Gardaí launch blasphemy probe into Stephen Fry

jimmytwotimes 2013

py2006 wrote: »

Ironically religion is just a long established cult.

A cult is merely a new religious movement.

God Ted, I’ve heard about those cults. Everyone dressing in black and saying our Lord’s going to come back and judge us all.

steddyeddy

Jesus it's actually embarrassing to be in a different country and read this stuff about your home country. It wasn't long ago that we were reading out the remains of children from a mother and child home. Now we're reading about the guards investigating someone for blasphemy. Priorities please.

Kivaro

Still waiting for a response to Fry's question about the "almighty" and children with bone cancer. "Works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it.

In a couple of hundred years when our descendants are looking back at us, religion will be described as the biggest con game in the history of mankind.

volchitsa

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jesus it's exactly embarrassing to be in a different country and read this stuff about your home country. It wasn't long ago that we were reading out the remains of children from a mother and child home. Now we're reading about the guards investigating someone for blasphemy. Priorities please.

Yeah, just on that question of priorities, is there any word of the guards investigating that mass grave at Tuam?

No? Just blasphemers then?

It's almost like fking Saudi Arabia. :mad:

BlinkingLights

This is what gets me about Ireland though - for all it's talk of being a republic and going on and on about democratic values etc, it has a constitution that reads like the start of Mass.

Preamble Irish Constitution 1937:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

For comparison:

France 1946 Constitution (and its amended version later update which keeps all of this except the bit about the French Union)

"In the morrow of the victory achieved by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity, the people of France proclaim anew that each human being, without distinction of race, religion or creed, possesses sacred and inalienable rights. They solemnly reaffirm the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen enshrined in the Declaration of Rights of 1789 and the fundamental principles acknowledged in the laws of the Republic.
They further proclaim, as being especially necessary to our times, the political, economic and social principles enumerated below:
The law guarantees women equal rights to those of men in all spheres.
Any man persecuted in virtue of his actions in favour of liberty may claim the right of asylum upon the territories of the Republic.
Each person has the duty to work and the right to employment. No person may suffer prejudice in his work or employment by virtue of his origins, opinions or beliefs.
All men may defend their rights and interests through union action and may belong to the union of their choice.
The right to strike shall be exercised within the framework of the laws governing it.
All workers shall, through the intermediary of their representatives, participate in the collective determination of their conditions of work and in the management of the work place.
All property and all enterprises that have or that may acquire the character of a public service or de facto monopoly shall become the property of society.
The Nation shall provide the individual and the family with the conditions necessary to their development.
It shall guarantee to all, notably to children, mothers and elderly workers, protection of their health, material security, rest and leisure. All people who, by virtue of their age, physical or mental condition, or economic situation, are incapable of working, shall have to the right to receive suitable means of existence from society.
The Nation proclaims the solidarity and equality of all French people in bearing the burden resulting from national calamities.
The Nation guarantees equal access for children and adults to instruction, vocational training and culture. The provision of free, public and secular education at all levels is a duty of the State.
The French Republic, faithful to its traditions, shall respect the rules of public international law. It shall undertake no war aimed at conquest, nor shall it ever employ force against the freedom of any people.
Subject to reciprocity, France shall consent to the limitations upon its sovereignty necessary to the organisation and preservation of peace.
France shall form with its overseas peoples a Union founded upon equal rights and duties, without distinction of race or religion.
The French Union shall be composed of nations and peoples who agree to pool or coordinate their resources and their efforts in order to develop their respective civilisations, increase their well-being, and ensure their security.
Faithful to its traditional mission, France desires to guide the peoples under its responsibility towards the freedom to administer themselves and to manage their own affairs democratically; eschewing all systems of colonisation founded upon arbitrary rule, it guarantees to all equal access to public office and the individual or collective exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed or confirmed herein."

The French preamble actually says something about what the state is, what it stands for, what it means and what it hopes to be. It's very aspirational, confident and proud.

The Irish preamble is a load of religious waffle and doesn't say anything about the state other than its bowing and scraping and almost apologising for its existence.

I'm not saying the French system is perfect, but at least unlike us, they know what they stand for and they're capable of spelling it out.

Ulysses Gaze

Have the Keystones nothing better to do than this?

Well....apart from drink coffee, eat doughnuts and make up crime stats so that they can all get their bonuses.

Ulysses Gaze

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Have the Keystones nothing better to do than this?

Well....apart from drink coffee, eat doughnuts and make up crime stats so that they can all get their bonuses.

Don't forget their accountancy discrepancies- it takes a good dozen full time plods to fiddle the books ya know

Is my memory failing me or did Fianna Fáil, and specifically Dermot Ahern from Louth as Minister for Justice, bring in that blasphemy legislation to coincide with a trade mission to Saudi Arabia or some equally godforsaken pre-medieval barbarian hole around the year 2009/2010?

Ah yeah, they did - although all I'm finding online from 2009 is this. Not only is Paddy so cute that he won't offend the ineffable barbarians, but he'll actually concoct an elaborate law so he can turn up to the barbarians and be able to say 'Sure, aren't we like you; haven't we just passed a law against blasphemy?'.

Ara yeah, Paddy, you're such a 'cute hoor' following the money and avoiding all those scruffy hippies just coming down from their trees in Carrickmines and their nonsense about human rights. Nobody would be up to you at all. Backward craven cúnts. The world would be an infinitely better place if the House of Saud and its wahhabbism cult, and the Mullahs of every Pakistani, Indian and Afghan village could be nuked from the face of the earth. The most backward troglodytes in the history of humanity. Instead Paddy has joined the Brits, Yanks and all the rest of the supposedly civilised western world in dancing not only around these primitives but dancing to the very tune they demand. Propping the evil up.

BlinkingLights

Yeah, they were courting the Islamic banking sector at the time and it was also slipped through at peak banking crisis when everyone was more focused on keeping money in the ATMs.

timthumbni

Is this a piss take??? Is there even a law in the republic that bans blasphemy?????

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

timthumbni wrote: »

Is this a piss take??? Is there even a law in the republic that bans blasphemy?????

Yes. It was brought in in 2009

timthumbni

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well feck that. I doubt fry will be that bothered. And I'm not really a big fan of his.

Akrasia

timthumbni wrote: »

Well feck that. I doubt fry will be that bothered. And I'm not really a big fan of his.

Steven Fry would make an awful lot of money giving speeches as a convicted Blasphemer. He'd probably be happier doing the speeches where he helped get the blasphemy law overturned

timthumbni

Akrasia wrote: »

Steven Fry would make an awful lot of money giving speeches as a convicted Blasphemer. He'd probably be happier doing the speeches where he helped get the blasphemy law overturned

Maybe he could do pokey like his hero Oscar. I think Stephen is very up his own arse to be honest. I enjoy watching some of his stuff such as his jaunts around America on the BBC. But I really don't think Stephen is even half as smart as he himself thinks he is..

BlinkingLights

To be perfectly honest whether you like or dislike Stephen Fry is irrelevant.
This could impact any comedian, broadcaster, writer, politician, boards poster or just someone talking in the pub.

Think about it : If you say something potentially blasphemous on the internet, you could quite literally have the Gardai knocking on your door demanding access to our phone and laptop.

It's a huge restriction on freedom of speech and puts Ireland into a similar space to Greece which similarly went after a foreign, this time Austrian, artist for drawing a cartoon that offended someone. It's also similar to Turkey and various other places that are known for pretty seriously regressive policies.

Having a blasphemy law at all makes us a backward country. It's not that it makes us *seem to be* backwards ... we actually are.

maudgonner

timthumbni wrote: »

Is this a piss take??? Is there even a law in the republic that bans blasphemy?????

Yes there is. Just as there is in Northern Ireland:

Blasphemy and blasphemous libel continue to be offences under the common law of Northern Ireland.
On 5 November 2009 in the House of Lords an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was moved, which would have abolished these offences in Northern Ireland, but following a brief debate the amendment was withdrawn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

It was only abolished in the rest of the UK in 2008.

BlinkingLights

The UK had an archaic and dead letter type blasphemy law.

We passed NEW blasphemy law in 2009 and it is fully active.

There's a bit of a difference!

Academic

BlinkingLights wrote: »

To be perfectly honest whether you like or dislike Stephen Fry is irrelevant. [...]

Exactly.

This isn't about any one individual. It's about why a western European state that wants to be taken seriously by the rest of the world would have a blasphemy law at all. It's shameful.

maudgonner

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The UK had an archaic and dead letter type blasphemy law.

We passed NEW blasphemy law in 2009 and it is fully active.

There's a bit of a difference!

How many prosecutions have been brought under the 2009 law?

volchitsa

maudgonner wrote: »

How many prosecutions have been brought under the 2009 law?

That's not really the point. Who in their right minds brings in a law in this this century while not intending for it be used?

And lo and behold, it's being used.

That's enough for me. We probably shouldn't really keep old laws that have fallen into disuse on our statute books, but getting rid of them is not necessarily terribly urgent. But here we have a new law, what's that about?

BlinkingLights

maudgonner wrote: »

How many prosecutions have been brought under the 2009 law?

That's not the point.

The threat of an investigation (which could include anything from demanding access to your IT devices, questioning you etc) and the fact that you could have to potentially defend an expensive legal case is more than enough to cause a chilling effect on free speech and journalism here.

Can you imagine the impact of getting a call from the Gardai about your boards posting history for example?? How would that make you react or feel? How would it impact online discussion?

That's where we are headed by even opening an investigation.

Also where does this leave Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple and countless other major IT and online media companies that have either HQ or hosting facilities here. Plenty of content could he considered to be potentially blasphemous.

Where does it even leave irish comedians or programming like Father Ted?

Also you can be done for offending ANY religion. Not just the Catholics.

maudgonner

It kind of is the point that I was making though. What is the difference between the law in NI, which isn't being used and the law here which isn't being used?


I think it's a pointless law and would love to see it axed but I think we have far more important issues to worry about. Like the role of the church in our education and health systems. Like media ownership in this country. Those have far more of an effect on freedom of speech and the influence of religion on our lives than this law does, or is likely to have. The minute a successful (or even likely) prosecution is brought is when I will start worrying about this law. Until then I'll focus on things that actually effect us.


And as for the shock and horror that was being expressed by people that we could have such a law on our statute books, I was just pointing out that we are not the only ones who do (or until recently, did). We're not as far behind the UK as some have suggested.

BlinkingLights

This something that can be resolved by simply tacking a referendum onto the next referendum or local elections with a simple question.

Saying it's not important enough to resolve is nonsense.

It's also a law that can be used to silence debate on all of those issues and any kind of prosecution, successful or otherwise has profound implications for the media and IT sectors.

It's not a minor issue.

You're looking at a piece of legislation that makes us less attractive to locate to for IT companies and if a string of spurious investigations started to target say Facebook or Google, you could soon see jobs going.

maudgonner

BlinkingLights wrote: »

This something that can be resolved by simply tacking a referendum onto the next referendum or local elections with a simple question.

Saying it's not important enough to resolve is nonsense.

It's usually quite a battle to get something put to a referendum so it's not as simple as tacking it onto the next election. Particularly when the next big referendum is likely to centre around an issue which is quite closely linked with religion.

There's lots of issues I would prioritise in a referendum over this one, until such time as a prosecution is brought or even looks likely to be brought.

BlinkingLights

Yeah the referendum on age of presidents and the other one on judges pay; those were huge pitched battles..

Getting it put to to referendum shouldn't be hard as it's not controversial.

learn_more

timthumbni wrote: »

Maybe he could do pokey like his hero Oscar. I think Stephen is very up his own arse to be honest. I enjoy watching some of his stuff such as his jaunts around America on the BBC. But I really don't think Stephen is even half as smart as he himself thinks he is..

I agree with that. Sure, half the reason he's famous is because his face is half warped. A curiosity one might say.

bodhrandude

BlinkingLights wrote: »

That's not the point.

The threat of an investigation (which could include anything from demanding access to your IT devices, questioning you etc) and the fact that you could have to potentially defend an expensive legal case is more than enough to cause a chilling effect on free speech and journalism here.

Can you imagine the impact of getting a call from the Gardai about your boards posting history for example?? How would that make you react or feel? How would it impact online discussion?

That's where we are headed by even opening an investigation.

Also where does this leave Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple and countless other major IT and online media companies that have either HQ or hosting facilities here. Plenty of content could he considered to be potentially blasphemous.

Where does it even leave irish comedians or programming like Father Ted?

Also you can be done for offending ANY religion. Not just the Catholics.

Although slightly unrelated to the topic, the subject of peoples posting history in the Electric Picnic festival forum became the subject of in a Herald article by Sarah Neville on people swapping drug tips for the festival. Its like you say loose talk can come back and bang you in the face. http://www.herald.ie/news/picnic-website-used-to-swap-drug-tips-27883340.html

Academic

maudgonner wrote: »

[...]
There's lots of issues I would prioritise in a referendum over this one, until such time as a prosecution is brought or even looks likely to be brought.

Why “prioritise”? There’s no queue. We don’t have to successfully tackle one issue before moving on to another. People are perfectly capable of addressing more than one issue at a time. Other countries do it all the time.

This smacks of the old “Labour must wait” psychology.

VinLieger

maudgonner wrote: »

It kind of is the point that I was making though. What is the difference between the law in NI, which isn't being used and the law here which isn't being used?


I think it's a pointless law and would love to see it axed but I think we have far more important issues to worry about. Like the role of the church in our education and health systems. Like media ownership in this country. Those have far more of an effect on freedom of speech and the influence of religion on our lives than this law does, or is likely to have. The minute a successful (or even likely) prosecution is brought is when I will start worrying about this law. Until then I'll focus on things that actually effect us.


And as for the shock and horror that was being expressed by people that we could have such a law on our statute books, I was just pointing out that we are not the only ones who do (or until recently, did). We're not as far behind the UK as some have suggested.

You completely miss the point there are countless examples of the law being acted as a deterrent and obstruction to freedom of speech.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks are the most glaring example, around the world the days following the attack papers all covered their front pages with covers of previous Hebdo covers lambasting not just islam and the terrorists responsible but all foprms of fundamentalist religion as well attacks on freedom of speech..... except in Ireland thanks to well know piece of human garbage Ali Selim, who publicly called out on radio that any Irish paper printing hebdo covers that could be even slightly considered as anti-islam would get taken to court by him and his mates in clonskeagh.

That's the law doing its job. Not being actively used doesn't mean its not working at stifling freedom of expression and speech.

You also completely missed the point about our law compared to the UK law being introduced in 2009, the UK repealed theirs the year before while we beefed ours up, its a startling admission that our country is still stuck in the dark ages to the rest of the world and incredibly embarrassing. We are the only western democracy to have reintroduced such a law in modern times.

Means Of Escape

A law to stop disbelieving fairytales

Samaris

I don't know that much about this yet, but I did get a faint impression of a set-up when I heard about it. Not that that's a bad thing or a real attempt to fool, more of a challenge to a foolish law, similar to how the Scopes Monkey Trial came about. Take someone who is reputable and well-known to argue the case and try win public support for this being a law that no-one should be punished under. The guy that reported him to the Gardai apparently (again, this is just how I got the story) wasn't actually offended about it himself, just that it did fall afoul of the law.

I may be completely wrong, mind you. But it'll be interesting to see how this works out. IMO, it's a law that has no place on our books.

suicide_circus

Can we start a campaign to get all TDs to wear a burqa in the Dail chamber? Just so the world understands how truly virtuous Ireland is

Akrasia

Samaris wrote: »

I don't know that much about this yet, but I did get a faint impression of a set-up when I heard about it. Not that that's a bad thing or a real attempt to fool, more of a challenge to a foolish law, similar to how the Scopes Monkey Trial came about. Take someone who is reputable and well-known to argue the case and try win public support for this being a law that no-one should be punished under. The guy that reported him to the Gardai apparently (again, this is just how I got the story) wasn't actually offended about it himself, just that it did fall afoul of the law.

I may be completely wrong, mind you. But it'll be interesting to see how this works out. IMO, it's a law that has no place on our books.

Atheist Ireland welcomed the investigation, so i'd be fairly confident that someone affiliated with or sympathetic to Atheist Ireland lodged the complaint in 2015 and then followed up on it to make sure the gardai fulfilled their duty.

ohnonotgmail

Akrasia wrote: »

Atheist Ireland welcomed the investigation, so i'd be fairly confident that someone affiliated with or sympathetic to Atheist Ireland lodged the complaint in 2015 and then followed up on it to make sure the gardai fulfilled their duty.

It has already been acknowledged that the person who made the complaint was an atheist, though not a member of Atheist Ireland. They made a complaint to make a point.

sbsquarepants

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Having a blasphemy law at all makes us a backward country. It's not that it makes us *seem to be* backwards ... we actually are.

Is a blasphemy law in and of itself not blasphemous?

You are basically saying that the almighty creator of the universe, needs legal protection from having his feelings hurt by a disrespectful comment.
Does he even watch RTE?
Couldn't he just smite the blasphemer? Send a flood or some such?

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It has already been acknowledged that the person who made the complaint was an atheist, though not a member of Atheist Ireland. They made a complaint to make a point.

Maybe this is why the Guards are being seen to give it attention... Maybe if it was some holy roller they'd have fobbed them off

Glenster

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not really the point. Who in their right minds brings in a law in this this century while not intending for it be used?

It kind of is the point. A law that isn't enforced means nothing. A meaningless sop to the priest-lovers in rural ireland.

And some atheist crusader kicking up a fuss about a law that doesn't do anything is par for the course for them. Do they not have jobs and kids and full lives that they have to seek their distraction elsewhere?

ohnonotgmail

lawred2 wrote: »

Maybe this is why the Guards are being seen to give it attention... Maybe if it was some holy roller they'd have fobbed them off

the only reason they are giving it any attention at all is because the complainant followed up on the complaint. and i doubt they are giving it much attention at all.

ohnonotgmail

Glenster wrote: »

It kind of is the point. A law that isn't enforced means nothing. A meaningless sop to the priest-lovers in rural ireland.

And some atheist crusader kicking up a fuss about a law that doesn't do anything is par for the course for them. Do they not have jobs and kids and full lives that they have to seek their distraction elsewhere?

except it has already done something as mentioned in post #231

VinLieger

Glenster wrote: »

It kind of is the point. A law that isn't enforced means nothing. A meaningless sop to the priest-lovers in rural ireland.

And some atheist crusader kicking up a fuss about a law that doesn't do anything is par for the course for them. Do they not have jobs and kids and full lives that they have to seek their distraction elsewhere?

Good for you posting such clueless tripe.

It doesnt matter if the law is used or no, it stifles free speech and expression regardless thanks to the threat of never ending litigation costs if you were to run afoul of it

volchitsa

Glenster wrote: »

It kind of is the point. A law that isn't enforced means nothing. A meaningless sop to the priest-lovers in rural ireland.

This is a fairly new law, not some forgotten leftover from the Middle Ages.
It's a very bad idea to put laws in place when nobody has any intention of using them.

Unintended consequences for example. Or intended ones, it can have this famous "chilling effect" described about the coverage of the killings in the French newspaper a while back. Plus it's a waste of taxpayer-funded time, when our legislators should be doing something useful.

It also helps discredit the legal system as a whole.

Glenster wrote: »

And some atheist crusader kicking up a fuss about a law that doesn't do anything is par for the course for them. Do they not have jobs and kids and full lives that they have to seek their distraction elsewhere?

Well I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think that's a relevant objection.
What's crazy is that we put this law in place at all, not that someone is trying to point up how mad it is.

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only reason they are giving it any attention at all is because the complainant followed up on the complaint. and i doubt they are giving it much attention at all.

Of course not - but they had to say that it was an ongoing investigation. That in itself is enough for this to get sufficient public attention.

Glenster

VinLieger wrote: »

Good for you posting such clueless tripe.

It doesnt matter if the law is used or no, it stifles free speech and expression regardless thanks to the threat of never ending litigation costs if you were to run afoul of it

Obviously it doesn't.

Because Stephen fry and I can say that God is a prick all we want.

volchitsa

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously it doesn't.

Because Stephen fry and I can say that God is a prick all we want.

I suspect Stephen Fry doesn't agree quite so wholeheartedly any more.

As for you, well you can expect to hear from the Guards quite soon now, once Boards give me your email address allowing you to be identified.

Really Interested

Glenster wrote: »

It kind of is the point. A law that isn't enforced means nothing. A meaningless sop to the priest-lovers in rural ireland.

And some atheist crusader kicking up a fuss about a law that doesn't do anything is par for the course for them. Do they not have jobs and kids and full lives that they have to seek their distraction elsewhere?

A law that is not being enforced means nothing! That is exactly what people said up to 1993 to the gays, a sure no one has recently been prosecuted for being gay but sure we want to keep the law on the books just because.

A law that remains on the books that has no use is an insult to the law and to all right thinking people. Sure which laws will we ignore next, to have a law where the policy is to ignore it, weakens all law.

Glenster

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except it has already done something as mentioned in post #231

Post 231 was baseless opinion.

"I reckon the papers didn't publish Charlie Hebdo headlines because of the blasphemy laws"

VinLieger

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously it doesn't.

Because Stephen fry and I can say that God is a prick all we want.

Obviously it does http://www.thejournal.ie/dr-ali-selim-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-1870437-Jan2015/

“Definitely if there is a legal action, I will take it. If you want to blame, blame the law,” said Dr Selim.

ohnonotgmail

Glenster wrote: »

Post 231 was baseless opinion.

"I reckon the papers didn't publish Charlie Hebdo headlines because of the blasphemy laws"

It wasnt baseless. It was based on a specific threat made publicly.

Glenster

volchitsa wrote: »

I suspect Stephen Fry doesn't agree quite so wholeheartedly any more.

As for you, well you can expect to hear from the Guards quite soon now, once Boards give me your email address allowing you to be identified.

My strong suspicion is that Stephen Fry doesn't give a sh*t about a garda probe that will go nowhere.

And if you think I wouldn't openly say that god is a prick all day long for fear of being arrested, I don't know where you live or what reality you inhabit, but I would, and so would everyone.