Cumulative ban still implies that he was doing something worthy of punishment. He was not.
He may be a bit of a prat, but we can't start having rules that say that "Stylishly written mockery is OK but unsophisticated mockery isn't."
And we also can't start having rules that say "You're allowed to mock institutions that are seen as privileged in some way, but you're not allowed to mock institutions associated with groups who are seen as being less privileged."
Because if you do, we will get drawn into a ridiculous game of Oppression Olympics where everyone is trying to claim victimhood status for some reason or other. Christians or Catholics could quite easily claim victimhood status if they wanted to--because they are minority groups, because Christians get made fun of a lot, because Christians are the most persecuted religious minority at the worldwide level....
Either we defend free speech or we don't. Otherwise we are on a slippery slope to a (one-sided) de facto blasphemy law.
It's also not quite clear how much awaited/hope-for/talked-about "reformation of Islam" is going to come about if this particular religion keeps being bubble-wrapped from criticism. The enlightenment of attitudes towards religion in the West largely came about because Christianity was subjected to mockery, argument and criticism--from Charles Darwin to Father Ted.