Mangled Thoughts

The starting point is the controversy over the Bill Henson exhibition. Are the few pictures of a young girl art or paederastic pornography? Without seeing the photographs, it is difficult to decide but if the latter it is disgusting. The matter to zoom in on is what the scandal discloses; it’s a symptom of something else. It is not merely a controversy, and Henson does face the possibility of being charged.

Bracks and Brumby have effected a neo-Marxist coup-de-tat in Victoria, a matter I had intended to sum up this week but will do it next week. With it, under ‘anti-discrimination law’, the Blasphemy Act and such like what has happened is the judgement and discrimination exercised by many has been overthrown and instead all must obey the ‘morals’ of a narrow ‘elite’ who despise the liberty of mere dumb oafs.

Secondly, Government has undermined conventions and mores. Recently I had some chats with parents who, thanks to Federal and Victorian governments, watch their teenage offspring ruin their lives. The Federal ‘living away from home allowance’, for example, has made it possible for school children to leave home. The parents have no say, and what is more under the Bracks anti-Bill of rights it’s basically a horrific crime for parents to discipline their children.

Free markets don’t undermine families. Free markets yields the basis for families to thrive. Government has been the means for ideological parasites to deliberately undermine families. The upshot is the likes of Rudd, whose fascist, oxymoronic slogan ‘working families’ has nothing to do with families at all.

The second leg is demagoguery. Common law is rooted in absolute property rights and economic freedom. Take narcotics. Under common law, it’s not a question of legalese. If someone tries to corrupt your children, and hook your children on narcotics and thus destroy your children, you have every right to defend your children. If you are physically capable of it, you can pulverise the scumbags. If not, you can get a burly policeman to nab the scumbags, haul them into court and be assured the Judge would hand down a satisfyingly punitive sentence. Statist politicians have eliminated the right to defend yours, made it a criminal offence in fact. Crimes are crimes only if politicians say so, and the reverse is politicians declaring daily what is lawful to be crimes.

Socialism destroys morals, a real crime both major parties commit. As we see in the case of the Greens’ lie and “Kyoto compliance”, they proceed by whipping up passions using lies, and also use real concerns to justify each new decree. This is what Rudd and others are doing over petrol supply and its price control scheme euphemistically called “Fuel Watch”. Rudd is whipping up passions by slandering oil producers - “big oil”. Rudd is a demagogue.

As the Blasphemy Act and anti-discrimination Acts show, some are free to exercise discrimination and say what they wish to say. The trouble is, every other Victorian must obey the selective morality of a parasitic ‘elite’. But, in spitting on modest, decent Australians and their morals, they set something else in train, the backlash.

Unfettered, non-selective immigration for example, has generated real and nasty problems. The admission of a large number of Muslims, leading to the now ever present danger a terrorist cell will kill Australians through a bombing. Then, the gangs bashing and raping and stabbing modest Australians daily, in Victoria. Today it was reported that in Adelaide a backlash is growing, with increasing assaults on immigrants. The violence is to be condemned, but its a nasty symptom of something Sir Enoch Powell said, which was distorted by his opponents, his “Rivers of Blood Speech”.

Within the Church, the stupidity of clerics and contempt for the laity has fuelled reactions and false controversies. There are those, for example, who have been slandered and vilified for very fine work indeed. Tolerance is overthrown, intellectual liberty with it. Neither are mushy sentimental indulgences. They are in fact rooted in absolute property rights, economic liberty and advanced through common law. The break down of tolerance is due to, the major parties having overthrown absolute private rights and are extinguishing economic freedom. The distinction between meum and tuum is crucial.

In Victoria aka “Brackistan”, things are far worse. Ah, it must not be forgotten, common law and the Judges are a bar to tyranny, which is also why the former has been overthrown and the judiciary stuffed with the ideologically correct. The ‘elite’ are tolerant of only themselves and their rotten ideology; they despise all else . Art is not exempt from the upshot of the Victorian triumvirate of politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary.

Government and local councils throw taxpayers property at artists. There was a display of ‘art’ in a Melbourne lane, glorifying Islamic terrorists. Footscray Council is now showing an exhibition that is nothing but a propaganda exercise justifying the Islamo-fascist terrorist rat-hole called the “Palestinian territory”. This is besides much that is trash, though not controversial. Modest Australians are supposed to abide this abuse and have no choice but abide it. To refuse to pay taxes is now treated as a crime worse than murder. Those who strip modest Australians and entrepreneurs of their private property squander it on things that give them pleasure and not anyone else.

Modest, decent Australians might see in art only more abuse and thus, understandably go on the warpath. The self-appointed ‘elites’, Left and Right, indulge at taxpayers’ expense brutalist rubbish palmed off as art. These parasites, who spit on ordinary Australians daily and then froth at the mouth when serfs fight back, have brought on a reaction, the furore over the Henson exhibition. The question is; is the reaction warranted?

There is no point in art lovers and artists crying crocodile tears when they are the subject of hostile demands, including they be censored. If we did not have thugs for politicians stripping many of their rights, and imposing their values and tastes while making it a criminal offence for all others to exercise their rights, including judgment, they might not be in the invidious position they are in now:

1. The public baying for their blood
2. Leftist politicians promising to impose censorship control over art, and, amusingly, deciding what will be allowed to be purveyed as art.

A grim irony is, it won’t stop the politicians funding ‘exhibitions’ glorifying Islamo terrorists, and depicting Jews and Israel as Nazis and Nazi Germany. Censorship will be applied according to the selective morality and discrimination of the dictators who have, say, run riot over Victorians.

Consider this:

Premier of Brackistan John Brumby came out in support of Rudds damnation of the exhibition

“Politicians must decide and legislate what is moral behaviour…”

They are the words of dictators, and not civilised men. Who else said the same? Robert Doyle, the 2nd former Victorian State Liberal Party Opposition leader before Red Ted. That makes sense. After all, it was Doyle and every (not at all) Liberal MP who fully backed Bracks’ Blasphemy Law.

The irony is, Bill Henderson prepared his photographs in Victoria. Bracks, Brumby and Hulls have rammed down a mountain of ‘law’ to make Victorians ‘moral’. How is it then, according to all who have attacked the exhibition, a pornographic flash show for paederasts was prepared in Victoria. Oh, I know, it’s ‘art’.

In Victoria, Bracks and Hulls rammed down Acts which state, it is a criminal offence for adults to be engaged in sports clubs, tourist guiding, and many other activities, without extensive police checks, in case children are present and many a decent Victorian suddenly turns rock-spider. It is a criminal offence in Victoria to employ youngsters under a certain age and for the same reason. These extensive police state morality laws have seen youngsters sacked from their part time jobs, and Victorians presumed child molesters. Yet, despite all this, there is an artist photographing a prepubescent girl in the buff.

What is also crucial about Brumby’s statement is, it prepares the way for police state censorship. Is Rudd preparing his own censorship ‘laws’ to control art. Rudd can exploit the scandal as an excuse knowing modest Australians have understandably had enough of violent rodents committing violence against children:

Govt weighs into nude teen art debate

It’s hilarious, the number of artists and Oz Hollywood hams who vilified Howard and plump for the ALP. Some, like Kate Blanchette, also support Stalinist Greens policies. Blanchett can reprise her role as Queen Elizabeth and screech at Rudd (oh dear, dear, dear, they were such good friends) but Rudd is only hitting her with the chook that came back to roost.

Then there is The Spencer Street Soviet Age, who hurled abuse at Howard, equating him with Hitter, when the real totalitarian thugs are the Victorian ALP administration and now the Federal Rudd administration. They didn’t give a stuff about Bracks and Hulls and Brumby stripping Victorians of their inalienable Rights, but are now howling because one of their pet causes is given the same treatment.

In reality, it’s not so much Henderson, it’s the looming blanket censorship ‘laws’ that are now the threat and the politicians have found the excuse to ram them down. It must no be forgotten the Rightwing MPs during the Howard years who were trying to raise censorship control of the Internet. The reason is obvious, the Internet hurts them.

The Henson exhibition: Art or paedarastic pornography?

Without seeing it, it is difficult to decide. To this, I did look at the few photographs published in The Age. Child abuse, rape and pornography rings and convicted crims plus, the fact the Victorian Government protects the identity of convicted scumbags, particularly when they release them, has generated understandable outrage. Given many animals are hardened offenders, are understandably Victorians are furious. Therefore, anything suggestive of this vile, criminal conduct does upset Victorians. The well was poisoned long before the exhibition.

Many who have inveighed against the photos have not seen them.

Some years ago, I was impressed by a photo image of Christ on the Cross. It distils there is nothing nice about the crucifixion. In the man tortured and executed on the Cross, there is despair “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me”(Matt. 27:46). A famous Russian icon, but of the ‘temptation in the wilderness’, similarly depicts the face of Jesus; cracked eyes stare out through darkness.

For a photo, I don’t dispute the aesthetic merits of the image of the Son abandoned itself. Two details, however, caused a storm; a blunt title “pissed Christ”, and that later it was disclosed Andres Serrano produced the effect by urinating over the crucifix. Here’s a link to the picture. The crude title irritated, but it was regrettable how he produced it was disclosed; my appreciation of it was punctured. Serrano did go public in defence of his picture, saying he is a devout Catholic. He explained the image was spurred by his yyears of meditating upon the passion of Christ. It might be said, he showed no theological depth, but he is in good company with, say, Australian clergy.

What of obscene material purveyed as art? Are censorship laws required? I might be mistaken, but it seems reasonable to assume, a stiff common law judge would find against obscenities shown in public, and against material which is criminal. Pornographic photos of children, would see the photographer and anyone assisting the photographer convicted on crimes concluded out of sound principles in common law.

If Henson has committed child pornography, the pity is it is not common law principles that will prevail. On the other hand, if has not committed the crimes on which child pornography devolves, he can be on the receiving end of a gross miscarriage of justice, but we now know why, if he is falsley prosecuted.

Artists, journalists, others might rage in Henson’s defenece, but none of them gave a stuff about the very things which have lead to this backlash. Indeed, is it not so, if he has committed crimes, that he will still be on the receiving end of a miscarriage because the case would not run on sound principles but the incipiently totalitarian measures politicians and bureaucrats have substituted for law. Mr. Henson might ponder his Leftist and Rigthwing pals and patrons. They are respoibsle for the mess and, typically, politicians have seized on the backlash as an excuse to not only get him, but to prepare for Stasi control over art.

Now, I’m not altogther sure, but it’s decent to tend towards, Henson isn’t a perverse crim catering for rockspiders by producing porn pictures of naked children. Not having seen the exhibition, my reasons rest on the little generally available published evidence. First, I would mention an exquisite triptych:

It’s theme is the fall of angels from heaven - before, during and post fall. They tumble out of heaven. the figures are rotated in each cancass. It’s mainly back, behind and head, and sides shown. No frontal nudity. The model was clearly a boy. There is nothing indecent about the figures, and the scenes and theme is makes this plaint. The artist is accomplished indeed with, for example, stunning landscapes in his ouvre. Other fine paitings by other masters include children in the buff, and they are not purient either. (Though, I suppose, the purient and perverted would take a twisted view of them.) The question is, would those brilliant artists face charges today if they painted such canvasses today? It seems highly possible they would be charged and convicted:

Stella Stuthridge [criminal lawyer], who has defended people accused of child pornography, said she was unaware of any defence on the basis of artistic merit in Victoria, nor any way in which a child or parent could consent to being part of making pornography.
It was a crime in Victoria to make any depiction of a minor “in an indecent sexual manner or context”, Ms Stuthridge said.
“If you were under 16, it would be unusual if parent or child was able to consent to child pornography, for obvious reasons … in my experience, Victorian child porn laws have been very strict.

ARCHITECT Zahava Elenberg was 12 when she posed for controversial artist Bill Henson. Now, more than 20 years later, she has “absolutely no regrets”.
Ms Elenberg, now a 34-year-old mother, and another woman who once posed for Henson’s dark and evocative photographs, yesterday came forward to offer a spirited defence of the artist, whose works were seized in Sydney last week.
“Bill asked my mother at an exhibition opening if I would like to pose for him and we talked about it and decided to do it,” Ms Elenberg, who did not pose nude, said.

Model’s mother defends Henson

THE mother of the 13-year-old girl at the centre of the Bill Henson controversy has broken the family’s week-long silence to mount a strong defence of the artist’s portrayal of her daughter.

The parents of the teenager, whose nude image adorned the Sydney exhibition invitation that sparked the original complaint to police, have known the artist for more than a decade.

The girl lives with both her parents in the family home in Melbourne.
In a statement to The Age yesterday, the mother said: “There is a police investigation under way and we cannot say anything other than (that) we are very strong supporters of Bill Henson and his work.”
The mother initially declined to comment when approached by The Age, but later issued a statement through an intermediary. The girl is said to be a self-aware teenager with a keen interest in the arts.

However, The Age has learnt the girl, who is still 13, posed for Henson over the past year. The parents met Henson, who also lives in Melbourne, through family and friends and were well acquainted with the nature of his work before their daughter posed nude, sources said.
The family have been anxious to protect their privacy. Their legal interests are being represented by the high-profile Sydney media lawyer Mark O’Brie

There are of course some parents who are criminally vicious, but this does not fit the parents of the girls mentioned in the above articles. As for the photos, some explanations are no good at all, assuming Henson is innocent of what he is accused of, such as Dr Banfield’s obnoxious remarks -

“I appreciate that society’s values and knowledge of such things as child pornography and pedophilia have changed in recent years,” she said.

“This is just pandering to a hysterical minority and using the same tactics that applied to the terrorism debate, breeding a culture of fear.”

(Child abuse was ok in the past?!) It is just this sort of contempt that also motivates what is set out above and issues into backlashes; and, as numbers of Victorians on talk-back radio have made plain, makes a nonsense of what should be a solid point (if true) by Banfield;

But these works in no way endorse or hint at (pornography).

“If you were to investigate Henson’s relationship with these photographs and his life’s work that would be plainly apparent.

“Most of the commentary on this issue has been from people that have not seen the images and are being asked to react to a half-baked version of his work on the internet.”

Though does not “endorse” or “hint” are lame. If Henson is not engaged in it, he needs someone who is not so contemptuous of mere dumb oafs, and can state things with greater clarity and forthrightness. These are the sort of friends who can kill a guy in court. Such assertions as this are no good at all either:

The controversial career of Bill Henson
Occasionally it voiced some discomfort, but mostly there was admiration for an artist whose moody use of light and dark subject matter was in the spirit of bad-boy painter Caravaggio and hard-drinking poet Baudelaire

Whether photography can be art is debated, devolving on the contrast between the technique of say a master painter versus clicking a camera shutter. However, to compare photographic art with great masters in painting and sculpture, including any emerging today, is ridiculously exaggerated. Also, it was Turner who observed, painting is not realism and what the painter does is not, say paint a cow as a cow is. Socialist realism in art drives his point home rather well, it’s ugly stuff. This isn’t helpful to Henson either -

Suffer the little children
IF WE lived in a world where we let children be children, there wouldn’t be this controversy over Bill Henson’s work, it would be taken for what it is: a technically brilliant exploration of the fear and metamorphosis involved in transitioning from a child to an adult…

Pretentious bilge is only that, and thus doesn’t explain why the photo’s are chilling, dark and unpleasant. That they are front to camera, one from waist up, another clealry full length itensifies the obvious. They are not as art illuminating pictures at all. This gives weight to the perversity accusations. One is trying to give Henson the benefit, the furore doesn’t help and neither do his pics. It is odd Henson has concentrated on photographing teenagers.

Nudes by great painters, including Australians, are adult women. Go back to the masters, their matter is adults and the world of adults. Children and teenagers in their early teens figure only when in their proper place. Looking at Henson’s pictures, his defenders are blind as to why they can be seen as disgusting, and photos are not paintings in which the painter does transform subjects (allowing some painters can be perverse, as Brett Whitely’s, in his self destruction, shows - stamped also with myopic conceit and nastiness).

The photos in the paper are too ambiguous to decide off-hand either way. In common law, Henson might not be prosecuted. Where his defenders are wrong, fatally wrong, is, even so, that does not mean he could escape the censure of public disgust.

The self-styled elites, Right and left, treat Australians with contempt, strip them of their rights and property and then add insults to injuries, while indulging themselves to the hilt. The trouble with these types is, they are not highbrow. They are low, as what they dish out as ‘public art’ also frequently shows. They scream when those they spit on, fed up with the abuse give that lot a taste of their own poison , enforcement of stasiland law.

Being hotly opposed to satisland laws, including censroship, yet one can enjoy the irony in: They set up the regime under which one of their pets can be tried and flung in jail. Under some of the “laws” rammed down by Bracks and Brumby, that might well be the case. They have the hide to scream now, when they happily applauded every totalitarian measure the sort of rotten politicians who stuff Spring Street could ram down on the mere lumpenmasse. This is the moral compass of the treacherous Left and the Right in Australia. It is very odd, to repeat, though Bracks with the support of the Right rammed down ‘laws’, Henson could continuing shooting his photos in Victoria and only now they go for him?

As I say, the scandal is only a symptom of what the real problem is.