This is Dawkins' response to the recent cancellation of one of his speaking events based on his comments about Islam: https://richarddawkins.net/2017/07/letter-to-kpfa/
Speech policing is becoming a bigger problem, and in the case of policing "islamophobic" speech it is an especially big problem. The PC/social justice left tells us we have to be tolerant of everyone. But that doesn't work when some groups are trying to kill you.
There are 13 countries that execute atheists. All 13 are Muslim majority countries. Since there are only about 35 Muslim majority countries, that means that over 1/3 of Muslim majority countries execute people for atheism. Most of the rest criminalize atheism somehow, such as laws against blasphemy. Only a handful of non-Muslim countries criminalize blasphemy and none execute atheists.
Atheists aren't the only people Islam targets with violence and oppression. There are 10 countries that execute homosexuals. All 10 are Muslim majority countries. Most of the rest of the Islamic world criminalizes homosexuality somehow. According to the World Economic Forum's gender equality index, there is not a single Muslim majority country among the 50 most gender equal countries on Earth. 21 of the 25 least gender equal countries are Muslim majority countries. Gays and women have almost as much to fear from Islam as atheists.
Even compared to Christianity, Islam is a violent and oppressive religion. Since its founding, Islam has been a religion of conquest, conquering, enslaving, and forcibly converting the people of the Middle East, north Africa, eastern Europe, Spain, and large parts of India (Pakistan used to be part of India). Their slave trade lasted longer, enslaved far more people, and was far more brutal than the transatlantic slave trade. Muslims frequently castrated their male slaves and used them as cannon fodder in their wars of conquest. They murdered the babies of the women they took as sex slaves to keep their slave class from growing too large and becoming a threat to Islamic dominance of society. They gave most nonbelievers the choice of conversion to Islam or death. By the time the crusades began, Muslims had murdered millions of Christians. This doesn't excuse Christianity's flaws, but if you dislike Christian violence, you should be that much more worried about the violence Islam promotes.
And yet, the same people who claim to be fighting for a more peaceful world, for women's rights, for gay rights, for tolerance and diversity, they're the ones telling us we can't criticize Islam. They're censoring people for warning us about the dangers Islam poses to non-Muslims, and especially to atheists, gays, and women. Letting them force us into silence about the threat posed by people who want to murder us for our beliefs is suicide. Don't let them stop you from speaking out.
The sad fact is that this is old news. The contretemps between Ben Affleck and Sam Harris on Real Time with Bill Maher back in 2014 was a flashpoint for this crap, and it's since been commented on multiple times not just by them but by the likes of Maajid Nawaz, Raheel Raza, Sarah Haider and many others. This ridiculous double standard has gone to the point where Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have both been condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center for speaking out against radical Islam.
This politically correct crap has gone on entirely too long, and I for one have had a bellyful of it. Islam no more deserves the kid glove treatment than Christianity does, and it will get none of it from me ... or from Richard Dawkins, I'm pleased to see.
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy
This is similar to my banning on the Facebook page of The Atheist Experience not so long ago. They say you cannot use "ableist language." No exceptions. Apparently this is making fun of handicapped people. I made the mistake in a reply of saying the posters position was "pretty lame."
Did that mean the poster had a viewpoint that could not walk? Is lame thinking like having limbs that do not work? How many of us have a "lame relative" that has to walk on crutches? If we do have handicapped friends and relatives why would we refer to them in 1611 King James English? I certainly don't do that. It appears that somebody here needs to update their word usage.
So, it isn't just "Islamophobic" speech coming under fire here. It's also certain ones wanting to protect and not offend Christians as well. I understand the effort but not the misguided method. I personally do not know anyone who has a relative who "went lame" and the terminology means that they have difficulty walking or can no longer walk. In my 71 years of living I have not heard the word "lame" used that way except in bible readings.