindless zeal shown by
some judges in enforcing this religious principle
which is founded purely in the absence of reason.
The malevolent Supreme Court of
Victoria penalises those who know history, as it did
me, because apparently knowledge of history exposes
the court to ridicule and contempt. The malevolent
Supreme Court of Victoria has caused myself and
partner Lee-Anne Raymond to be stripped of nearly
everything we have ever worked for in our life
because of the offence taken by Emilios Kyrou, a
judge of that court, to the presentation of
historical material (quoting Kyrou: "who's heard of
the mufti?").
Though the UK momentarily
considered bringing the court to account, it was
decided to not do so. Apparently it is better to
allow the plebs the belief that they will receive a
fair trial - because that trumps the right to
actually have a fair trial. So much for human rights
and the court's claims it exists to defend them.
Some links (some of which appear earlier) on
"scandalisation" and efforts to hold the court to
account, which can "lead" to the "suggestion" of
"scandal":
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2003/6.html
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s93610.htm
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20087549
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/outcry-over-special-rules-for-corrupt-judges-20120313-1uyj1.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/who-judges-the-judges-20091206-kcrx.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/chief-justice-marilyn-warren-hits-back-at-attorney-general-rob-hulls/story-e6frf7kx-1225785196784
http://www.smh.com.au/national/hulls-plan-to-get-tough-on-judges-behaviour-20091008-gp2f.html
5 July 2015 addenda
I wrongly gave a date of 2006 when it
should have been 2009. That has now been corrected.
On re-reading, it seems I
inadvertently create the impression that judges are
beyond answerability. The constitution of Victoria, s
77, allows for judges to be sacked. However, politics
being what it is, means that the party/parties sitting
in opposition who (usually) control the house of
review (“Upper House” in Victoria) might block such a
move in order to embarrass the sitting government.
The theme of the Medousa is one that I
have been working on since 2008, www.vakras.com/mytheic-works.html
.
“Murray” from the Museum of Victoria
is the snake who has (unbeknownst to him) “modeled”
for my pieces. In this photograph Murray is seen
coiled around a hapless lab-rat. Prey is not provided
live because sometimes live prey, seeking to save
themselves from death, react with such ferocity that
they inflict wounds that can kill the snake. Without
options, litigants, like the "live prey", might be
similarly ferocious in defence of themselves and their
honour after the court has caused for them to be
stripped of (nearly) all they have ever worked for.
Malevolence:
Melbourne newspaper the Herald Sun reported
precisely in the manner Kyrou intended they report.
This was a Supreme Court of Victoria-sanctioned
defamation of us.
Cripps, who in 2009 believed he could
identify who modeled for the paintings on exhibition
by imagining viewers of the work naked, also declared
that “Palestinians are oppressed by Jews”, which had
nothing to do with our 2009 art exhibition. The
Supreme Court of Victoria actioned a deliberate and
malicious defamation of us both. The Muslim cause in
Palestine began during WW2. Adolf Hitler supported the
Muslim cause in Palestine, as did Cripps. The hadith
proclaims it is the duty of Muslims to commit the
genocide of Jews. History is not a rant. However, for
the purpose of defaming us the Supreme Court of
Victoria declared the historical record presented to
have “no basis in fact”, meaning the reference to
history could justifiably be ridiculed as being no
more than "a rant". It is not as if the court did not
know what it was doing. "Judges" in 2009 proclaimed;
"Once it is lost... a reputation cannot be clawed
back"
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/who-judges-the-judges-20091206-kcrx.html).
Oh, I should mention, the damage referred to by those
judges was to a judge’s reputation…The court is
unconcerned by damage it does to litigants.
Finally, my Firefox browser. On
updating it suggested a unicorn theme… appropriate,
one would say, for the Victoria Supreme Court. Firefox
suggest it is for “daydreamers”. I would suggest it
better suits the delusional court who include it on
their crests and heraldry.
6 July 2015 addenda
In writing what I
did on 5/7/2015 I believe I inadvertently create the
impression that the Australian courts might not be
without some limitation to their powers. If that is
the impression I have created, it is a misnomer. The
United Nations Human Rights Commission is scathing
of the kind of "justice" available in this country.
In a scandalous case,
police acting as police-officers did acts that were
illegal. In order to absolve the
police-force from responsibility and liability for
the wrong-doing done by police-officers, the court
ruled that the vicious police bashing of the woman
in question was illegal. The police-force was
found not liable for what police-officers did
while acting as police-officers for the
police-force because (essentially) their action
was criminal [sentence in bold
corrected 8/7/2015]. The UN Human Rights
Commission has seen this for what it is; a human
rights violation - one that the court has
sanctioned. In my personal situation, I take it to
mean that it is unlikely that the court would make a
finding against itself, that it will likely shift
the blame in some unforeseeable way. Disingenuous?
Sure. But no less disingenuous than the court
already is. It shows emphatically how vacuous and
hollow the rhetoric of the court is when it takes
credit for the Magna Carta even though to get
justice one must appeal to the UN, not the
Australian court.
(note: The Supreme
Court of Appeal ruled the state "was not vicariously
liable for officers who acted outside the realm of
their duties" - apparently because the state
introduced a new "Victoria Police Act 2013" which
absolved the state and the police of liability if
police action gives rise to a tort that involves
“serious and willful misconduct” even if that
conduct occurred prior to the 2013 Act.)
The criticism of the religiosity
of the court was "blocked in" a long time ago.
However, that was criticism of the USA and its motto
"In God We Trust". The criticism of the religiosity
in law was the subject of my 2010 drawing The
instance of grievance: not enough died on 9/11?
which is one of the 13 works that were prepared to
be painted in 2011. A detail from that work, below,
shows a coin from the USA with the face of George
Washington chiselled out with the writing altered to
"In Allah We Trust".
 the
entire drawing is
posted here and includes an explanatory essay.
7 July 2015 addenda
The pose of the english heraldic lion
matches the pose of pantheria (all-beast) "guards"
seen in ancient greece. Below a pantherion guard on an
ivory unearthed at Delphi in 1939. An alternate
explanation for the pose is that northern europeans in
france and england tapped into the (fictional) Jungian
ether drawing out of it an "archetype". And it must
therefore be this same "archetype" that people of
antiquity also drew their imagery from, hence their
obvious sameness.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1742019.stm)
9 July 2015 addenda
The addenda for 9/7/2015 will form a
new page CONTINUED HERE
|
| A belief
is not the equivalent to a logical corollary.
And, a logical corollary is not "an opinion".
Australia's judiciary conflate these concepts and deem
them to be of the same meaning. |
