Gardaí launch blasphemy probe into Stephen Fry

Glenster

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

But there is no proven link. Is what I'm saying.

I can say that if the independent publishes pictures of Kate Middleton topless I will bomb Peploes.

That doesn't mean if the indo doesn't publish them I have coerced them into doing it.

ThisRegard

17 pages so I haven't had a chance to read everything (probably better having not), but the thought did strike me that the person who made the complaint done so to make a point as to how it's stupid we actually still have this law on the books.

edit: I see one page back that someone did just make the same suggestion and that apparently this is confirmed to be the case.

TheFitz13

This whole situation is so embarrassing for Ireland. Just as the world was starting to see us as a country that was not controlled by the church, this happens.

Quite embarrassing indeed.

CeilingFly

TheFitz13 wrote: »

This whole situation is so embarrassing for Ireland. Just as the world was starting to see us as a country that was not controlled by the church, this happens.

Quite embarrassing indeed.

how so?

some tiny artice in an online version of a cople of rags?

Those without a brain may laugh, (I usually ignore thos types) those with a brain will know its just media hype.

No embarrasment, as you can be sure 99.99% of people outside of Ireland have not come acrooss it.

Patser

CeilingFly wrote: »

how so?

some tiny artice in an online version of a cople of rags?

Those without a brain may laugh, (I usually ignore thos types) those with a brain will know its just media hype.

No embarrasment, as you can be sure 99.99% of people outside of Ireland have not come acrooss it.

And those outside Ireland, with no understanding of our nudge nudge wink wink not really enforced laws, will see headlines that Ireland does a have a recently enacted blasphemy law. On top of recent headlines like a future Maternity hospital put in a church body's control or debate about possibly, maybe having a vote on abortion legislation.

All that adds up to making us look far more under Church control than we really are. And that to me is embarrassing

BlinkingLights

Not to mention that our blasphemy law has been cited as a model for and a justification for much more extreme versions in other countries.

Boggy Turf

Absolutely crazy. Embarassing. Fry is a great man, he must be chuckling at our backwardness and our politician's cowardice and stupidity.
They need to sort out this blasphemy nonsense. Quick referendum and done.
The usual cave dwellers will vote to keep it of course but common sense will prevail.
Do the Roman church provide anything positive in Irish society anymore? I cannot understand how the sheep still darken their doors.

BlinkingLights

The problem is the cave dwellers all seem to work at Leinster House (politicians not the staff)

If you put this to a vote it would be gone in the morning. The issue is "the powers be", the same ones who are determined to hand the national maternity hospital over to the nuns, are dragging their feet about giving the public an opportunity to scrap the legislation.

At times I feel like the legislature here is a bit like that embarrassing, backwards relative that turns up at weddings and talks like it's still 1974 going on about the scourge of unmarried mothers.

Electorate is in 2017 ... Establishment politicians are gradually catching up with the late 1970s.

You'd think the Marriage Referendum would have shown they're living in fear of a silent majority of deep conservatives that simply doesn't exist.

Pawwed Rig

CeilingFly wrote: »

how so?

some tiny artice in an online version of a cople of rags?

A search for 'stephen fry blasphemy ireland' on google shows it was reported in the following

The Guardian
BBC
UK Independent
Telegraph
Daily Mail
Washington Post
CBS News
Times of Israel
Russia Today
Huffington Post

Boggy Turf

BlinkingLights wrote: »

You'd think the Marriage Referendum would have shown they're living in fear of a silent majority of deep conservatives that simply doesn't exist.

Yeah you don't see IONA out anymore talking rubbish about saving all the children the gays were going to adopt and raise badly. Their fake concern and bile caused a lot of people to stupidly vote No. Most are very embarrassed to have done so.

Samaris

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

Just for the background of the law. I'm not certain if it was brought in to reflect the Constitution as it currently stands until a referendum is held, but it appears to have been written to be unenforceable, even according to the Minister for Justice (Dermot Ahern) who introduced it.

It still needs to go, along with the bit in the Constitution. Interesting that the only two crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution are blasphemy and treason.

jackhammer

I blame Ahern and his government more that the nutjob in Clare for this fiasco.

Ahern says he had to make this into law because the Constitution forced him. The Constitution was written in 1937 and in 2009 Ahern takes it on himself to act on it. No-one would have cared if he hadn't, except maybe all the folks who hoped to gain out of the trade mission to Saudi Arabia in the same year.

And he says he made it 'unenforceable'. Why make the law in the first place then! Once enacted, some eejit was always going to use it to make a complaint.

ohnonotgmail

jackhammer wrote: »

I blame Ahern and his government more that the nutjob in Clare for this fiasco.

Ahern says he had to make this into law because the Constitution forced him. The Constitution was written in 1937 and in 2009 Ahern takes it on himself to act on it. No-one would have cared if he hadn't, except maybe all the folks who hoped to gain out of the trade mission to Saudi Arabia in the same year.

And he says he made it 'unenforceable'. Why make the law in the first place then! Once enacted, some eejit was always going to use it to make a complaint.

the only eejit who has seen fit to make a complaint did so to prove a point. Or because they had nothing else to do with their time.

BlinkingLights

I remember when this came into force in 2009/10 people I had a French journalist I know genuinely wondering if it would be safe to visit Ireland as she had written some fairly scathing articles about religious topics and there had been that case of Greece trying to arrest the Austrian cartoonist over doing a drawing of Jesus on the beach ...

swampgas

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only eejit who has seen fit to make a complaint did so to prove a point. Or because they had nothing else to do with their time.

Maybe it's a point that needs to be made?

I'm glad someone reported it, maybe a bit of international embarrassment will get the government to stop kicking the can down the road.

Murrisk

whisky_galore wrote: »

What makes it worse is its not a legacy law from 100s of years ago but one cooked up by a knobhead quite recently.

That's what gets me about it. Every country on the planet probably has kooky laws still on their statute books from way back in the day. But this is a modern law that was brought in. :eek: I still don't know how this happened with such apparent ease. It might be an unworkable law but that it was brought in so stealthily makes me feel a bit uneasy.

Christy42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only eejit who has seen fit to make a complaint did so to prove a point. Or because they had nothing else to do with their time.

So get rid of it. No one has given a reason for its inclusion or for keeping it. Tack it on to the next referendum and be done with it.

ohnonotgmail

Christy42 wrote: »

So get rid of it. No one has given a reason for its inclusion or for keeping it. Tack it on to the next referendum and be done with it.

I wouldnt disagree with any of that.

CeilingFly

The non-story sensationalised by the sensationalist indo's second-rate "journalists" is now officially a non-story.

Fairly embarrassing for the indo's "exclusive" story biting the dust so quickly.

Sad that so many people got so worked up by their sensationalist bull of a non-story. Pure clickbait riding the anti church wave.

Zebra3

BlinkingLights wrote: »

The problem is the cave dwellers all seem to work at Leinster House (politicians not the staff)

If you put this to a vote it would be gone in the morning. The issue is "the powers be", the same ones who are determined to hand the national maternity hospital over to the nuns, are dragging their feet about giving the public an opportunity to scrap the legislation.

At times I feel like the legislature here is a bit like that embarrassing, backwards relative that turns up at weddings and talks like it's still 1974 going on about the scourge of unmarried mothers.

Electorate is in 2017 ... Establishment politicians are gradually catching up with the late 1970s.

I disagree with the electorate being in 2017 bit.

After all it is they who continuously vote in large numbers for Fianna Gael, a right wing conservative party with two factions.

Patser

Case dropped due to lack of offended people.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stephen-fry-blasphemy-ireland-probe-investigation-dropped-police-gardai-not-enough-outrage-a7725116.html%3Famp

So calling any possible God capricious, mean minded, a maniac, unfair, capable of an act of utter utter evil doesn't cause offence.

That sets the bar for blasphemy pretty fecking high.

maudgonner

Zebra3 wrote: »

I disagree with the electorate being in 2017 bit.

After all it is they who continuously vote in large numbers for Fianna Gael, a right wing conservative party with two factions.

Your snide tone notwithstanding, if you genuinely think Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil are right wing conservative parties you need to open your eyes to world politics. Both of those are centrist parties, slightly right or left of centre on certain issues, but firmly in the middle. We don't have any genuinely right-wing parties in this country, not even close.

maudgonner

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

What evidence is there that this law was behind the newspapers' decision not to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoon? From what a number of media/legal commentators have said today those cartoons would not have breached the law. The papers had nothing to fear from the law. Media organisations that did publish had no cases taken against them. There were no consequences.

In The Irish Times' explanation for why they did not print them they made no reference to the law whatsoever. Why would they not have used such a handy excuse to justify a controversial decision?

The Irish Times took the view that publication of the cartoons was likely to be seen by Muslims as gratuitously offensive and would not contribute significantly to advancing or clarifying the debate on the freedom of the press.
The “right to offend”, an essential corollary of the right to freedom of expression, could be defended and upheld, The Irish Times holds, by other means than causing further offence to the overwhelming majority of a community which deplored the threats to Jyllands Posten and the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Our restrictive libel laws have a far greater effect on the freedom of the press. They are a genuine deterrent and one we should be far more concerned about than this toothless law. By all means get rid of it, but let's dial down the outrage in favour of genuine issues.

Kristopherus

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stephen-fry-blasphemy-probe-dropped-after-garda-fail-to-find-substantial-number-of-outraged-people-35692915.html

jimmytwotimes 2013

The title of the thread reminds me of Inner Space for some reason.

Boggy Turf

Christy42 wrote: »

So get rid of it. No one has given a reason for its inclusion or for keeping it. Tack it on to the next referendum and be done with it.

They'll kick the can down the road for another while I fear. Maybe include with abortion ref.

I love the thread title and I'd say Stephen Fry would love it too

Zebra3

maudgonner wrote: »

Your snide tone notwithstanding, if you genuinely think Fine Gael or Fianna F?il are right wing conservative parties you need to open your eyes to world politics. Both of those are centrist parties, slightly right or left of centre on certain issues, but firmly in the middle. We don't have any genuinely right-wing parties in this country, not even close.

Yw, they are and the facts speak for themselves.

They are there to protect the interests of the wealthy in society, and their long incestous relationship with the terrorists in the Roman Catholic Church prove that.

maudgonner

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yw, they are and the facts speak for themselves.

They are there to protect the interests of the wealthy in society, and their long incestous relationship with the terrorists in the Roman Catholic Church prove that.

Seriously, look up what an actual right-wing party is. They're not even close.

Pawwed Rig

I would have thought that the terroists were left wing for a start.
I find Fine Gael to be at least consistent in their outlook whereas FF tend to change to follow whatever way the wind is blowing. Wouldn't be a huge fan of either but FG never bankrupted the country so I guess they are ahead

dadad231

I wish it went to court, just to shame IRL on the world stage and force a repeal

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

So, it turns out it was fake news. Garda? say not investigating and no injured parties came forward.

NIMAN

If the gardai had put any more than 1min thought into this complaint, then it was 1min wasted.

In this day and age, to start an investigation because some nutter at home gets offended by a comment on TV, just boggles the mind.

We have international drugs gangs murdering each other on our streets, and now two possible terrorists arrested which might be only the beginning of major issues in the future, yet some would rather have the limited resources of the gardai looking into comments about their god.

learn_more

Being discussed on Claire Byrne show now.

Means Of Escape

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.

A positive atheist no doubt
Fry makes a lot of sense
If you believe in god then you can't discount Santa

Blasphemy laws are akin to Medieval hocus pocus

BorneTobyWilde

Hunchback Look going on tonight. What's with the shoulder to the ear look.

Samaris

Means Of Escape wrote: »

A positive atheist no doubt

What's a positive atheist?

Fry makes a lot of sense

He certainly makes a very arguable point although I'm not certain it is absolutely that black and white, and it's certainly not true that there's never been an explanation of it. Overall, I'm inclined to agree, but I wouldn't say that what he said is necessarily 100% correct by Christian views (who are, after all, the ones presenting the God ideas in Ireland and thus get some say in what they mean!); free will is given as a reason for one. The eyeball-eating bugs is pretty fcuked up though.

If you believe in god then you can't discount Santa

No more accurate than proclaiming that if you like apples, you -must- like crabapples. Or melons. Some Christian sects don't subscribe to the Santa Claus idea at all, and others consider him in the role of Saint Nicholas of Smyrna, the boy-bishop who became the popular concept of Santa Claus. Others feel that too much emphasis is put on saints as something akin to smaller gods for lesser traits, much like other religions do with a pantheon (Mary is a big one there), which in itself goes against the idea of the monotheistic religion. So basically, it's more complex than "if you believe in God, you believe in Santa".

Blasphemy laws are akin to Medieval hocus pocus

Yep.

swampgas

How nice that our blasphemy laws associate our little country with stuff like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/jakarta-governor-given-2-year-prison-sentence-for-blasphemy/2017/05/09/05a7f618-
346d-11e7-ab03-aa29f656f13e_story.html?utm_term=.97dc81cdd87d

It doesn't matter that the law isn't enforced (or all that enforceable), it's a law that says a lot to the world about where we stand.

py2006

Samaris wrote: »

No more accurate than proclaiming that if you like apples, you -must- like crabapples. Or melons.

Eh, no! Completely different. Belief in Santa is the same as belief in what ever god you choose. Highly unlikely but at the same token, non existence can not be proved.

Glenster

People are obsessed with how the world sees us re: the blasphemy laws.

There is a significant proportion of the world who will always see us as drunk, god-bothering potato-munchers.

Don't worry about it. Live your life.

Academic

Opinions seem to be split into two camps: those who think that it doesn’t matter that such a law is on the books if it’s not enforced, and those (like me) who think it’s irrelevant if it’s enforced since it shouldn’t be on the books in the first place.

I doubt that anyone on either side is apt to change their position at this point.

Glenster

Academic wrote: »

Opinions seem to be split into two camps: those who think that it doesn’t matter that such a law is on the books if it’s not enforced, and those (like me) who think it’s irrelevant if it’s enforced since it shouldn’t be on the books in the first place.

I doubt that anyone on either side is apt to change their position at this point.

A fair assessment;

People who think the symbol matters and people who don't.

robinph

The case has been dropped due to there being no injured party. The whole point of a blasphemy law is to protect the deity from having nasty things said about them, therefore the Gardai have stated that God does not exist. Progress at last.

Infini

I could see this irrelevant piece of crap about blasphemy being nuked from the constitution when the whole 8th amendment thing comes around. Wipe out 2 problems with one referendum.

Kivaro

robinph wrote: »

The case has been dropped due to there being no injured party. The whole point of a blasphemy law is to protect the deity from having nasty things said about them, therefore the Gardai have stated that God does not exist. Progress at last.

Excellent; finally we have proof.
Now the question is whether they entered this information into the Pulse system ........... and do we believe them?

paleoperson

robinph wrote: »

The case has been dropped due to there being no injured party. The whole point of a blasphemy law is to protect the deity from having nasty things said about them, therefore the Gardai have stated that God does not exist. Progress at last.

Not progress, more like stupidity.

The injured party is the 100s of thousands or millions of people who saw Fry saying that and were offended by it. How can there be no injured party?

Tired of the anti-catholic chip so many people in Ireland who were never adversely affected by the church seem to have.

robinph

paleoperson wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

The case has been dropped due to there being no injured party. The whole point of a blasphemy law is to protect the deity from having nasty things said about them, therefore the Gardai have stated that God does not exist. Progress at last.

Not progress, more like stupidity.

The injured party is the 100s of thousands or millions of people who saw Fry saying that and were offended by it. How can there be no injured party?

Tired of the anti-catholic chip so many people in Ireland who were never adversely affected by the church seem to have.

Blasphemy is to be saying something offensive towards the deity. Not towards the followers of the deity.

Either the deity doesn't exist, therfore they cannot be the injured party, or what Fry said was not offensive towards the deity. The second option there though would be for the court to decide, not the Gardai seeing as I doubt the deity came forward to say that they were not offended.

BlinkingLights

That's not how "blasphemy" is defined in irish law. It's basically a licence to seek restitution for religious devotees who feel offended by something.

It actually makes no reference whatsoever to offending the deity.

One could argue that it's likely unconstitutional as it doesn't actually meet any normal definition of blasphemy and is more like a badly written incitement to hatred type legislation.

The Protection of Religious Snowflakes Act would be more appropriate a title.

Academic

paleoperson wrote: »

Not progress, more like stupidity.

The injured party is the 100s of thousands or millions of people who saw Fry saying that and were offended by it. How can there be no injured party?

"Offended" simply means they didn't like it, as far as I can tell. Either way it hardly constitutes an injury.

There should be no legal guarantee that one can go through life without being offended.

Means Of Escape

Samaris wrote: »

What's a positive atheist?


He certainly makes a very arguable point although I'm not certain it is absolutely that black and white, and it's certainly not true that there's never been an explanation of it. Overall, I'm inclined to agree, but I wouldn't say that what he said is necessarily 100% correct by Christian views (who are, after all, the ones presenting the God ideas in Ireland and thus get some say in what they mean!); free will is given as a reason for one. The eyeball-eating bugs is pretty fcuked up though.

No more accurate than proclaiming that if you like apples, you -must- like crabapples. Or melons. Some Christian sects don't subscribe to the Santa Claus idea at all, and others consider him in the role of Saint Nicholas of Smyrna, the boy-bishop who became the popular concept of Santa Claus. Others feel that too much emphasis is put on saints as something akin to smaller gods for lesser traits, much like other religions do with a pantheon (Mary is a big one there), which in itself goes against the idea of the monotheistic religion. So basically, it's more complex than "if you believe in God, you believe in Santa".


Yep.

Positive atheist

I must have made that one up