After reading his article i can't but agree.
Something that caught my eye in the text however was the following passage:
It is important to note that, as an instrument for protecting the honour of Islam, Pakistan's blasphemy laws have been an abject failure. As rights groups point out, the laws are vaguely defined and do not require accusers to prove criminal intent. Police rarely investigate before arresting alleged blasphemers. Taseer's murderer may say he killed him for committing blasphemy, but there is no evidence he ever did anything of the sort. Taseer's only crime was to highlight the severe failings of the blasphemy laws, a point lost on many who endorsed his murder.The sad thing about *any* blasphemy law is that it doesn't protect some abstract honor of some abstract idea. In my view no "thought" or "doctrine" or "political view" contains or deserves any "honor" in the first place. But if you want to argue that there is such a thing, then in my view any blasphemy law in the best case doesn't affect the honor at all. In cases like the one we see in Pakistan it actually mires the honor of the "to be protected" religion/idea.
As i rather prefer to speak about people instead of ideas when it comes to such things i must say that blasphemy laws have some strange attribute that degrades humans and severes the relationships between them. At no time is it easier to get rid of a fellow human than when you have a religious law on your side to which anybody has to agree and where solidarization with the victim could get one in to trouble so easily.