5 ms·

Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]

68 points by stringcode 9y ago

bmh_ca 9y ago
This is a trial I'd like to watch.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Indeed. Apparently the most powerful entity in the entire universe needs government protection from the opinion of Stephen Fry. Doesn't seem like a fair fight to me.
  - johnnydoe9 9y ago
    Fry should make a statement similar to what Colbert made recently for his remarks against Trump "I've got the jokes, he's got the launch codes so it's a fair fight"
    - jeff_petersen 9y ago
      Homophobia isn't excusable no matter what position the target holds.
      - johnnydoe9 9y ago
        Don't think Colbert's statement was homophobic though, don't want to fight genuinely want to know what made you think it was?
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    I thought Stephen Fry was the most powerful entity in the universe.
    - tluyben2 9y ago
      ... together with Laurie, Atkinson, Smith, Jones and a handful+1 others. Many gods.
      - vidarh 9y ago
        One of my favourite sketches on religion is from Atkinson's live show when the devil, Toby, welcomes people to hell [1]. It satirises Pascal's Wager [2] and the general issue of most peoples lack of reasoned choice of religion so casually and effectively after various easy digs at the usual victims. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
        tluyben2 9y ago
        I love all sketches, of that performance, especially the best man. But yes, that is a very good one and Atkinson is a genious although most people know him as Mr Bean where he is a less obvious genious.
- II2II 9y ago
  Some of us would rather that such investigations never came to be, never mind for such charges to reach trial. Think of it this way: how many people have expressed similar views? Do we really want to put those people on trial for providing rational responses to hypothetical questions?
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Of course, but given that the laws are on the books, this is one of the best cases that could come up because it will almost certainly either lead to no case, or make them look silly, and by extension make thes laws look pointless. Norway used to have these laws as well, and a major factor in the decline of their use was exactly that it started making the government look stupid rather than serve a purpose the government was still attached to. The last successfull prosecution happened in 1912, I think, and the last prosecution in 1933 made the prosecutor look sufficiently silly (the case was only brought because it was pushed hard by a professor of theology and prominent preacher) that no further cases were brought. The person persecuted the last time they were used were a writer named Arnulf Øverland who held a speech to a student organization in Oslo titled "Christianity - The tenth plague", ending by comparing the influence of Christianity on Europe to the biblical plagues and concluding the spread of Christianity was the worst of them all. I think he'd have rather liked Stephen Fry's answer... While nobody should be prosecuted for this, when they go after people like him, or like Stephen Fry, in settings where said people feel safe to make these statements in the first place, it tends to be the beginning of the end for such laws rather evidence the suppression is still working. (We should be more worried about the places where people don't dare utter such things in the first place)
  - soneil 9y ago
    Many of us have been trying to get this to trial. It’s the most direct way to defeat a law.
stringcode 9y ago
Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.
- g5555 9y ago
  It won't go anywhere. Bizarrely the Irish blasphemy law is designed to be basically unenforceable, a fact admitted by the very minister who implemented it to much backlash at the time. The Irish government didn't even want a blasphemy law - it was forced to write one to fill a hole in the law caused by a reference to blasphemy in the Constitution. An early blasphemy law had been removed but removing it from law entirely requires a referendum to alter the Constitution. The "temporary" solution was a law worded in such a way any prosecution was pretty unlikely.
  - ch_123 9y ago
    The government has even expressed an intent to get rid of the law - http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf#page=153 http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Pr... It's still pretty embarrassing that this sort of thing can happen. I hope the negative attention this will bring will force some progress on the matter.
  - everyone 9y ago
    The Irish constitution was written after a war of independence immediately followed by a civil war. Ireland was a mix of socialist dictatorship and theocracy at the time. The constitution is very weird and causes issues like this. It needs to be changed. Though in fairness the progress we have made socially has been extremely rapid and profound. Have a look at the film "The rocky road to Dublin", a documentary about life in Ireland in the 60's, made by an outsider. To see how bad things were until that recently (Its like Iran under the Shah or something)
  - Hydraulix989 9y ago
    A law isn't unenforceable until it is no longer a law.
stringcode 9y ago
Here is a link to longer clip of that exchange than shown in article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
kristianc 9y ago
This is troubling. This a legitimate philosophical problem that dates back to Epicurus, Hume, Kant. It's something theologians since Aquinas have wrestled with, and that modern philosophers such have taken up. It applies as much to Christianity as it does to Judaism and Islam. There's no reason for this to be covered by blasphemy laws, even if you accepted blasphemy laws as legitimate.
- eternalban 9y ago
  It is legitimate but it is also of the sophomoric category of questions. As for Islam that you mention, there are no such issues in Islam. Stephen Fry is arguing the same position that Satan does in the Qur'an, pointing out 'errors' in God's judgment. The Angels question God too in the Qur'an, but they do it very politely ..
  - kristianc 9y ago
    Yes - and I agree with you, it's banal and in some ways a very Stephen Fryish question to ask - but asking a simplistic question is not to my knowledge, a crime.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Well, clearly it is a crime. The debate is over if it should be a crime.
    - eternalban 9y ago
      I wasn't addressing the crime bit. Positively, blasphemy laws are designed to keep such conversations limited to informed circles, and negatively of course they are a means of maintaining doctrinal control over the masses.
  - tim333 9y ago
    Hmm... >Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment... >They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). [Quran 33:57–61] You could argue calling Allah “stupid” and an “utter maniac” might annoy him, hypothetically.
Zuider 9y ago
the article links to a post from the Irish Independent Online which gives more detail: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp... Reading between the lines, this looks more like an attempt to challenge the blasphemy law than to punish Stephen Fry. From the link above: "[The complainant] said he was asked by the garda if he had been personally offended by the programme and If he wished to include this in the written statement. I told the Garda that I did not want to include this as I had not personally been offended by Fry's comments - I added that I simply believed that the comments made by Fry on RTÉ were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime." Atheist Ireland responded by republishing a list of blasphemous statements on their website, atheist.ie, in solidarity with Stephen Fry. They note: "If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the blasphemy law. If we are not prosecuted, it will again highlight the absurdity of this law, which should be repealed immediately. We again call on the Irish Government to honour its commitment to hold a referendum to remove the ban on blasphemy from our Constitution." What is troubling is that, though the law was designed to be unenforceable in Ireland, it has been used as a template for corresponding law in theocratic countries such as "Pakistan and other repressive states".
idop 9y ago
No one expects the Irish Inquisition!
- Tomis02 9y ago
  I find Monthy Python unimaginative and boring. Your comment was hilarious in the context, though.
brynedwards 9y ago
The reason this law still exists is because blasphemy is included in the Irish constitution and so to remove it would require a referendum which "would rightly be seen as a time wasting and expensive exercise" [1]; the law is effectively a dead letter. With this becoming popular, we'll probably get a referendum moved forward with the result being overwhelmingly in favour of removing it. The person who reported him claimed he/she was not offended[2]; it wouldn't surprise me if it was done just to highlight the silliness of the law. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Defamation_Act_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_... [2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...

68 points by stringcode 9y ago

bmh_ca 9y ago

This is a trial I'd like to watch.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Indeed. Apparently the most powerful entity in the entire universe needs government protection from the opinion of Stephen Fry. Doesn't seem like a fair fight to me.
- johnnydoe9 9y ago
  Fry should make a statement similar to what Colbert made recently for his remarks against Trump "I've got the jokes, he's got the launch codes so it's a fair fight"
  - jeff_petersen 9y ago
    Homophobia isn't excusable no matter what position the target holds.
    - johnnydoe9 9y ago
      Don't think Colbert's statement was homophobic though, don't want to fight genuinely want to know what made you think it was?
- dogma1138 9y ago
  I thought Stephen Fry was the most powerful entity in the universe.
  - tluyben2 9y ago
    ... together with Laurie, Atkinson, Smith, Jones and a handful+1 others. Many gods.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      One of my favourite sketches on religion is from Atkinson's live show when the devil, Toby, welcomes people to hell [1]. It satirises Pascal's Wager [2] and the general issue of most peoples lack of reasoned choice of religion so casually and effectively after various easy digs at the usual victims. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
      - tluyben2 9y ago
        I love all sketches, of that performance, especially the best man. But yes, that is a very good one and Atkinson is a genious although most people know him as Mr Bean where he is a less obvious genious.
II2II 9y ago
Some of us would rather that such investigations never came to be, never mind for such charges to reach trial. Think of it this way: how many people have expressed similar views? Do we really want to put those people on trial for providing rational responses to hypothetical questions?
- vidarh 9y ago
  Of course, but given that the laws are on the books, this is one of the best cases that could come up because it will almost certainly either lead to no case, or make them look silly, and by extension make thes laws look pointless. Norway used to have these laws as well, and a major factor in the decline of their use was exactly that it started making the government look stupid rather than serve a purpose the government was still attached to. The last successfull prosecution happened in 1912, I think, and the last prosecution in 1933 made the prosecutor look sufficiently silly (the case was only brought because it was pushed hard by a professor of theology and prominent preacher) that no further cases were brought. The person persecuted the last time they were used were a writer named Arnulf Øverland who held a speech to a student organization in Oslo titled "Christianity - The tenth plague", ending by comparing the influence of Christianity on Europe to the biblical plagues and concluding the spread of Christianity was the worst of them all. I think he'd have rather liked Stephen Fry's answer... While nobody should be prosecuted for this, when they go after people like him, or like Stephen Fry, in settings where said people feel safe to make these statements in the first place, it tends to be the beginning of the end for such laws rather evidence the suppression is still working. (We should be more worried about the places where people don't dare utter such things in the first place)
- soneil 9y ago
  Many of us have been trying to get this to trial. It’s the most direct way to defeat a law.

stringcode 9y ago

Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.

g5555 9y ago
It won't go anywhere. Bizarrely the Irish blasphemy law is designed to be basically unenforceable, a fact admitted by the very minister who implemented it to much backlash at the time. The Irish government didn't even want a blasphemy law - it was forced to write one to fill a hole in the law caused by a reference to blasphemy in the Constitution. An early blasphemy law had been removed but removing it from law entirely requires a referendum to alter the Constitution. The "temporary" solution was a law worded in such a way any prosecution was pretty unlikely.
- ch_123 9y ago
  The government has even expressed an intent to get rid of the law - http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf#page=153 http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Pr... It's still pretty embarrassing that this sort of thing can happen. I hope the negative attention this will bring will force some progress on the matter.
- everyone 9y ago
  The Irish constitution was written after a war of independence immediately followed by a civil war. Ireland was a mix of socialist dictatorship and theocracy at the time. The constitution is very weird and causes issues like this. It needs to be changed. Though in fairness the progress we have made socially has been extremely rapid and profound. Have a look at the film "The rocky road to Dublin", a documentary about life in Ireland in the 60's, made by an outsider. To see how bad things were until that recently (Its like Iran under the Shah or something)
- Hydraulix989 9y ago
  A law isn't unenforceable until it is no longer a law.

stringcode 9y ago

Here is a link to longer clip of that exchange than shown in article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

kristianc 9y ago

This is troubling. This a legitimate philosophical problem that dates back to Epicurus, Hume, Kant. It's something theologians since Aquinas have wrestled with, and that modern philosophers such have taken up. It applies as much to Christianity as it does to Judaism and Islam. There's no reason for this to be covered by blasphemy laws, even if you accepted blasphemy laws as legitimate.

eternalban 9y ago
It is legitimate but it is also of the sophomoric category of questions. As for Islam that you mention, there are no such issues in Islam. Stephen Fry is arguing the same position that Satan does in the Qur'an, pointing out 'errors' in God's judgment. The Angels question God too in the Qur'an, but they do it very politely ..
- kristianc 9y ago
  Yes - and I agree with you, it's banal and in some ways a very Stephen Fryish question to ask - but asking a simplistic question is not to my knowledge, a crime.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Well, clearly it is a crime. The debate is over if it should be a crime.
  - eternalban 9y ago
    I wasn't addressing the crime bit. Positively, blasphemy laws are designed to keep such conversations limited to informed circles, and negatively of course they are a means of maintaining doctrinal control over the masses.
- tim333 9y ago
  Hmm... >Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment... >They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). [Quran 33:57–61] You could argue calling Allah “stupid” and an “utter maniac” might annoy him, hypothetically.

Zuider 9y ago

the article links to a post from the Irish Independent Online which gives more detail: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp... Reading between the lines, this looks more like an attempt to challenge the blasphemy law than to punish Stephen Fry. From the link above: "[The complainant] said he was asked by the garda if he had been personally offended by the programme and If he wished to include this in the written statement. I told the Garda that I did not want to include this as I had not personally been offended by Fry's comments - I added that I simply believed that the comments made by Fry on RTÉ were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime." Atheist Ireland responded by republishing a list of blasphemous statements on their website, atheist.ie, in solidarity with Stephen Fry. They note: "If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the blasphemy law. If we are not prosecuted, it will again highlight the absurdity of this law, which should be repealed immediately. We again call on the Irish Government to honour its commitment to hold a referendum to remove the ban on blasphemy from our Constitution." What is troubling is that, though the law was designed to be unenforceable in Ireland, it has been used as a template for corresponding law in theocratic countries such as "Pakistan and other repressive states".

idop 9y ago

No one expects the Irish Inquisition!

Tomis02 9y ago
I find Monthy Python unimaginative and boring. Your comment was hilarious in the context, though.

brynedwards 9y ago

The reason this law still exists is because blasphemy is included in the Irish constitution and so to remove it would require a referendum which "would rightly be seen as a time wasting and expensive exercise" [1]; the law is effectively a dead letter. With this becoming popular, we'll probably get a referendum moved forward with the result being overwhelmingly in favour of removing it. The person who reported him claimed he/she was not offended[2]; it wouldn't surprise me if it was done just to highlight the silliness of the law. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Defamation_Act_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_... [2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...