Redleg V artists

Robert Raymond Cripps

sues artists for defamation:

Redleg Museum Services (ACN 105 986 829) sues

Demetrios Vakras (artist)
Lee-Anne Raymond (artist)

Supreme Court of Victoria
SCI 01484/2011

Cripps' crack legal team: Christopher Dibb & ? Tao Jiang (replaced)


1. Redleg Museum Services now runs RUBY'S MUSIC ROOM , Registration number:    B2409701A, ASIC;
2. Cripps' Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd was the respondent to objections raised in VCAT regarding his Ruby's Music Room;
3."The team behind one of Melbourne’s much loved galleries and performance spaces, Guildford Lane Gallery are very proud to present Ruby’s Music Room." http://rubysmusicroom.tumblr.com

Note: Redleg runs Ruby's Music Room, and in the past ran Guildford Lane Gallery. That is a simple fact. But to mention it, and make sure that we are not sued for some reason on grounds we are not aware of and have not anticipated, entails that we have to make "a bigger deal of it" than we otherwise would. It would have been simpler to just mention the fact, but by leaving it at that might be said to have been done by us out of "malice", or that it may have been wrong in fact; hence we need to show where the relationship lies between Redleg and Ruby's Music Room. Indeed, it becomes MANIFESTLY obvious that we could avoid mention of the fact and avoid any legal repercussions; self-censor; which is precisely the the outcome achieved by Australia's 2005 Defamation Act, though the act itself asserts categorically that it is not designed to "unreasonably" impinge on the right to freely impart (and receive) information (though not necessarily expressed by these exact words).

hitler's and the left's antisemitism

30/11/2013

Historical revisionism has amounted to an attempt to re-define "antisemitism" in such a way that it is now being claimed to be a Nazi phenomenon or invention. That is, the historical account is being re-written to make the following claim: that without the Nazis "antisemitism" would never have happened. And, "antisemitism" is claimed to have been introduced by the Nazis as if the Nazis, specifically Adolf Hitler, invented it, and that it first appeared in Mein Kampf.

Therefore to write about adopting the sentiments expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, can be made to mean, according to such an historical revisionism, something that it cannot possibly mean: that being that, since Hitler invented these sentiments, by writing such a thing can be said to mean adopting the theories advocated by Adolf Hitler. Nothing is further from the truth.

This pertains to the current court case in which Cripps, assisted by a complicit legal system, has been accorded the ability to introduce such historical revisionism into his defamation claim against me and claim that this revisionist history is instead the historical fact.

Accepting this revisionism in which pre-Nazi German antisemitism has been erased, makes it mean that the sentiments of "antisemitism" expressed by Hitler (sentiments which were not Hitler's creation, as these were the sentiments of antisemitism of Germany) that were expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, are Hitler's own personal sentiments even though this is historically false - Hitler never had a hand in creating them.

The court, in allowing Cripps' claim, is supporting the revisionist idea that Hitler's sentiments regarding antisemitism were specifically those of Hitler, Hitler's own personal creation, when they are not. On this basis, the court is permitting for it to be claimed that what I am writing is that the political Left have adopted "Hitler's 'antisemitism'", when instead what I wrote of is the adoption by the left of the sentiment of "antisemitism" which IS ACTUALLY expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, which is an HISTORIC reality; the point is that the antisemitism expressed by the political left is the antisemitism that as a matter of history has been expressed by Hitler - and that knowledge of what Hitler wrote is unnecessary for someone to have adopted those sentiments that have been expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

As I write in New Left Nazis [new-left Nazis]:

"A large number of the "conscientious" Left are (or claim to be) oblivious to what Hitler actually wrote, but denounce him for for what they claim is his racism. Nevertheless, this "conscientious" Left have adopted what Hitler wrote in the Mein Kampf, and express these very same sentiments as a demonstration of the sincerity of their good conscience!"
(http://www.vakras.com/new-left-and-nazism)

 
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were a manifestation of (German) antisemitism; and

today's Left in Australia are a manifestation of antisemitism;

that is, the left are a manifestation of the same hatred that festered in pre-Nazi Germany that produced Adolf Hitler, and it was this antisemitism (of pre-Nazi Germany) that was expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Adolf Hitler was therefore a manifestation of (German) antisemitism.

- The sentiments of pre-Nazi germany were anti Jewish.
- These anti Jewish sentiments pre-existed the Nazis.
- These sentiments are not predicated on the existence of Nazis to have come about.
- These sentiments pre-existed Hitler and are not predicated on Hitler for their existence.
- These sentiments continued to exist after the defeat of the Nazis.
- These sentiments never disappeared.
- These sentiments are expressed today by the political Left.
- It is these sentiments that were expressed in Mein Kampf by Hitler.
- And, it is these sentiments that the Left have adopted - in which knowledge of what is written in Mein Kampf is unnecessary.

The Left refuses to acknowledge that the sentiments Hitler held and expressed were those of his society and not Hitler's own personal invention, and that HITLER WAS A MANIFESTATION OF ANTISEMITISM, not its progenitor.

Just because someone has not read Mein Kampf does not make it that their sentiments are not those expressed in Mein Kampf by Hitler, and does not mean that they have not adopted the sentiments expressed in Mein Kampf simply because they have not read it. It means only that:
such people have adopted the sentiment of antisemitism, and that the same antisemitism was expressed in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and that they are ignorant of Mein Kampf. It is a matter of history.

Robert Cripps is suing me because he defines himself by the ideas he holds which I point out had been, as a matter of history, expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf before him. Cripps claims that, as he is defined by the ideas he holds he can sue me to prevent criticism of the ideas he holds by claiming that he is defamed because I can show that Adolf Hitler expressed these same ideas. Cripps is suing to prevent the criticism of ideas that he holds. Cripps is suing to protect ideas from criticism.

Robert Cripps, left, who ran the failed GLG, realised and accepted he was racist to hate Jews ("self-confessed racist" means just that). He preferred to call me "racist" in my critique of Islamic doctrine (the Koran) because he preferred to blame "the Jews and their state in Palestine" for a conflict that was not mentioned in my criticism of religions. Supporters of the "Palestinian cause" call "racist" any critic of Islam - as they did recently in Melbourne, Australia, when they organised pro-"Palestine" protests against a critic of Islamic doctrine.

 Author: Demetrios Vakras 30 November 2013

We are petitioning the Australian government to amend the Defamation Act of 2005 to make Australian law consistent with its international obligations.

Support our petition here:http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005

return