Fry should make a statement similar to what Colbert made recently for his remarks against Trump "I've got the jokes, he's got the launch codes so it's a fair fight"
One of my favourite sketches on religion is from Atkinson's live show when the devil, Toby, welcomes people to hell [1]. It satirises Pascal's Wager [2] and the general issue of most peoples lack of reasoned choice of religion so casually and effectively after various easy digs at the usual victims.
I love all sketches, of that performance, especially the best man. But yes, that is a very good one and Atkinson is a genious although most people know him as Mr Bean where he is a less obvious genious.
Some of us would rather that such investigations never came to be, never mind for such charges to reach trial.
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?
Of course, but given that the laws are on the books, this is one of the best cases that could come up because it will almost certainly either lead to no case, or make them look silly, and by extension make thes laws look pointless.
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)
Yesterday I would argue this is unimaginable, someone being investigated for blasphemy in 2017 (in the west). We are dropping the ball on free speech. We chipping away on our liberties bit by bit. This is why hate speech laws are dangerous.
It won't go anywhere. Bizarrely the Irish blasphemy law is designed to be basically unenforceable, a fact admitted by the very minister who implemented it to much backlash at the time. The Irish government didn't even want a blasphemy law - it was forced to write one to fill a hole in the law caused by a reference to blasphemy in the Constitution. An early blasphemy law had been removed but removing it from law entirely requires a referendum to alter the Constitution. The "temporary" solution was a law worded in such a way any prosecution was pretty unlikely.
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.
The Irish constitution was written after a war of independence immediately followed by a civil war. Ireland was a mix of socialist dictatorship and theocracy at the time. The constitution is very weird and causes issues like this. It needs to be changed. Though in fairness the progress we have made socially has been extremely rapid and profound.
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)
Abortion aside, Ireland is in fact much more progressive and liberally minded than the US and most of southern Europe.
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.
There are a variety of silly things under Irish law, not least of which is that a pornographic film/image may be classed as 'child pornography' (and prosecuted the same) even if the participants are aged over 18, but one or more of the participants is made to appear as if they are a child, or with child-like characteristics.
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 agree with you in principle. What I was trying to say is that hate speech laws (and laws of similar spirit) tend to be written vaguely and leave room for unfavourable interpretation. Particularly in current climate, governments seem to be all too happy to sacrifice liberties under the disguise of protecting this or that (perceived as oppressed) minority.
I might be misunderstanding you, but of course not. Equal rights for all. Egalitarianism. But it seems as though these laws, well meaning or misguided as they may be, give special privileges to certain groups. Rather then preserving true equality and liberty for all.
I don't have a better alternative yet, but I can't help but think after observing the way things have played out the last couple decades that policing negative speech against minorities isn't the way to help them. I sympathize with the sentiment of lending a hand to the downtrodden, but the policy itself doesn't seem to work.
"Death to.." any actual person should be criminalized. Disallowing calls to kill certain groups, but not people generally, makes the law turn on the definition of what is or isnt a protected group. That's too vague for free speech. Calling for the extrajudicial killing of any actual person is the more workable and just approach.
As others have stated, the complainant is likely bringing the accusation not to punish Mr. Fry, but to bring the outdated law into the spotlight so the people will be moved to strike it from the constitution.
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.
Canada going with the laws of stopping islamophobia (what does it even mean?) the West is on the downhill. I need to create a religion fast to protect my ideas - - also the ones o might have in the future, I'm not sure yet. Who wants to join to make it more credible?
This is troubling. This a legitimate philosophical problem that dates back to Epicurus, Hume, Kant. It's something theologians since Aquinas have wrestled with, and that modern philosophers such have taken up. It applies as much to Christianity as it does to Judaism and Islam. There's no reason for this to be covered by blasphemy laws, even if you accepted blasphemy laws as legitimate.
Yes - and I agree with you, it's banal and in some ways a very Stephen Fryish question to ask - but asking a simplistic question is not to my knowledge, a crime.
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.
>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.
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".
The reason this law still exists is because blasphemy is included in the
Irish constitution and so to remove it would require a referendum which
"would rightly be seen as a time wasting and expensive exercise" [1];
the law is effectively a dead letter. With this becoming popular, we'll
probably get a referendum moved forward with the result being overwhelmingly in favour of removing it. The person who reported him claimed he/she was not offended[2]; it wouldn't surprise me if it was done just to highlight the silliness of the law.
47 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadApparently 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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
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)
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)
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.
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."
And Hate Speech laws are not dangerous (and a different issue than blasphemy)
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.
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 ..
The debate is over if it should be a crime.
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.
>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.
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".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_...
[2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...