Justification: Why free speech is preferable to suppressed speech.

"Say Miss Again!! I Dare You!!"

Greenland is covered by an ice sheet. It is not possible to see the underlying land. Its shape, its undulations, its percentage of rocky scraifs to soil covered valleys. In time through natural causes the ice will melt and the truth will be revealed and the ground will flourish with grasses and a variety of colourful flowers. The same natural correction will happen to suppressed people but that natural process is much more volcanic in its correction. It always has been and it always will be.

If you look back in history pretty much anywhere a ruler has attempted to create an environment of a society to their liking and have used oppression / suppression to avoid or attempt to neutralise dissatisfaction or alternative ideas from gaining momentum. The suppressing tactics have varied from killing to house arrest to rallying gangs to accuse and shout down the voice of dissent or difference to the ruling order. The accusations during papal rule were “Heresy, Blasphemy and witchcraft” But no matter how long the ruling continued the voices, although perhaps silent were like Greenland’s true land, hidden securely under the oppressing ice sheet. That ice sheet over people acting in the same way, to merely delay the inevitable evolution of the ground, forward towards a truer destiny of development free from the restraining artificial forces, for the betterment of all but unfortunately with an unnecessarily violent or other revolutionary disturbance.

In 2004 a play being staged at the Birmingham rep, set in a Sikh temple depicting abuse, rape and murder hidden under the abuse of the position of power written by a female Sikh writer was cancelled on the orders of the police after clashes outside the theatre on opening night. The theatre admitted it could not guarantee the safety of the audience. The police judgement was that the play should not go ahead because of their overriding responsibility to ‘keep the peace.’

You either have freedom of speech, expression including writings, art depiction and theatre or you Do not.

You should not say we live in a free country with speech and other expression and then allow it to be withdrawn and silently forgotten. Britain is either free or it is in the hands of those who command oppression. [In this case the oppression was supported by the British police.]

In order to have freedom it needs to be protected with as much effort as it took to gain it.

The police directed by the government [ideally following a clear and simples British Constitution] should have dominated that scene for freedom. The protestors should have been told that they can protest peacefully but if they attempt to block free expression in Britain they will be arrested, and summarily deported [irrespective or birth] – Good Luck, sorry it did not work out in Britain for us. Choices – Freedom protected by the law or roll over and yield freedom over to the voice / violence or corruption of those that value ‘peaceful’ delusion to safe open freedom.

When Tony Blair’s government reacted to the bombing of 7/7/2005 there were a number of objectives. Amongst them was the rush by the government to silence the voices questioning the wisdom of allowing Islam to reside in Britain. A group of book following people [many just trained believers – without scripture comprehension] that are encouraged [expected] to violently attack anyone that [‘offends’] their Prophet [‘insults’] the book or Allah [any ‘besmirch’] – ‘Heresy, Blasphemy & witchcraft’ – with instant death conducted by any attending righteous believer, permitted to defend the name of the Prophet, the book or Allah. The population of Muslims in Britain doubled in 10 years to 2.7million in 2011.

Freedom of speech was stated to come with responsibility. Indeed freedom of speech stops at abuse, threats or calls for violent revolution. But responsibility was used to justify not offending the unjustly defensive offended, thereby removing freedom of speech, opinion or expression about a whole group of people. It is obvious that at its violent dominant establishment Islam decreed silence, submission and control over all of its subjects and any non-subjects and of cause over any threats to its domination. Something ‘inclusion & tolerance’ ignores at its peril. It is the true situation that Britain has rolled over again on Freedom in Britain, this time for the Muslims. Blair yielded to them as he yielded to wanted IRA murderers in the name of compromise that is in fact just giving in, by giving ‘a-little’ away.

In the coming years we will see if Myanmar passes a law in their parliament regarding Islam for the repatriation of the Rohinger people to their Benghali origins, and so make their generals look less than toenail clippings of General Sun Tzu. And whether India will do similar with its 200,000 million muslims. Will the Chinese succeed in their re-education program or expel or eliminate their muslims. It is well known that The party believe religion is poison. Where will Europe end up on the Muslim issues of now and the future? What part will free speech play in the national dialogue within E.U democracy? And free speech around the issue here in Britain? Last on Islam and freedom in Britain – Muslims have taken the high ground around Luton, the south’s final and ‘safest’ airport location. Their plan for the location is different to the British.

There is a recent trend stemming directly from the Blair government’s misadventure to create rule to be more nice, inclusive, tolerant and controlled. The justification and the authority to object under the defence against offence and good righteousness, to object and ban speakers that are not of the new ilk or on trend regarding vehemently objecting to wrongs in history or those that criticise [have an alternative view] of the now and the developing trend and who hold the opinion of an erroneous vision. There is very little push-back to this new order and it displays how quickly and totally a society can change because of the short sighted ignorance of the incomplete [previously sanitised education] of the last children ‘what wrote’ the white paper. The righteous words shouted these days to gain control and dictate the future suppression of trend are “Racism, hate speech and offence abuse.” All very serious but these accusations are [as before] being used against alternative thinking, [free thinking] the angry with poor vocabularies [not all some have anger issues] and people objecting to the new ilk’s views.

Can you imagine: It is like a 60’s fantasy come true for the teenagers [‘The young ones’] The Mods and the Rockers no longer have to be silent and put up with the criticisms and complaints about noisy scooters, ridiculous hairdo’s and loud noisy music – No! We are right and you are wrong and shut up, here comes the police to threaten you with prosecution! It is like a teenagers dream come true. We are going to go through our adolescent phase [not that they recognise it as a early adult growth phase – and the minority group of the trans ambiguous social phase group] and do what we want and you can’t stop us because the law [thank-you Tony ‘the grinning moron’ Billion Dollar Blair] says so and the law has created it and is protecting this trend! Silence!

It would be right and so much better to pull the law up and hammer down the protection of the right to freedom of thinking, speech and expression in all forms [excluding abuse, threats and calls for violent revolution.] If racist views were talked about [not directed racism] it [the thinking attitudes around all of the subjects] would develop much faster and society would move on further and faster but it will not under a nice white ice sheet that is a freeze and a recipe for a sudden geothermal flood! Love comes from genuine tolerance and understanding coming together all around a tantrum of teenagers of “We don’t want to hear it!” I’m right and you’re wrong.

Who wins will determine what is next around the corners / curves of the development and administration of British society.

British freedom of Speech and Expression

Danny Baker

'Baker was tweeting while a public figure, representing a publicly-funded broadcaster. That should bring an awareness that anything he makes public carries weight in a way that the average person’s views don’t. When that includes clumsy, lazy or casual sharing of racist tropes, then it has the capacity to further embolden those who already buy into discriminatory ideas. After all, it has not gone unreported that the Duchess of Sussex is mixed race: he has little excuse.' - Kuba Shand-Baptiste.
This situation reaches up to the fundamental ethics in a free society.
Do we allow free speech to cover subjects and angles on subjects that are wrong, offensive or provocative? Or are we saying that free speech and expression must be limited [prevented] because we do not want to hear anything provocative that might be wrong and because avoiding offence is worth silencing speech, opinion and to avoid any debate on an issue and that banning people is back, as it was in [apartheid south Africa].
If in society there are groups that think black people are like monkeys, unlike them – Should Alf Garnet have been banned or not made because of the attitudes it presented?
When in fact the reaction gave rise to discussion and the building of opposite attitudes that helped the less thinking busy citizens to become exposed to the silliness and pointless prejudice and to see in humour that 'Loving thy Neighbour' and being fooled by a Frank Spencer with the surprised put upon the audience by the young black face from Dudley, helped people apart from good integration, to come away from old historical attitudes.
Should the BBC have sacked Angus Deayton for doing nothing illegal, [no police action] nothing even immoral in 2002 [relating to the oldest profession – excluding engagement rings or other gifts from the pathetic] and cocaine [that has been the alternative stimulant to a glass of wine or Marijuana] as the alternative sedative of choice in the world through the second half of the last century – opium being the alternative of choice for centuries before. Both banned by the free market economy – perhaps to give the black underclass something to do and to stay away from the more civilized establishment - Ironically the customers of all of the products surrounded by violence, police time and cost, to loose outright against a huge market economy, unregulated and because of its ‘blacked market’ a dirty risk to health.
No Angus Deayton was hung from a tree by a moralist mob inside the BBC and judged not fit for work by a kangaroo court, for not being entirely faithful to his girlfriend [personal rules may have applied] associating with professional company and sniffing his wine of choice.
Danny Baker has given decades of service to the British people of culture and the BBC and [despite his error of judgement and taste] he does not deserve to be tared and feathered into a poorer alienated retirement.
Neither does Britain deserve this lowly bad president to continue and to support and justify the removal of the true freedom of speech and expression by individuals in entertainment or journalism [because next it will be the novel and comedy, satire and even education] and finally every space for speech.
What could happen next? Just review history for the terrifying horrific truth of what happens when something or someone becomes unacceptable in the extreme. 
Direct racism is abuse and should remain illegal. But having and airing racist views / opinions should be protected as a right to free speech and expression.

Danny Baker should have been suspended on full pay pending a review of his next bunch of statements and request via the palace a comment by Prince Harry and Meghan.

To throw him away, to vilify him entirely and condemn him fully and instantly is as disgusting by the BBC as is the tone that it sets that endangers anyone and all in Britain.