Gardaí launch blasphemy probe into Stephen Fry

dark crystal · 07-05-2017 12:58PM

I despair at how backward this makes us look as a country.

osarusan · 07-05-2017 01:01PM

I haven't kept up with this - is there any suggestion that was a test case designed to show just how stupid the law is, or is it actually somebody who wants to see a prosecution for blasphemy?

BlinkingLights · 07-05-2017 01:49PM

It's getting plenty of international news coverage this weekend - making us look like complete knuckle dragging morons but then again, you all voted for this stuff in some way by not holding FF to account for introducing such a stupid piece of legislation in 2009 and for not pushing FG to do something to deal with it in the years that followed.

Complacency on these issues gets us into these messes!

It's very easy to forget that just a few short decades ago Ireland was pretty much the Catholic version of modern Russia or Turkey in terms of where it was going with social policy.

No condoms, no access to information about abortion, pregnant woman incarcerated by nuns for breech of social mores, books banned, films edited, and so on.

We've come a long way but we still suffer the odd touch of Stockholm Syndrome, particularly at officialdom level.

If people don't demand change, it won't happen though.

You need to write to your local TD or ring them up and tell them that this will influence how you vote. otherwise, the charade just continues.

Fred Swanson · 07-05-2017 02:00PM

This post has been deleted.

BlinkingLights · 07-05-2017 02:04PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Damage is done now. It doesn't matter whether anything comes of it or not. The reputation is utterly destroyed.

Everyone's just heard Irish police go after major intellectual celebrity for blasphemy - whether or not we actually prosecute him or not won't ever be heard.

Ireland already has a reputation for backward social policies, so all this does is reaffirm a lot of people's beliefs that we are a bit like Alabama or Louisiana.

If you're looking at places to invest as an IT company that has a media publishing aspect , this instantly raises red flags too.

You don't have free speech with this law in place. It's as simple as that.

I mean what's next? Trace all the IP addresses of the Atheist forum on here ?

Prosecute everyone who says anything negative about the nuns?

maudgonner · 07-05-2017 02:17PM

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Damage is done now. It doesn't matter whether anything comes of it or not. The reputation is utterly destroyed.

You're massively overreacting. More than likely this case will quietly go away. The articles will be forgotten by tomorrow and Stephen Fry will continue to go about his business, as he should.

Hopefully we will get a referendum, which will then allow the law to be abolished, but there's a bit of a queue for issues requiring referenda and this is hardly the most pressing.

Erik Shin · 07-05-2017 02:19PM

maudgonner wrote: »

You're massively overreacting. More than likely this case will quietly go away. The articles will be forgotten by tomorrow and Stephen Fry will continue to go about his business, as he should.

Hopefully we will get a referendum, which will then allow the law to be abolished, but there's a bit of a queue for issues requiring referenda and this is hardly the most pressing.

If it didn't need a referendum to pass into law, it doesn't need one to be wiped out

maudgonner · 07-05-2017 02:23PM

Erik Shin wrote: »

If it didn't need a referendum to pass into law, it doesn't need one to be wiped out

I might be wrong, but I think the 2009 law was brought in because the existing law (which was required by the constitution) was only applicable to Catholicism, and needed to be extended to cover all religions.

If we want to get rid of the blasphemy law altogether I believe it does require a referendum.

BlinkingLights · 07-05-2017 02:27PM

The existing law didn't define blasphemy at all and basically without establishing a state religion it was a dead letter law and couldn't be prosecuted.

The 2009 act redefined blasphemy as an intent to provoke outrage amongst the followers of a religion.

So technically, you could be done for blasphemy for outraging any religion.

We could have just left it alone and covered it with law on incitement to hatred, which we already had.

This was pointed out ad nausium in 2009 but fell on deaf ears.

I personally emailed various people in the green party and got all sorts of wishy washy responses and it was the reason why i opt never to vote for them again as a result.

Fred Swanson · 07-05-2017 02:30PM

This post has been deleted.

BlinkingLights · 07-05-2017 02:31PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a defence for academic, political, artistic and similar discussion which would probably exempt one religion being blasphemous to another.

The issue is that it is all subject to the whim of a court and could easily go against someone if they got a particularly conservative judge.

I would doubt that the DPP would waste their time bringing a case, but there's nothing to say the Gardai wont escalate this to the DPP as they won't be able to make a decision not to prosecute.

Irish Guitarist · 07-05-2017 03:20PM

The blasphemy law is something people like to whine about and use as an example of how backwards Ireland is. In reality it has no effect on anyones lives. And there are worse laws regarding freedom of speech in other countries. For instance holocaust denial laws in many European countries.

As for Stephen Fry; he's a pompous arrogant prick. He comes out with crap about how people who take offence at things are idiots but as soon as someone leaves a comment on one of his tweets he doesn't like he threatens to delete his account in an attempt to get all his followers to lick his arse and tell him not to leave. He's too think skinned to handle someone saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "you're good on telly but your tweets are boring" but he loves to sneer at other people.

gctest50 · 07-05-2017 03:26PM

maudgonner wrote: »

You're massively overreacting. More than likely this case will quietly go away..... .

It might be in Googles best interests to quietly pack up and leave Dublin

- before someone tries to link search engines results with providing blasphemous sites

Dempsey · 07-05-2017 03:30PM

I hope this case ends up killing the law. We are being embarrassed as a country by it for as long as it exists

Academic · 07-05-2017 03:32PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The blasphemy law is something people like to whine about and use as an example of how backwards Ireland is. In reality it has no effect on anyones lives. (1) And there are worse laws regarding freedom of speech in other countries. For instance holocaust denial laws in many European countries.

(2) As for Stephen Fry; he's a pompous arrogant prick. He comes out with crap about how people who take offence at things are idiots but as soon as someone leaves a comment on one of his tweets he doesn't like he threatens to delete his account in an attempt to get all his followers to lick his arse and tell him not to leave. He's too think skinned to handle someone saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "you're good on telly but your tweets are boring" but he loves to sneer at other people.

(1) The fact that things are worse in other countries is wholly irrelevant. Things are always worse in Somalia, for example, but so what? This is just an attempt at suppressing all criticism.

(2) But the point is, Fry is correct.

Gbear · 07-05-2017 03:34PM

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm not sure blasphemy laws fall anywhere near the category of politically correct.

Course they do.

They're just politically correct to a different set of politics to the ones we expect these days.

Christy42 · 07-05-2017 05:05PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The blasphemy law is something people like to whine about and use as an example of how backwards Ireland is. In reality it has no effect on anyones lives. And there are worse laws regarding freedom of speech in other countries. For instance holocaust denial laws in many European countries.

As for Stephen Fry; he's a pompous arrogant prick. He comes out with crap about how people who take offence at things are idiots but as soon as someone leaves a comment on one of his tweets he doesn't like he threatens to delete his account in an attempt to get all his followers to lick his arse and tell him not to leave. He's too think skinned to handle someone saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "you're good on telly but your tweets are boring" but he loves to sneer at other people.

Aka I don't like him therefore In have no issue with this bull law.

If it really has no effect on there is no issue getting rid of it.

Really Interested · 07-05-2017 05:32PM

The bit I love about the law:

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

(i) of its followers, or

(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

bnt · 07-05-2017 05:50PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Its f**king farcical real life Fr Ted stuff, why wouldn't they laugh?

I thought that new police officers, all over the world, underwent radical humourectomies the day after joining the force? :cool:

py2006 · 07-05-2017 05:52PM

Ironically religion is just a long established cult.

A cult is merely a new religious movement.

jimmytwotimes 2013 · 07-05-2017 06:01PM

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 · 07-05-2017 07:32PM

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 · 07-05-2017 08:02PM

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 · 07-05-2017 08:29PM

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 · 07-05-2017 09:44PM

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 · 07-05-2017 09:46PM

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.

07-05-2017 09:49PM

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

07-05-2017 09:55PM

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 · 07-05-2017 09:56PM

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 · 07-05-2017 10:10PM

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

Gardaí launch blasphemy probe into Stephen Fry

Comments