Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

Options
1…1011121416

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I think it's probably fairer to say he's prepared to poke the religious establishment, rather than anti religion. He is apparently quite private about his own beliefs, though he had a Catholic upbringing and marriage as far as I know.


  • Options
    #393
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    For some, that is 'anti-religion' enough, perhaps.


  • Options
    #394
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Certainly a hammy gesture. I wonder how much it encouraged Fry to expound on his thinking....

    Camera on Fry as he answers the questions. Then, set up again, camera on Gaybo while he pulls some reaction faces. The show we watch is edited together later.


  • Options
    #395
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Camera on Fry as he answers the questions. Then, set up again, camera on Gaybo while he pulls some reaction faces. The show we watch is edited together later.

    I think you'll find it was Recedite claiming that wasn't the case...


  • Options
    #396
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Arkady wrote: »
    Gaybo has always been anti religion.
    No, I don't think so. He did a lot during his career to undermine the unquestioning obedience that the people formerly had towards the RCC hierarchy.

    But in terms of exploring peoples private religion and spirituality, which he does in this TV series, he is generally pro-religion in his attitude.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you'll find it was Recedite claiming that wasn't the case...

    No way does RTE use two camera crews for a simple interview.


  • Options
    #398
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No way does RTE use two camera crews for a simple interview.
    Fair enough, I'm sure you're terribly well versed in these things.


  • Options
    #399
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No way does RTE use two camera crews for a simple interview.
    Its kind of off-topic, but how do you explain the Sweeping Hand of Fry then?
    Are you opting for the "stunt hand" heresy?


  • Options
    #400
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That's not what the senders of his hatemail in the 60s and 70s were saying.

    Whatever his personal beliefs were or indeed are, he did a great service to the people of Ireland who did not or could not conform to the suffocating catholic orthodoxy.

    Transparent nighties n'all.

    He was also the first, and possibly the only, RTE presenter to unroll a condom live on air onto a fairly realistic looking prosthetic penis.
    indeed - and his handling of the kerry babies story, and specifically the subsequent deluge of letters from women which were read out on his show, will stand him in good stead for many years to come.


  • Options
    #401
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    [...] his handling of the kerry babies story, and specifically the subsequent deluge of letters from women which were read out on his show, will stand him in good stead for many years to come.
    Hard not to see that private tragedy and the very public aftermath as a watershed moment in Irish social history.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,349 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    robindch wrote: »
    Hard not to see that private tragedy and the very public aftermath as a watershed moment in Irish social history.

    A matter of months after the 8th amendment was passed - if the order of events had been different, then what??

    The 8th only passed in Dublin by 51-49%, and 2:1 in the country as a whole - before any of the church scandals were known and when the RCC was at the height of its powers, a third of the electorate still voted No.

    It's been all downhill for the roman catholic church in Ireland ever since.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #403
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    A matter of months after the 8th amendment was passed - if the order of events had been different, then what??
    The 8th only passed in Dublin by 51-49%, and 2:1 in the country as a whole - before any of the church scandals were known and when the RCC was at the height of its powers, a third of the electorate still voted No.
    It's been all downhill for the roman catholic church in Ireland ever since.
    Of course another perspective would be that the 8th Amendment garnered 66.9% of votes, compared to the 34th Amendments 62.1%, so we wouldn't want to say that a result of even less than 2:1 is not a definitive statement by the electorate, would we?
    And I think you'd need to go back way before 1983 if you're talking about the height of Church power in Ireland. By '83 we'd already had note being made of the decline in Church attendance and vocations in the late '70s, the Sodalites of our Lady were literally decimated between the '50s and the '80s, the heavy handed application of Humanae Vitae was causing widespread disobedience to Church teaching, and the damning Kennedy report had already been published in 1970, hinting at the shape of things to come. The Popes visit in '79 was supposed to cause a revival in Catholicism, so I don't think anyone at the time thought the Church was at the height of it's power. Certainly had the referendum on the 8th been in the '90s there would have been even less people inclined to listen to the institutional Church than was already the case in the '80s, but I don't think that would necessarily translate to a fundamental shift in personal morality. It's probably been all downhill for the Catholic Church in Ireland since the 1700s in fairness... it just has a very very very long way to go before it becomes entirely irrelevant.


  • Options
    #404
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Gardai wonder whether Stephen Fry should be prosecuted for blasphemy:

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html


  • Options
    #405
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    I wonder did someone bring this time-wasting exercise to the Gardai as a way of making a point about how ridiculous a law it is?


  • Options
    #406
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Would have thought so from what the person was saying, specifically the bit that they weren't offended themselves, but the material was blasphemous.


  • Options
    #407
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ooops. Now it's top article at the BBC:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447


  • Options
    #408
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    Ooops. Now it's top article at the BBC:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447
    Only for Irish readers, mercifully. From Australia, it doesn't even make the front page.


  • Options
    #409
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    My guess is that the person making the complaint sees it as a way to ridicule the medieval blasphemy laws. If so, it's a brilliant idea.

    The original complaint appears to have been ignored, and now with the Commissioner and media involved, the DPP has to make a political call. Every option available (prosecuting or not) is horrible for the DPP.

    It's 3 yrs since the government announced a referendum to remove blasphemy from the constitution and of course nothing has been done. This will speed things up; I'm delighted that someone made a complaint.


  • Options
    #410
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I wouldn't be surprised if the DPP simply said that the programme had “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”, and therefore a prosecution would not be indicated under the legislation. Nice 'n easy for the DPP, a lot of time wasting for the Gardai, and some column inches for the media...


  • Options
    #411
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Only for Irish readers, mercifully. From Australia, it doesn't even make the front page.
    Was a long way from Ireland when I posted that :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Absolam wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if the DPP simply said that the programme had “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”, and therefore a prosecution would not be indicated under the legislation. Nice 'n easy for the DPP, a lot of time wasting for the Gardai, and some column inches for the media...
    Nope, the case falls at an even earlier hurdle. The "genuine literary, artistic etc value" line is a defence, but you don't need to offer any defence unless the elements of the charge are first of all proven by the prosecution. And the elements of the charge are:

    . . . a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—

    (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

    (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

    From the newpaper report, the complainant says that he himself was not outraged by the broadcast, and there is nothing to suggest that he has produced "a substantial number" of others who were. But without evidence that a substantial number of adherents were outraged, any prosecution must fail. The DPP won't even ask himlself whether the defendant could run the genuine value defence; he'll first of all ask himself if he can prove the elements of the offence and, if (as here) the answers seems to be "no", there will be no prosecuction. He doesn't have to waste time speculating about whether the accused could offer the genuine value defence.


  • Options
    #413
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,131 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    It doesn't even define what a substantial number is.

    A complete waste of Garda time.


  • Options
    #414
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    Believers who post here: are you in favor of having the law on the books whether or not you think it applies to Fry in this case?


  • Options
    #415
    17larsson
    Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭17larsson


    How did this actually get passed in the first place? Ahern was hardly going to risk his seat at an election by ignoring this so why would he pro-actively push it through without any kind of public interest in it?


  • Options
    #416
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    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 RT? were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime
    That's a classic statement :D

    The Constitution mentions blasphemy, and any constitutional provision is supposed to be reflected and clarified in specific legislation. Therefore Ahern had two options; either get rid of the constitutional mention via a referendum (moderately easy) or else introduce some form of bogus legislation (very easy)
    He chose the latter.

    Similarly the Gardai have tried to ignore the guy's complaint for as long as possible, but after two years of delay they have been left with the choice of either investigating the matter, or being in breach of their duty to investigate a crime. So its now easier to investigate.

    This case will show up the legislation as bogus, which is a good thing. If they can't prosecute Fry/RTE for saying something which is as blatantly blasphemous as its possible to say, then what's the point of having blasphemy as an offence at all?

    In some ways this is similar to the National maternity Hospital debacle. Those in power know very well the situation is ridiculous, but the easiest option for them is to carry on as much as possible with the status quo. Unfortunately for them, the pesky public are not letting that happen.


  • Options
    #417
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,229 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Apparently we are to have the referendum!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/garda-silent-on-complaint-of-blasphemy-against-stephen-fry-1.3074334


  • Options
    #418
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Didn't the government pledge the referendum on bllasphemy last year?

    Many referendums on constitutional change on the horizon for Ireland


  • Options
    #419
    learn_more
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭learn_more


    Absolam wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if the DPP simply said that the programme had “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”, and therefore a prosecution would not be indicated under the legislation. Nice 'n easy for the DPP, a lot of time wasting for the Gardai, and some column inches for the media...

    Well that would be the sensible thing to do if I were in their position. Good thinking there Absolam. I'll pass your idea on to the DPP just in case they haven't thought of it already.


  • Options
    #420
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Bristolscale7 wrote: »
    Believers who post here: are you in favor of having the law on the books whether or not you think it applies to Fry in this case?
    No, not in favour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,824 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    michael nugent is on the pat kenny show on newstalk this morning, some time after 10am, to discuss this.


Advertisement