Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy in Ireland [video]
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_...
[2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...
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 If we are not prosecuted, it will again highlight the absurdity of this law, which should be repealed immediately.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".
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.
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)
In effect, the anonymous accuser is doing exactly what you, a freedom loving person, would want him to do: Call these laws out for their backwards and repressive themes.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Hate speech laws are perfectly fine, they intent to protect people from being harassed and attacked for what they are (philosophically, religiously, skin color...). This is not hate speech law: no group or people or people are involved here, only an imaginary character. If I say "death to religious people", this should be criminalized. If I say "death to god", there is nothing wrong with that.
I think the American standard is fine. You can say that, but you can't say "let's kill those religious people over there."
abortion is still illegal in nearly all circumstances, divorce was only legalised in 1997 and only in very specific circumstances
These comments were made during an interview on the Irish public broadcasting network; just for a comparison, in Italy nobody would have even dared to speak their mind so clearly about God on tv, or the show would have likely been cancelled. Twenty years ago the sitcom "Father Ted" became the most popular show in Ireland, and it would be still considered too blasphemous to be aired by any of the major tv networks in Italy.
And Hate Speech laws are not dangerous (and a different issue than blasphemy)
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 ..
>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.
> You could argue calling Allah “stupid” and an “utter maniac” might annoy him, hypothetically.
It depends where you do this. In general Allah claims, very much like Krishna, to have perfect 'detachment', so arguably IT does not give a fig.
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.
The debate is over if it should be a crime.
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.
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?
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)