* Vakras & Raymond Petition to Geneva over Australia's breaches of ICCPR (ICERD and ICESCR), 28 July 2017

* Vakras & Raymond seeking of Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Victoria in High Court, 20 January 2017

* Vakras seeking Mandamus in High Court against Federal Court and Circuit Court to compel those courts to rule according to law and not permit racial discrimination (etc), 4 January 2017

* Vakras' complaint to the HRC regarding its failures that now permit race discrimination, 7 September 2017

* Vakras' complaint to the Human Rights Commission of Australia against Cripps' racism (Annex 36, Geneva petition)

* Cripps' denial to Human Rights Commission that Vakras' "Greek background" or use of Greek by Vakras in the exhibition was ever an issue (Annex 37, Geneva Petition)

* Transcript extracts (annotated with highlights, Annex 14, Geneva Petition)

* Cripps' admission to the Federal Circuit Court that Vakras' use of Greek was actually the grounds for taking action against both artists (disclaimers, "WARNING!"); that use of Greek was "anti-Palestinian"; and that Cripps considered the art was "racist". (Annex 13, Geneva Petition). Cripps had previously denied that he considered the art to be racist in any way at all in the Supreme Court of Victoria (refer Transcripts).

* Vakras pdf sent to Human Rights Commission providing the evidence of Cripps' racist discrimination of him (Annex 39, Geneva Petition)

* Complaint to Warren over Kyrou (Annex 24, Geneva Petition )

* Solicitors acting for Artists send pdf to Artists per Warren's instructions of July 2015 to not post their material on-line, "Scandalization" (Annex 34, Geneva Petition)

* Screenshot, Kyrou preaching from pulpit of Greek Orthodox Christian Church on the role Church plays in law posted by Greek Orthodox Church on Facebook

* 2 March 2015 Press Release "the trial and judgment have subverted the claimed purpose of the law to instead act to chill all debate regarding criticism of religious doctrines"

* Appeal of Kyrou's decision - Press Release

* Complete Trial transcripts (addresses of witnesses redacted)

* VCAT made judge Bowman's orders publicly available. Orders are posted on Austlii. Melbourne Observer reporting judge's orders from Austlii threatened by Cripps with defamation. Sample 2 the claim here is that we will be sued for aggravated damages because someone - not us - has reported the issue.

* VCAT made judge Bowman's orders publicly available. Orders are posted on Austlii. Melbourne Observer reporting judge's orders from Austlii threatened by Cripps with defamation. Sample 1

* Notes for oral submission to Supreme Court/VCAT by Lee-Anne Raymond

* Notes for oral submission to Supreme Court/VCAT by Demetrios Vakras - we have a right to remedy breach of contract under law which is not diminished by our writing about it. Cripps' staff conspired with him to breach contract.

* Cripps' farcical "points of defence" against our VCAT claim

* Cripps' case and our VCAT claim merged. The judgement is available on Austlii; Judge Bowman's summary: "Dispute re breach of contract … involving alleged defamation arising from basically the same facts".

* VCAT claim by us against Cripps for breach of contract

* Guildford Lane Gallery "sold" from , which shows the "gallery" with only its "Redleg" signage. According to this webpage, GLG was sold with "With a phenomenal result"

* Our advertisement in the Art Almanac which we, not Cripps, paid for. Our inclusion of his logo was demanded in the contract. Including the logo creates the impression that Cripps endorsed, or in some way supported ("sponsored"?) our show.

* Email to Cripps 26/6/2009 "Addenda to_ a misrepresentation of our art + rebutal"

* Screenshot of email sent by Cripps, as "Redleg", from "" In this email Cripps demands that we have to meet conditions - which were not in the contract - before allowing us entry to the exhibition space that we had paid for.

* Photograph (detail) of Cripps' disclaimer in our exhibition (according to the April Fool's day SOC this is an "injurious falsehood".) This kind of disclaimer known as a "Disclaimer of Endorsement" is used to limit exposure to legal liability

* The contact details for Cripps that appear on the exhibition contract are made publicly available by Cripps / Redleg on

* Contract for exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" at Guildford Lane Gallery The contract guarantees us right of entry (which we came to be denied).

* Our proposal for the exhibition our websites are listed in our application to exhibit. On a number of times our sites have been completely disabled by Cripps' legal action which makes it rather difficult to promote our art if our sites are not available on the www.

* Pdf from Telstra lawyers explaining the threat from Cripps' counsel
why we were disconnected from the internet. (Cripps' legal team even claimed that our SOC in VCAT against Cripps was itself "defamation").

* Cripps' solicitor's email to iiNet

* Email from iiNet Solicitors explaining threat from Cripps' counsel to sue them as "co-defendants" (19/7/2011)
Cripps (via his solicitors) had our pages/sites disabled. In this instance iiNet explain why they removed our pages from the internet.

* Original SOC to the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia), April Fool's Day 2011 (most of this original SOC was struck out and had to be re-submitted).

* Second claim, Tao Jiang letter of Demand by Cripps ("Redleg") sent to LAR demanding removal of what is written claiming it to be "injurious falsehood" which is "published maliciously"

* Second claim, Tao Jiang letter of Demand by Cripps ("Redleg") sent to DV demanding removal of what is written claiming it to be "injurious falsehood" which is "published maliciously"

* Original claim by Cripps: (Williams Winter Solicitors: makes the claim that we had committed a criminal offence which could result in a jail term for each of us.)

* Invoice from "Redleg Museum Services" as an example of our dealing with Robert Cripps of "Guildford Lane Gallery" (GLG)
All emails received by us were from "Robert Cripps" of "Redleg Museum Services")

** Cripps pulls websites on 2 March 2014


* Robert Cripps is a liar

* Robert Cripps: Misleading and Deceptive Trading

* Robert Cripps: Misleading and Deceptive Trading- ADDENDUM

* Is that your lovely penis?

* Cripps - RMIT alumni? Revision A

* Cripps - RMIT alumni Revision B

* Cripps' acts of benevolent munificence

* Redleg (Robert Cripps) a "sponsor" of the arts (on his releg website:, Robert Cripps, trading as Redeg asserts: "[in] our commitment to servicing and developing the arts in Australia, Redleg has sponsored, and continues to sponsor, a diverse range of exhibitions and events. In doing so, we aim to assist in the continued growth of the arts in Australia"). Our own experience vis-a-vis his dislcaimer does not support Cripps'/Redleg's claim.

* Cripps - a manifestation of the Left

* Cripps - a self-confessed racist

* Cripps manifesting sentiments words not apparently understood by the "ordinary" or "reasonable" reader.

* Defamation to achieve censorship extract

* Defining "racism"

* The Hideous Robert Cripps suing to prevent us holding an opinion of him different to the opinion he holds of himself

* Removed content from directory page 16/6/2014-28/12/2014

~ webiste in progress ~

REDLEG: Robert Raymond Cripps ran "Guildford Lane Gallery" (2008-2011).
Guildford Lane Gallery
was the trading name of "Redleg Museum Services P/L" 
(ACN 105 986 829).
About Robert Cripps,


Robert Cripps, pictured left, owned the failed "Guildford Lane Gallery" which was the business-name/trading-name of "Redleg Museum Services P/L", "Redleg".

Previously, Redleg was "The Redleg Group P/L", a transportation company that failed, whose assets were sold off, and was liquidated by ASIC in 2005 (pdf here). The liquidation involved "Redleg Museum Services" (without the "P/L"), one of the trading names of the de-registered company that has never been re-registered.

In July-September 2015 Cripps/Redleg was ordered to return to us money totaling (nearly) $300 thousand (AUD).

Instead Cripps/Redleg held onto the money for a year, and in April 2016 Cripps, the sole director, secretary, and shareholder of his business, packed his business assets (which included a Steinway piano), put them into hiding, and subsequent to doing so, declared himself "bankrupt" in July 2016 (Annex 10 Geneva Petition ).

ARTISTS: Demetrios Vakras ,  Lee-Anne Raymond

exhibited their art at Redleg's for-hire "gallery" in 2009.

Both artists, Demetrios Vakras and Lee-Anne Raymond were sued by "Redleg" (Cripps) in the SCV (Supreme Court of Victoria) because they wrote on their websites of the actions by Redleg/Cripps which were done with regard to their art exhibition by the gallery in June-July 2009. Redleg (Cripps) claimed that describing his actions that caused injury to the honour and reputation of both artists, instead injured his reputation because the actions of Redleg  against the artists – described by each artist on their websites – made Redleg look bad.

In the SCV Redleg (Cripps) proclaimed that Vakras (who is of Greek descent) had used Greek words written in "another script" (Greek) and that as Vakras refused to re-write the Greek material in "simple English" (notwithstanding that the Greek words were already translated), that he was left with no other option than to place multiple disclaimers throughout the exhibition space proclaiming the disagreeability of the exhibition and placing a very large "WARNING!" outside the exhibition to forewarn and dissuade prospective gallery visitors from entering to view the exhibition material that Kyrou, the SCV judge who adjudicated the defamation trial, declared was "potentially offensive".

The reasons given by Redleg (Cripps) to explain why he did what he did are in breach of Australia's Race Discrimination Act which is based on Article 1 of the ICERD, (codified in Sections 9, 13 and 18 of the RDA). Additionally, the proclamations made during the trial by Redleg's counsel, Christopher Dibb, excoriating Vakras on account of the fact that he did not share the ancestry of "most people" who "are not Greek", by law counted against Redleg (per the Evidence Act Section 87).

Kyrou found Redleg's actions were not prohibited by the "contract" (Hire Agreement); that there was no "moral" requirement to observe anything other than what was written into the "contract"; and that Vakras and Raymond had made Cripps look bad by writing about what Redleg did to them, notwithstanding that Redleg's actions are in breach of rights available to both artists which are protected by statute(s). According to Kyrou, there was nothing in law that prohibited Redelg/Cripps from discriminating against Vakras on racial grounds because Vakras had used "foreign words", and both artists had no right to expect that their reputation would not be attacked by Redleg because neither was mentioned in the "contract".

"The matter" has gone before the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal, the (Australian) Human Rights Commission, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, and finally the High Court of Australia, in which judges Keane, Edelman, and Nettle, ruled to void the Race Discrimination Act (ss 9, 13 and 18) and remove the defamation protection (per its definition under moral rights) per the  Kyrou finding.

"The matter" is now before Geneva as a human rights violation of both artists by Australia in breach of the ICCPR (ICESCR and ICERD) due to the actions against the artists by Australia's judges book-ended by David Beach of the SCV and Geoffrey Nettle of the High Court.

The actions by Cripps/his gallery, "Redleg", attacking our honour and reputation can be found at:



- re-editing of site after hiatus from July 2015 to August 2017 -

This page is being re-edited after a two year hiatus in light of our (Lee-Anne Raymond's and Demetrios Vakras') Geneva Petition against Australia (its judiciary) for its violation of our human rights.

Our petition to Geneva is posted here on RedlegVartists:

Summary of the Petition to Geneva:

- Australia, as signatory to the ICCPR, ICESCR, ICERD (and the Berne Convention), is mandated under domestic law to protect us from an attack to our reputation of the kind made against us by Cripps/Redleg which was done because we had exercised our right to express our (atheist) ideas in our surrealist art exhibition which is also protected. Further, in light of the attack on us because we had expressed our ideas, we have a right to both object to, and protect ourselves from damage done, by an attack made on our reputation without our defending ourselves being claimed to instead defame our attacker (Redleg).

- (Marylin) Warren, Ashley and Digby (judges of the SCV) – whose ruling of July/September 2015 was affirmed by the High Court of Australia (judges Keane and Edelman) on 6 April 2017 – ruled that we cannot be permitted this right to exercise. Warren, Ashley and Digby claimed that as any attack on our reputation by actions done (as were done to us by Cripps/Redleg) were actions known to have been done by the party who did them (Cripps/Redleg), that to write about them would instead defame the doer of those actions - removing from us and every other Australian artist and author a protection legislated into Australian law.

- the ICCPR, to which Australia is signatory, gives us the right to seek remedy against an officer acting in their official capacity. Chiefly, we seek remedy against Emilios Kyrou, judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria who acted illegally by introducing his own falsities without which he could not have made the adverse ruling against us (partially reversed on appeal). Judges cannot invent (fabricate) the "evidence" that they require in order to make the ruling they seek to make. Our objection extends to the Victorian Appeal Court judges and the High Court of Australia who failed their duty under law. We point to Clause 5 of the Australian Constitution which binds the Australian judiciary to abide by laws made by Parliament, and that there is no law in existence that permits the actions of Kyrou, or that grants the superior courts any discretion to dispense with Clause 5.

- further, per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Articles 26 and 27) Australia cannot shirk its responsibilities under the beforementioned covenants it is signatory to. To be clear, Australia cannot misuse Common Law to claim that it is unable to fulfill obligations it has signed up to, and cannot misuse Common Law to prosecute us for "Scandlization" because we are petitioning Geneva for the purposes of compelling Australia (the judiciary and courts) to do what they should do according to law. Our right extends to open and impartial justice.

- We emphasise, we are not merely asserting rights simply because Australia is signatory to International Covenants, but that Australia has made the rights that the courts have transgressed into domestic law, which means that under Clause 5 of the Constitution all Australian Courts and judges are bound by it.

- Our right to object to, and protect ourselves from, damage done by the kinds of acts done by Redleg/Cripps arise under Article 15 1 (c) of the ICESCR (and 6bis Berne Convention). This right has been made into domestic law under s 195 AK of "Part IX" the "Moral Rights" Amendment to the Copyright Act, and it is not lawful to any Australian court to remove from us our rights given us by Parliament:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 195AK, Derogatory treatment of artistic work                    In this Part:

"derogatory treatment " , in relation to an artistic work, means:...

                     b)  an exhibition in public of the work that is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation because of the manner or place in which the exhibition occurs; or

                     (c)  the doing of anything else in relation to the work that is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation.

The exhibition "Humanist Transhumanist" in 2009

 catalogue cover
 catalogue cover

Our works were hung in the gallery with explanatory essays from the publication "Humanist Transhumanist" ( pinned alongside the relevant paintings.

*  We had advertised our exhibition that was to be held in Redleg's gallery in print ( the Art Almanac ) and promoted it extensively on the internet (one example of our online posting on the City of Melbourne website, below), as too had Redelg (refer Artabase who still host Redleg's online posting of our exhibition).

*  Cripps declared he "could not understand the paintings" [confirmed in the court Transcripts]. He further declared ignorance of art. On the strength of his professed ignorance of art and in particular to his ignorance of the nature of surrealism, Cripps declared that our entire surrealist exhibition – critical of the religions of Judaism, Zoroastriansim, Christianity, Islam (and Hinduism) – was "racist", and for reasons that Cripps admitted he could not explain, that the exhibition was "anti-Palestinian". 

*  Cripps' opening night tirade against us was witnessed by a number of people, one of whom was Paul Carter of RMIT, (colleague of Cripps' brother, Peter, also at RMIT). The opening night tirade by Cripps was conveyed by Carter to artist Josie Waddelton. And, after she experienced the "destruction" by Cripps of her own exhibition opening, she sought out the artists (us) whose experience Carter had previously imparted to her. When contacted by our solicitor Carter denied being at the gallery. The Australian judiciary permitted for us to be sued for defamation for writing about what Cripps did to us. Clearly the law extends to every other witness: Carter too was open to being sued by Cripps for defamation because he had spoken about what he had observed.

*  Being, as he has admitted, ignorant of art, what understanding Cripps had about our work was expressed by him in his questions to Raymond. As we hung the exhibition his questions to her (in full view of Vakras) were solely concerned with who modeled for the nudes in her work and whether it was she who had modeled for Vakras' work while expressing "I love the softness of the flesh". And during the opening of the exhibition, Cripps decided that he would enquire of female viewers if it was they who modeled, to the extent of asking at least one viewer if it was her "lovely bottom" in the painting she was viewing, diminishing the message and integrity of the exhibition.

*  Several days after the opening night Redleg posted multiple disclaimers throughout our exhibition dissociating Redleg from the ideas expressed in our art. This action proclaimed our art to be so thoroughly objectionable that it could only be exhibited to the public with the gallery expressing its unambiguous and categorical objection to our art and our ideas and posting a large "WARNING!" outside ( VCAT claim by us against Cripps ).

*  With his faux "racism" charge made against us as his pretext, Redleg essentially barred us entry to an exhibition we had already paid for in advance. For the period in which our work was presented to the public in Redleg's gallery, it was at the mercy of Cripps' vile interpretations of it, which he said had made necessary the disclaimers and "WARNING!". Visitors drawn to the exhibition because of its extensive on-line promotion, arrived to see our art, our ideas, and our-selves (the Authors/artists), denigrated. We were presented by Redleg to the public as artists who should be shunned and rejected, as authors of objectionable art, per Redleg's vile interpretation of it.

*  More can be read about Redleg's actions:

        Lee-Anne Raymond account

        Demetrios Vakras account

*  According to Common Law we both had an interest to protect: our art (and the personhood expressed by it). Most recently this principle was affirmed by the High Court in "Papaconstuntinos v Holmes a Court [2012] HCA 53 (5 December 2012)" and is based on an 1834 decision in "Toogood v Spyring" (Britain). Though this meant that the matter should never have progressed to court, David Francis Rashleigh Beach permitted it to do so (Refer Leave to Appeal to HCA).

*  Not only did Beach of the SCV permit for the matter to be heard as a "defamation", when it instead should have been thrown out, but he also permitted for material that was not about Cripps to constitute a defamation of Cripps/Redleg as well:
        - Historic information regarding Palestine, which had nothing to do with our exhibition (despite Cripps' claims) and which is information not about Cripps or Redelg;
      - information that is available from sources such as the Bundesarchiv, (which the Bundesarchiv has posted into the Wikimedia Commons);
was permitted by Beach to give rise to a "Hitler imputation".

David Beach permitted for a defamation lawsuit against us to arise over material readily found on the Wikipedia, that is already published, information for which there is no prohibition to access, and not about Cripps/Redleg, to count as a defamation of Cripps/Redelg by us.

*  "The matter" finally went before Kyrou of the SCV in March 2014, who, in order to make the finding he wanted to make (much of which was overturned on appeal later), required that he disregard s 88 of the Evidence Act and illegally introduce his own falsities that were without any evidentiary basis.

*  During the trial (refer graphic below which includes quotes from the trial transcripts) Cripps was adamant to the totality of his ignorance of art. Notwithstanding the repeated insistence by Cripps to his total ignorance, Kyrou falsified what had been testified to. Kyrou fabricated (and the appeal judges Warren Ashley Digby had no problem with Kyrou's fabrication), that Raymond had not shown, "even on the balance of probabilities" that Cripps was ignorant of art. What Cripps testified can be read in the graphic below:


The "WARNING!" posted by Redleg had been conceded by Cripps since early 2012:

"The Respondents [Cripps/Redleg] admit that there was a sign at the bottom of the stairs in the Guildford Lane Gallery, leading up to level one, which said WARNING"

The existence of the "WARNING!" was never disputed during the trial. Nevertheless, facts did not prevent Kyrou from disregarding s 88 of the Evidence Act to fabricate a claim in place of the evidence given by Cripps. With no evidentiary foundation, Kyrou's fabrication was that the existence of the "WARNING!" was denied by Cripps in the trial and that our attesting to its existence was "evidence" of our willingness to lie. Kyrou required malice in order to find a defamation had been done, and he concocted malice by claiming we deliberately lied about something that had already been admitted to.

*  With regard to Cripps having operated a transport company, the "Redleg Group P/L" which had failed, had its assets sold, and was deregistered by ASIC in 2005, Kyrou made the following finding:
        - Kyrou accepted that the "Redleg Group P/L" was not involved in the suit against us;
        - Kyrou even explained that for a business to be defamed that it must have a "standing reputation" - which "Redleg Group P/L" could not, as it had been deregistered in 2005 by ASIC.
Though the "Redelg Group P/L" did not exist to suffer damage and was not party to the suit, Kyrou said another party which did not suffer damage would be paid damages in its place. This, though entirely illegal, did not concern the appeal judges including judges Keane and Edelman of the High Court.

* Both the Trade Practices Act and the Victorian Fair Trade Act (which were the relevant statutes at the time of the gallery hire) define that the services we had paid for must be "fit for purpose".
       - the TPA at s 74 (2) provides "there is an implied warranty that the services supplied under the contract for the supply of the services and any materials supplied in connection with those services will be reasonably fit for that purpose or are of such a nature and quality that they might reasonably be expected";
       - The Fair Trade Act at s 32J, provides "Implied conditions in supply of services", and at 32J (b) "an implied condition [is] that the services are fit for the purposes for which services of that kind are commonly purchased".

* The role and function of the service we had paid for (an art gallery) is described by the Art Galleries Association of Australia in its "Code of Practice" document (which we had submitted to the court in our discoveries):
        - a gallery enables artists to develop their professional reputation;
       - galleries have an obligation to "represent the work as fully as possible and to best advantage and not to undermine the value of the work" (point 9.1);
        - galleries cannot require artists "to consent to something that would infringe moral rights" (point 16.1);
        - galleries must not "do anything that would compromise the integrity of the work" (point 16.2).
Kyrou found, and Warren, Ashley, Digby, and later, Keane, Edelman, and Nettle, all agreed, that our expectation that Redleg's gallery would provide services consistent with an art gallery was an unreasonable expectation held by us as it was not in the contract. Redleg was exempted from compliance with law.

*  In addition, Kyrou found there was nothing to prohibit actions taken against Vakras by Redleg on racially discriminatory grounds (because of Vakras' use of Greek words written in Greek script in the exhibition) – despite this being in breach of sections 9 and 13 of the Race Discrimination Act. Kyrou concluded that race discrimination was permissible because there was no prohibition to it in the contract and there was no "moral obligation" to do anything more than was written in the contract.

* A complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission on 10 June 2014 – prior to Kyrou handing down his judgment.

* Though in the SCV Cripps had testified that he placed his disclaimers and "WARNING!" because Vakras had used Greek words "in another script", Cripps' submission to the Human Rights Commission was to deny ever having done so:

 "…the alleged discriminatory actions by our client against him (which our client vehement denies) were due to his racial or cultural origins. … through his use of the Greek language in his artwork; and that this led to our client placing disclaimers in the exhibition. For the avoidance of any doubt, we state in unequivocal terms that nowhere during the trial of the Proceeding have this issue of "Greek nationalism" nor did any issue about the use of the Greek language in Mr Vakras' artwork arise. Our client is dumbfounded as to how such an allegation could now arise." (points 3, 4, 5 of document submitted as Annexure 35 of Geneva Petition).

* A rebuttal to Cripps' false declaration was sent to the Human Rights Commission.

* "The matter" then proceeded into the Federal courts in whose jurisdiction lies the race discrimination complaint and the reputational protection under moral rights. Notwithstanding that Redleg denied doing the action complained of, to the Human Rights Commission, the submission by Redleg to the Federal courts was to admit to having done it:

"During the course of the exhibition, the Applicant's [Vakras’] artworks were accompanied by written materials which were in convoluted English language, and also in Greek. I was concerned that the written materials could be  interpreted as being anti-Palestinian and racist." [noting that Cripps had denied that he considered the art "racist" in the SCV]

[And, per the SCV submission, that a “simple English explanation” should accompany the Greek],
"I [Redleg] requested the Applicant to put the explanation of the artwork in simple English [and] As a result of the Applicant's reluctance to explain his artwork in simple English after being requested to do so, I had no choice but to put up disclaimers adjacent to the artworks" (document submitted as Annexure 13 of Geneva Petition)

*  Nevertheless, the Federal courts ultimately dismissed the matters that came before them. This was despite the fact that the claims made against Redleg were admitted to having been done – Cripps had no prospect of success defending his actions. The "reasoning" proffered by the courts for their conclusion was their claim that Kyrou, despite it being outside his jurisdiction, had already "settled" the matter in finding that nothing existed in the contract to prohibit race discrimination and that neither did there exist a prohibition to Redleg presenting us and our art in a way prejudicial to honour and reputation.

A more complete (and technical) account can be read both in the Mandamus against the Federal courts and in the Petition to Geneva.

* Ultimately, Nettle of Australia's High Court affirmed in July 2017,
      - that the Race Discrimination Act is no longer in force in Australia and a distinction can be made of anyone on a racial basis; and
      - that a judge's jurisdiction is now expanded to include within its ambit anything that is done by a judge irrespective of whether it is or is not permissible by law (legal or illegal).
Artists have no enforceable protection of their reputation previously found in the moral rights amendment to the copyright act – notwithstanding the introduction of this protection by the Australian government – and any artist who seeks to protect their reputation from attack will be penalised for doing so and defamed by the judiciary itself as we were defamed by Kyrou and the SCV's press-releases. We are left with no other avenue other than to pursue our human rights in the United Nations.

Complaint against Australia – bias

In the exhibition Humanist Transhumanist Christianity – the Bible – is shown to have a direct association with the views held by Adolf Hitler that led to genocide 

Kyrou presided over a trial of our surrealist (and therefore atheist) art exhibition. Our exhibition directly and unapologetically showed how passages from Deuteronomy (and other Biblical passages) relate to Mein Kampf and Hitler. [more:] [ more: Petition to Geneva  ]. We declare that we have the right to be atheists and surrealists and express our ideas regardless of frontiers.

It is in the essay accompanying Pythia between χαός and χασμός, in which the "offending" Greek words written in Greek script (that Redleg objected to) appear. Kyrou found the use of "foreign words" (Greek) expressed "potentially offensive statements" and that this gave Redleg the right to attack the integrity of our exhibition, and attack our ideas and our person, with the posting of disclaimers and a "WARNING!".

The entire publication Humanist Transhumanist (being the exhibition content) appears as Annexure 11 in the Geneva Petition. The portion reproduced in the graphic below (pp. 30-32 of the publication) can be found here.

Pp. 30-31, Humanist Transhumanist showing painting Pythia between χαός and χασμός. The racial purity pursued by Adolf Hitler is called for in Deuteronomy. Christianity, specifically the New Testament, gave rise to Hitler's racism leading to genicide.

Kyrou's adverse finding against us – which Warren, Ashley and Digby with regard to the Hitler element overturned – proclaimed "the mere mention of Hitler's name" is defamatory in any association. As our exhibition already included Hitler as the subject, we had already committed a "pre-defamation". And, the association made with Hitler in our exhibition was with Christianity.

On the grounds that follow, Kyrou should never have presided over the matter. Per our  Petition to Geneva , he is a tireless proselytizer for the Christian religion whose principles our exhibition incontrovertibly showed culminated in Hitler.

Below, a photograph of Kyrou posted by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese shown delivering a sermon on his belief of the religious basis of "the Law" from the pulpit at Saint Eustathios Church. Kyrou attributes to the Bible the principles of law that underpin his role and duty as judge – while our exhibition showed that those very same Biblical edicts on "the Law" were the basis for the intolerance of Hitler that ended in genocide.

The Biblical passages which in Humanist Transhumanist are shown to be the foundation of Mein Kampf, are extolled by the church as giving rise to the principles that govern law, and that the rejection of Christ is a rejection of law. The Church publishes its views on "the Law" in "Vema" (The Stride, Το Βήμα), which can be found here:
- Το Βήμα example 1
- Το Βήμα example 2     
       - Το Βήμα example 3 ***

Kyrou advocates the literal Biblical propositions promulgated by the church. This can be seen in what Kyrou has written in the Greek Orthodox Fundamentalist website "Mode Of Life" which proclaims its antipathy to "apostasy", and presents itself as an "alternative to atheism" (Annexure 26 of Geneva Petition). In Mode of Life Kyrou proclaims that the "doxology" given to the court "seek[s] guidance of the Holy Spirit and blessings of strength, wisdom, truth and justice for the legal system" (Annexure 25 of Geneva Petition).

QUID PRO QUO: Kyrou champions Greek Orthodox religion and the Archdiocese. In turn the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese have championed their championwith official Greek government support – on their website and featured him in their Greek-language edition of "Vema".

During the trial it proved impossible for Kyrou to conceal his disdain for us, and impossible for us not to have noticed.

This resulted in a complaint made against Kyrou by us (document submitted as Annexure 24 of Geneva Petition).

This complaint was not responded to by the Supreme Court – instead the court removed its complaints procedures page and the associated pdf from its website within 10 days. A subsequent complaint against the court was made by us to the Victorian Attorney General.

All subsequent court hearings have been poisoned by the bias of Αιμίλιος Κύρου. His findings were in contradiction to evidentiary material, in disregard of law, in contempt of law and scandalous. Nevertheless, Kyrou's findings have, in the form of the High Court's affirmations (by Keane, Edelman and Nettle), overturned Australian statutes based on international covenants that had been enacted to protect human rights, and this has gone unremarked by Australia's Human Rights Commission – hence our petition to Geneva.

A separate complaint has been made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, regarding its failures that have ended with the legitimisation per Nettle's decision of July 2017 of race discrimination in Australia which is breach of the ICERD. That complaint to the Human Rights Commission can be found here.

Judicial corruption is entrenched in Australia and is permitted by its highest court, the High Court of Australia. Though Australia is a signatory to, and has obligations under Article 11 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, it has yet to enact any law that would curb judicial corruption.

Kyrou's decision - the international reaction (so far).

Israeli author Dov Ivry, writes on Kyrou's decision with a specific focus on its condoning of antisemitism. One chapter of Injustice Hits Rock Bottom Down Under fleshes out "the mufti" and his "association" with Hitler in great detail.

Contact : Lee-Anne Raymond, or Demetrios Vakras

Artist sites : ,

Summary of exhibition / publication launch

court transcript cover for scribd

Emilios Kyrou disregarded the evidence to rule against us.

This is the transcript given to us by the court, the very evidence disregarded.

Cripps admitted to having no knowledge of art, to having no understanding of art, to having no knowledge of art history, to having a limited education ("form 3", 3rd year high school), and that he only ran the gallery as a business without knowing about art. However, the judge Emilios Kyrou ruled that Cripps understood art.

Cripps claimed that he had placed disclaimers throughout our exhibition because 1) the essays were too complex and he didn't know what they meant, 2) that there were labels with Greek writing, necessitating disclaimers (despite no label to be seen in any photograph), 3) that it was necessary because though he did not understand what was written, it might be "anti-Palestinian", 4) that disclaimers of liability and dis-endorsement of exhibitions are standard to all exhibitions, 5) and then contradicting himself to admit ours is the only exhibition in which disclaimers were posted. However, despite Cripps' own contradictions, the judge found that disclaimers dis-endorsing exhibitions are standard in galleries hosting exhibitions.

A book has been written on the case by Israeli author Dov Ivry. It references both the "finding" made by Kyrou (which condones antisemitism and is available on Austlii) and the transcript from the trial (which is uploaded to Scribd).

Injustice Hits Rock Bottom Down Under is available from Amazon.

Petition to fix Australian law

This site (Redleg V Artists) is hosted on a USA server.
The USA has legislated against Libel laws of countries such as Australia. Australian and UK libel law is defined as Libel Terrorism by the USA.

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

Support our petition here: