The sentencing of Dermot Mulqueen to seven months imprisonment for staging performance art is a travesty and disgrace to anyone who believes in the concept of justice or the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. If it is acceptable to imprison someone for expressing their views on a historical event then Ireland is no longer a country which respects freedom of speech or freedom of expression. The imprisoning of this man is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights - both of which Ireland is a party to.

If this judgement is allowed to stand, Ireland can no longer be considered a free country, nor can we lecture any other nation about the importance of freedom of expression when we refuse to follow these principles in our own country. Furthermore, Mr. Mulqueen's actions do not violate the acts which he was convicted of violating. Mr. Mulqueen was staging performance art at the Daniel O'Connell monument in Ennis, Co. Clare. As part of the performance, he swung an axe into his own television as a symbolic act reflecting the title "Liberation of the Mind".

Section 9 of the Firearms Act states:

"9.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), where a person has with him in any public place any knife or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed, he shall be guilty of an offence.

 (2) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

 (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had the article with him for use at work or for a recreational purpose."

Clearly since he was using the axe as part of his performance art, he had it with him for a "recreational purpose". He was not threatening anyone, or planning to threaten or attack anyone else or their property, which is the whole purpose of the act.

Section 6 of the Public Order Act states:

"6.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned."

There is no evidence that Mr. Mulqueen was intending to provoke a breach of the peace. With regard to "being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned" - if we're going to include performance art as violating this then where does it end? If a clown throws a pie in the face of another clown should that be considered a "breach of the peace"? Should performers raising their voices to draw attention from passersby be considered a "breach of the peace"? Should people shouting anti-government slogans at a protest be considered to "use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"?

During sentencing, Judge Patrick Durcan stated: “Mr. Mulqueen was reckless and offensive in the extreme. He was gratuitously insulting not merely to a section of society who we know were most directly affected by the Holocaust but he was gratuitously insulting to most reasonably minded men and women who maintain civic society.”

But being insulting is not a crime. The law under which Mr. Mulqueen was convicted clearly states: "It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace" - there is no evidence that Mr. Mulqueen intended to provoke a breach of the peace. In fact, being able to express views which some people may find offensive or insulting is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Any time you express an opinion on an issue you are potentially insulting or offending someone else.

If a man expresses support for homosexual marriage he is calling for something which many people, including Christians, would find offensive and insulting. Should we imprison people for expressing these views? If I expressed the view that the Great Irish Famine was not an intentional act of genocide but merely an unfortunate natural disaster which Britain held no responsibility for - many Irish people would find that offensive and insulting. Should I be imprisoned for expressing such a view? Would I be? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for denying the Irish Famine? Why are we more concerned with the suffering of a foreign group during a war which had nothing to do with us than we are with the suffering of our own people?

In conclusion, we call on you to overturn this miscarriage of justice and show the world that Ireland is a democratic country which respects the fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the rule of law. Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Mulqueen's views or not, any person who believes in freedom of expression must support his right to express his views to the public. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall describing Voltaire's attitude to freedom of speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We call on you to do the right thing and free this prisoner of conscience, who is in prison for nothing more than expressing a view to the public which he genuinely believes to be true. If he is wrong, then his critics should show why he is wrong rather than locking him away in prison. That is the solution of totalitarian regimes, not democratic societies. We hope your conscience will urge you to do the right thing. Thank You.