Unbowed Atheist the case against the irrational - EMILIOS KYROU - SURREALISM UNLAWFUL, as it could constitute support for Israel All of my art now unlawful

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/vakras-art-unlawful.html
2/1/2015

EMILIOS KYROU - SURREALISM UNLAWFUL
All of my art now unlawful [gelded - re-edited, later] 7/1/2015

Surrealism defined by the state art museum (NGV) 27/12/2014: surrealism is anti-religion; surrealists considered religion to be a mechanism that contributes to war.

In the 2009 surrealist exhibition, Humanist Transhumanist, religion was condemned for its assault on secular values. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism were criticised.

The owner of the gallery, Robert Cripps (who now runs an entertainment venue, Ruby's Music Room), proclaimed that criticism of Islam (out of all the religions criticised) constitutes "racism".

In 2009 I wrote:

"It became evident that Cripps was utterly ignorant of surrealism, ignorant of its counter-cultural, counter-religious, and therefore its original revolutionary intent.
(For example, refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Révolution_surréaliste :
"the initial issue announced the revolutionary agenda of the La Révolution surréaliste with, "It is necessary to start work on a new declaration of the rights of man."…the third issue announced, "End of the Christian Era."…Writer and actor Antonin Artaud wrote an open letter to the Pope, "Address to the Pope," and expresses the revolt against what Surrealists saw as oppressive religious values…anticlerical remarks are found throughout La Révolution surréaliste and reflect the group's relentless campaign against oppression and bourgeois morality.") ]"

Cripps sued in 2011, claiming that what I wrote constituted an "injurious falsehood". In the trial that ensued in 2014, Cripps admitted:
1) that he knew nothing about art,
2) that he had not studied or "trained" in art,
3) or art theory (necessary to be an "art critic"),
4) or art history,
5) that he only ran a business (without knowing anything about the nature of that business: art),
6) had no art background,
7) and that due to his limited education could not understand the art or the essays.

Cripps testimony can be found in the Trial Transcripts which this author has uploaded onto Scribd, or, alternately, on Redleg V Artists

http://www.scribd.com/doc/240239998/Trial-Transcripts-Day-1-8-Cripps-v-Artists-complete

http://www.redlegvartists.com/Trial%20Transcripts%20Day%201-8-%20Cripps%20v%20Artists-redactions.pdf

Based on Cripps’ own admissions, judge Emilios Kyrou ruled that I and co-exhibitor, Lee-Anne Raymond, had failed to prove, even “on the balance of probabilities”, that Cripps did not know about the nature of the business: art, particularly about surrealism.

Kyrou's finding can be found on Austlii

Cripps specifically associated Muslim violence with Jews, claiming that Muslims react to Jews. According to Cripps criticism of the Koran was "anti-Palestinian". Kyrou agreed.
Also in agreement with Cripps, Kyrou ruled that criticism of Islam can be considered "racist".

Kyrou also ruled that “association” with Hitler to be an “egregious defamation”.
Associating Islam with the Muslim Nazi al Husseini who made the same proclamations against the Jews of Palestine, is therefore an “egregious defamation”;
That al Husseini was supported by Adolf Hitler, and blamed Jews before Israel existed, an “egregious defamation”;
Showing that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were a phenomenon of Christian values (criticised in the exhibition), an “egregious defamation”.
The ambit of the Kyrou ruling makes all of my art unlawful.

Adolf Hitler can no longer be criticised because to do so will always constitute an "egregious defamation" of Christianity:

"Christianity ... was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction
of heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form...
The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world
history arise from the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in
fact , that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the
Jewish nature... we may deeply regret this fact and establish with justifiable
loathing that its appearance in the history of mankind is something that was
previously alien to history..." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf pp. 412-413

In November 2010 I had completed a series of 13 drawings which were already drawn onto canvas. Painting them was to be commenced in 2011. Instead I was sued by Cripps. These works are all unlawful following Kyrou’s finding. The drawing, below, was intended to be a finsihed painting ready for exhibition by April 2015, the 100 year anniversary of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli. It is an attack on a society that looks the other way and seeks to prohibit thought in order to safeguard religion from criticism.

The drawing from 2010, above, is based on a 23 May 2006 email sent to a local councilor, in the context of the photo of Muslims (Turks) with their beheaded victims, below. The email reads:
"...the current Anglo-Australian idea of honouring the
war dead by dishonouring them, ... After-all, the day before the Anzac
landing at gallipoli Turkey commenced on its extermination of Armenians
campaign. 1.5 million men women children were killed because they were
... christian.... But the RSL tells us that the Turks were
honourable....? Yeah right. It wasn't Turks strumming on harps that
gently sent Anzacs "to heaven"... & if the Anzacs had been unarmed
civilians, like the Armenians, they would have suffered the same fate.
But as Hitler ...exclaim[ed]: 'who here remembers the Armenians?'"

According to Kyrou, the art and sentiments behind my art are multifariously "egregious defamations" because of the "association" with Hitler.

The genocide of the Armenians by Muslims inspired Hitler. This genocide is referenced in my art.

Without the ability to criticise ideas, particularly religious ideas, we would still believe that we were created from blood-clots, in six days out of Adam’s rib so that angels - created from fire - have something to worship ... which obligates us to behead or stone any and all who question such belief.

Critical thought is now unlawful under Kyrou’s ruling. We have to accept religious ideas because the holders of religious ideas will be injured when their ideas are criticsed - especially when it is shown that Hitler held the same ideas they do. Such people will be "egregiously defamed" by having such an "association" made.

Abraham Lincoln

"Lord" Acton

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.