Sir – In his interesting letter defending freedom of speech, Paul Surman (Letters, March 5) complains that Rowan Williams could only describe the cause of human suffering as “mysterious”. However, it is doubtful if the atheist Stephen Fry’s answer would be any more satisfactory – presumably that it is the result of “random forces”.

However, there are possible answers which may curiously touch upon the original question of whether freedom of speech should include the freedom to insult another person, or their dearly held beliefs.

Essentially, just as freedom of action implies freedom to commit crimes or to offend, so does freedom of speech imply freedom to insult. But that does not mean we should condone or encourage such acts – rather should we condemn them for the very reason that their result will be to diminish the very freedom they purport to support.

Just as more crimes mean more laws and more restrictions for everyone, or more reprisals if the law is weak, so more insults and disrespect likewise make us all nervous of becoming victims of an attack, and invite us to contemplate how we can insult back. Peace of mind, and its accompanying freedom, are lost.

According to some philosophies, a divine law operates even beyond death to reward the good and punish the bad. In oriental systems, where reincarnation is assumed to be a fact, this law operates beyond death, and suffering experienced in this life may be related to deeds in a previous one.

Insults can never be justified, in my view. They show disrespect of our fellow human beings, who, if they are wrong, deserve a reasoned argument rather than ridicule. Insults merely create suffering all round – perhaps in this life, perhaps the next.

Ken Weavers
Headington