Sir – Dr Hojjat Ramzi of the Oxford Islamic Centre, while condemning the murder of the Charlie Hebdo journalists – as no doubt he also condemns the similar attack in Denmark – has argued  that ‘freedom of speech should not extend to a freedom to insult people’s religious beliefs’ and that ‘it was ‘totally wrong to allow Charlie Hebdo to insult our Prophet or Pope Francis’ (Report, February 12).

 I believe he deserves support if by that he meant that there should be curbs on cartoons that deeply insult what adherents of a religion hold most sacred and on framing attacks on a religion in deeply mocking or insulting language.

There is a very important distinction between freedom of opinion (and its dissemination), which is crucial to democracy and to a rational and humane life, and freedom of expression, ie artistic or emotional communication.

Freedom of expression needs to be subject, like other human activities, to the prevention of mutual harm. People should be permitted to condemn religious tenets or practices, even radically, but not to clothe their views in deeply insulting language, going beyond what is necessary for their argument.

There is already legislation curbing incitement to religious hatred (possibly too far-reaching). Curbing deeply insulting language and cartoons would complement this without impeding freedom of opinion.  Framing legislation to this end should hardly be more difficult than other measures restricting what we can say, such as the law of libel. In particular, humour should have limits.  To insist on the primacy humour enjoys in modern western culture, regardless of hurt to what others hold most sacred, is to show that lack of respect for other cultures which is one cause of the dangerous tension in the world today.

Edmund Gray, Iffley