Why is art a matter of national security?
When the Government cancelled Little Mick’s tattoo license, they refused to give any reasons – other than saying that a “security determination” had been made.
They said that he is not entitled to know why that determination was made as it is a matter of “security”.
We assume this is because he belongs to a club that the government do not like….but how can that be relevant to his ability to express his art or to earn a livelihood?
When did art become a matter of national security?
Should governments be allowed to make decisions to stop artists, without giving any reason for that decision?
Has Australia really descended to the point that governments can shut down artists, without providing any reason?
If a government wants to take away someone’s ability to earn an honest living, or to earn money through running a business, then we think they should have a good reason to do so.
So do all of the employees of Mick Kosenko’s studio, Koolsville Studios, his family that he provides for, and the 1000’s of clients who have gone to him over the last 3 decades.
The government relies upon the legislation passed under the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013 (VLAD) suite of laws which have been criticised by the High Court of Australia (Kuczborski) and the recent Wilson Report.
Apparently, controversial and probably invalid legislation has been used to deprive a tattoo artist his ability to work and to employ other talented tattoo artists in a hygienic environment that is properly regulated and controlled.
Irish Bentley Lawyers are supporting the bikies to challenge laws in the high court here in Queensland.
If you respect the freedom of expression and freedom of art, then please sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/queensland-government-free-little-mick-let-his-art-continue?recruiter=87370627&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive