Columnist Richard Baker: Has Nottinghamshire forgotten Charlie Hebdo already?

THE rights and wrongs of free expression can sometimes seem so complicated that we tie ourselves in knots. Yet a couple of weeks ago they became crystal clear. No matter what offence the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had or hadn't caused it should never have been censored with a machine gun.

You may not agree with its portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad, but the right to poke fun at religion and the right to question belief in the same way that we do politics is well-established in Western society. You don't have to agree with what someone says – you don't even have to listen – but it's wrong to muzzle them.

Indeed, how would people be able to question a point of view if they didn't know it existed?

Despite that blinding clarity, two organisations in Notts have travelled back in time, put their censorious hats on, and closed the door on discussion in a pretty depressing way.

At Nottingham Trent University, the Students Union initially voted to ban an organisation which would have supported UKIP.

In Gedling, the Borough Council banned a performance by a Jewish musician after a letter from 13 people protested against things he'd said.

In Trent's case, we'll have to pass over the reasons why as the Students Union refused to explain them (an irony in itself) before later changing its mind. Gedling Borough Council was more explicit – though it was short on detail about the 13 people whose views determined that Gilad Atzmon shouldn't be heard on publicly-owned property.

Atzmon says he wasn't coming to Arnold to talk Jewish politics but to play the sax and clarinet. He does that pretty well by all accounts, having performed with a few people who do find it possible to share a stage with him: Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, Robbie Williams and Sinead O'Connor, for example.

It's difficult to see what the Trent Students Union or Gedling Borough Council thought would be achieved by banning UKIP or a saxophonist. Not giving them a stage doesn't make their views go away.

In the case of UKIP, a ban was likely to fuel the suspicions of supporters that politics' usual suspects were trying to keep them out. The union revealed a U-turn a day later.

Gedling says it has a "responsibility to build and maintain good community relations, including between people of different races and religions" and that allowing Atzmon to perform was "inconsistent" with that.

Yet its decision risks being seen as the exact opposite.

Those who disapprove of what he says don't have to listen. In allowing him to play a sax on stage the council wouldn't be condoning whatever views he holds. In banning him, it has acted like an archaic official censor.

There's a magazine which would have had an awful lot of fun with decisions such as these. Some of its people even died for the right to do so. Have we forgotten that already?