Short answer. Yes. The rule gives a witness the right to be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions and from harsh or insulting demeanor. Being cross-examined does not mean being abused, and the protection covers how you are treated as well as what you are asked.
What the law says
To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor
Rule 132, Section 3 — Rights and obligations of a witness. Read the full provision →
The protection covers manner, not just content
It is worth reading the wording closely, because it does two separate things. It protects the witness from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions — that is about what is asked. It then adds protection from harsh or insulting demeanor — and that is about how it is asked. A question can be perfectly proper in substance and still be put in a manner the rule does not permit. So the answer to "but he is entitled to cross-examine me" is that entitlement to cross-examine is not entitlement to any tone at all.
It sits with other limits on the examination
The same provision gives the witness the right not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require, and not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. Read together, these describe an examination that is bounded in subject, in length and in manner. A long, wandering cross-examination into matters unconnected with the case is not simply unpleasant; it runs against the terms in which the rule casts the witness's position.
What the rule does not excuse
None of this releases you from testifying. The provision begins by stating that a witness must answer questions although the answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her. Hostile questioning about the actual issues, however uncomfortable, is part of a trial. The protection is directed at questions and conduct that are irrelevant, improper or insulting — not at questions that are merely damaging to your case. Keeping that distinction in mind helps when deciding what is genuinely objectionable and what is simply hard.
Raising it in practice
These are rights of the witness, but the courtroom mechanism for asserting them normally runs through counsel and the judge presiding over the examination rather than through the witness arguing from the stand. If you are testifying and the questioning turns abusive, the practical step is to let your lawyer put the objection. If you have already been through it, say so afterwards rather than leaving it — how an examination was conducted is a matter for the court, and a lawyer can advise on what, if anything, can be raised.