Tit for tat demonisation?

I had a difficult dilemma today. Let me explain. A good friend of mine, a bishop in Malaysia, sent me some material about a protest being mounted in his country by Christians and asked me to publicise it. Sounds simple - Christians under pressure in an Islamic country, let's stand with them in solidarity, why not?

However the issue concerned a seminar being held tomorrow in Johor State (sponsored by the Education Department of the State and the office of the State Mufti of Johor. The title of the seminar is “Strengthening the Faith, the Dangers of Liberalism and Pluralism and the Threat of Christianisation towards Muslims. What is the role of teachers?” In fact, under protest, the words "Threat of Christianisation" have now been removed from the title but the text of the lecture has not been changed.

So why did I have difficulty in joining my friend's protest? Well, as soon as I read "Threat of Christianisation" I found the words "Threat of Islamicisation" were ringing even more clearly in my ears - words I hear day after day from American preachers, European internet pundits and the prophet who comes up to me after church every time I dare to use the word 'dialogue' in my sermon. In fact, I think this is the very first time I have heard the phrase "Threat of Christianisation" whereas I read of the opposite threat daily in our press. So ... my question was, why is it OK for lectures to be give, books to be published and YouTube videos to circulate warning of an Islamic threat but totally unacceptable to debate the perception of a Christian threat?

Of course I would prefer to do away with all threats, but in a real world we do often find each other threatening and perhaps it is better to talk about it than let the threats grow unhindered in our imaginings.

Yes, I did publish ... but I also voiced my questions - I hope my friend Ng understands.