- Hello from Syria!
- What I say to people who tell me I’m motivated by pride to question the Church
- Why I love First Things
- Catholics and Republicans on same-sex marriage and public reason
- Please don’t leave the Catholic Church!
- So, being 28…
- On Overthinking (and Susan Boyle)
- How Heresy Becomes Theology
- Why talking to certain Catholics is like talking to communists
- Changes to the Blog
- More Blog Entries
I would say yes. Free speech is critical, and if people want to hurt you because of that, you ought to be protected.
And now we come to what may be a truly fundamental test, maybe even a turning point, for that part of the world generally known as the West. The test is this: Are prominent, articulate critics of radical Islam, critics who happen to be citizens of European countries or the United States, entitled to the same free speech rights enjoyed by other citizens of European countries and the United States?
Legally, of course, they are. In practice, they can say what they want—and then they can be murdered for doing so. That means that Western governments have a special and unusual responsibility to them, as many have long acknowledged. It is no accident that the writer Salman Rushdie, upon whom Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa on Feb. 14, 1989, is still very much alive. Though details are not publicized, it is assumed that Rushdie remains, one way or another, under the protection of the British police and secret services, both in Britain and abroad. This protection is completely uncontroversial—in June, the queen even gave Rushdie a knighthood—and as a result the fatwa has not prevented him from speaking, writing, publishing, even divorcing and remarrying several times over the past 18 years.


Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.