"By holding back from criticism of Islam, we give in to the extremists"

"By holding back from criticism of Islam, we give in to the extremists"

That was the headline from the South China Morning Post of 22nd January 2015, in the Letters section.  It referred to my letter to them, about free speech issues in the light of the Charlie Hedbo massacre, printed word-for-word per my submission:

The usually reliable Frank Ching has joined the ranks of the "but brigade" in his column ("Drawing a line", January 14).

Salman Rushdie recently coined this phrase to describe those who say "I believe in free speech, BUT", followed by a choose-your-own bias, presented as a show of the "tolerance" and "respect" of its author.

When that "but" is done at the point of a gun, it is giving in to intimidation. And if the intimidation is successful, it will only lead to more intimidation. For, make no mistake, if the murderers of the  Charlie Hebdo journalists win, if the outcome is Western submission to Islamic blasphemy laws to outlaw any depictions of Mohammed - as sadly seems to be the trend - there will be more intimidation for further submission by the West, for further submission to Islamic laws.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is already pushing the UN to outlaw criticism of Islam.

That, surely, will be the next "red line" not be crossed by Western journalists, implemented by violent intimidation. And if that's successful, it will render us - Frank Ching included - mute in the battle of ideas against murderous jihadist violence.

It was even worse to see Pope Francis come out as a member of the "but brigade", when he said be believed in free speech, but "One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith". But why not? Why should we be able to satirise and excoriate politicians, but leave religion alone? Marx noted that the free criticism of religion is the basis for all our other freedoms (I'm no Marxist, but he had this one right!). [LATER: see this!]

Rushdie says that nobody has the right "not to be offended". Flemming Rose, the man who published the Danish cartoons in 2005, has said, "Satire is a sound civilisation's answer to savagery". These are powerful observations, so much more than the pusillanimous posturing of the "but brigade".

So it's a shame to see that the likes of Ching, joined recently by his colleague Alex Lo ("Price of free speech is sometimes too high", January 17), are so casually trampling on a key victory of the enlightenment in bowing to violent theocrats.

PF, DB

LATER, one of many comments:

Hi P - your letter reads 'extremely' well in the SCMP.

I was at the FCC yesterday and read it out to a group of people sharing similar views - it went down well - excellent research and quotes within the letter added to its authority.