Murder in the Editorial?

This post might seem somewhat tangential to my concerns - but only if you believe that clash-of-civilizations spruiking and Islamophobia more generally are not part and parcel of the post 9/11 pro-Israel propaganda offensive:-

"Not surprisingly, those who believe the archbishop [of Canterbury, Rowan Williams] has damaged his moral authority and credibility beyond repair are resurrecting Henry II's lament about one of Dr William's most illustrious predecessors in Canterbury, the 12th century Saint Thomas Becket: 'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?' " So ran the concluding paragraph of The Australian's editorial (A Turbulent Bishop: Sharia law is incompatible with Western tradition) for 11/2/08.

The 12th century Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, engaged in a struggle over the rights of the Church with King Henry II, was murdered by four knights, who interpreted Henry's famous lament as a command. He was thereafter venerated as a martyr and canonised by the Church.

So, according to The Australian, not only is it "not surprising" that some folk out there are calling for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams for merely expressing a controversial viewpoint, but neither, it would seem, is it deserving of condemnation.

Of course, if Rowan Williams were to meet Thomas Becket's fate, he would not only become a martyr for the Anglican Church, but a martyr for free speech.