Rushdie and Wilders. Why the different treatment?

BBC says,'It is 20 years since Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the author Salman Rushdie after the publication of The Satanic Verses.
The novel's launch led to widespread protest by Muslims who regarded it as blasphemous, including public burning of the book.
Rushdie had to live in hiding and under special protection for several years.
And while he is now able to live a more public life, he says the affair remains "an albatross around his neck".
Last year, he told BBC's Newsnight that he was considering writing a book about the experience.
Nine days after The Satanic Verses was published in Britain in September 1988, it was banned in India.

Muslims who wanted the book withdrawn in Britain burned a copy at a demonstration in Bradford's main square.
Protests gathered pace in various countries, and on 14 February 1989, the Iranian revolutionary leader issued the fatwa.
There were attacks on people involved in translating or publishing the book.
Although Iran said this week that the fatwa remains valid, the official line laid down in 1998 was that the death sentence should no longer be pursued.
BBC world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said that in Britain the book and its effects remain divisive.
"Some British Muslims say today that the protest tactics damaged the aims of Muslims; some say they helped prevent greater insults to Islam," he said. '

Why was Rushdie feted by liberals for a book I found unreadable while Wilders is banned from England? Could it be that one is an Asian liberal critical of the West, the other as white right winger protective of Western culture?