Stephen Fry the Blasphemer

[Copernicus]

I haven't seen another thread on this scandalous behavior by Stephen Fry, but they are on to him in Ireland!

See Stephen Fry Reportedly Faces Blasphemy Probe After Calling God A ‘Maniac’

Here is the man flagrantly violating Irish law:


(View video on YouTube)

[JamesBannon]

Yeah, I saw it on the BBC web site. The guy who complained was using his remarks as a test of the law. However, any country with a law like that on its books is stupid.

[Jackrabbit]

Blasphemy law? Do they really want to be like a muslim country?

[Copernicus]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]Blasphemy law? Do they really want to be like a muslim country?[/quote]
Apparently, the Irish blasphemy law shows how Christians have advanced in their thinking since the middle ages. Someone like Fry need no longer fear the rack or the classic auto-da-fé. I believe that he just faces a fine for his transgression. Perhaps the court will let him off with some "Hail Mary" penance.

[ruby sparks]

Perhaps the case will never go to court. This is probably the most likely outcome. The complaint was made over two years ago and authorities have tried to ignore it. The last prosecution was in 1855. The existing law was ruled 'incompatible' in 1999. The 2016 government has made a commitment to holding a referendum (constitutionally required).

It's surprising how many other european countries still have similar 'dead letter' blasphemy laws: Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and others, often with harsher penalties (on paper). Also New Zealand, Canada and some Australian states. Iceland only repealed in 2015, the Netherlands in 2013, Norway in 2009 and the UK in 2008.

[ruby sparks]

[quote=""JamesBannon""]...any country with a law like that on its books is stupid.[/quote]

Any country not in the top 10 most atheist countries in the world is stupid.


No but seriously, Ireland is in some ways an odd mix of being sluggishly behind the curve in some ways and ahead in others. We might even grant it the status of at least having moved further and faster than most others, comparatively speaking, given how very far behind it was even up until fairly recent decades. And I say that as an escapee and a British-identifying neighbour.

I'm using therms like 'ahead' and 'behind' subjectively of course.

[MattShizzle]

I'm surprised the EU wouldn't ban this. Blasphemy laws would be illegal in the US since 1789.

[Copernicus]

[quote=""MattShizzle""]I'm surprised the EU wouldn't ban this. Blasphemy laws would be illegal in the US since 1789.[/quote]
Er, well...I think you should take a look at Blasphemy law in the United States.

[Jobar]

A marvelous response to that question, indeed.

I expect most of us here have given similar answers, to similar questions. Multiple times, quite possibly.

It's good to have such a powerful combination of logical and emotive arguments for unbelief put before the general public- and for that reason I approve of that anonymous citizen reporting it. In fact it might be that citizen is an atheist, who wants to use the antique blasphemy law to further the cause of unbelief.

[Copernicus]

[quote=""Jobar""]A marvelous response to that question, indeed.

I expect most of us here have given similar answers, to similar questions. Multiple times, quite possibly.

It's good to have such a powerful combination of logical and emotive arguments for unbelief put before the general public- and for that reason I approve of that anonymous citizen reporting it. In fact it might be that citizen is an atheist, who wants to use the antique blasphemy law to further the cause of unbelief.[/quote]
I hope that he then intends to contribute to Stephen Fry's legal defense fund. After all, he is not choosing to test the law at his own expense.

[Jobar]

It may not be free, but it *is* advertising for Fry, as well. If it actually goes to court- which I rather doubt- he might make more off it than it costs him.

[Hermit]

[quote=""Copernicus""]Someone like Fry need no longer fear the rack or the classic auto-da-fé. I believe that he just faces a fine for his transgression. Perhaps the court will let him off with some "Hail Mary" penance.[/quote]If he ever gets charged with uttering "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" in the first place. To date nobody has since the current law replaced the previous one in 2010.

[quote=""ruby sparks""]It's surprising how many other european countries still have similar 'dead letter' blasphemy laws: Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and others, often with harsher penalties (on paper). Also New Zealand, Canada and some Australian states.[/quote]
They are all in breach of the relevant section of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is binding on its signatories. The last prosecution in Australia took place in 1919. It failed.


Comments critical of religion can be suppressed by means other than the old-fashioined blaspheme laws. They can be prosecuted via hate crime laws as well other related legislation. The alleged crime is no longer "offending god". Now it is "offending people". But success is by no means assured there either.

In May 2014 Northern Ireland Pastor James McConnell delivered a 37 minute sermon in which he said among other things "Now people say there are good Moslems in Britain - that may be so, but I don't trust them." and "Islam is heathen. Islam is satanic. Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell." The sermon was streamed on the internet, so the government took him to court under the 2003 Communications Act and carries a maximum penalty of six months in gaol. The charge, per the wording of the act, was "sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive". He fought the charge and won.


(View video on YouTube)

The full sermon is available here

In my view causing someone to feel offended is not a crime, no matter what the hate crime laws in various countries and states say about it. Incitement to violence or discrimination is.

[ruby sparks]

[quote=""MattShizzle""]I'm surprised the EU wouldn't ban this. Blasphemy laws would be illegal in the US since 1789.[/quote]

The EU is not quite like the USA. Not all the laws are top-down.

That said, things don't seem to be entirely different in practice in the USA where some states still have blasphemy laws, and I read that Pennsylvania brought one in in 1977. Decisions may be overturned by the higher court.

ETA: whoops, I see cop has already linked to this.

[ruby sparks]

[quote=""Hermit""]In my view causing someone to feel offended is not a crime, no matter what the hate crime laws in various countries and states say about it. Incitement to violence or discrimination is.[/quote]

I wouldn't like to be in charge of deciding when to punish and when not to.

I think these things are also, to an extent, dealt with as being context-specific. If that idiot protestant pastor had said the exact same thing about Catholics and Catholicism he might have been done for it, even today (30 years ago it might not have mattered if he had been prosecuted or not because most likely he would have been shot).

[JamesBannon]

Somewhere someone, or even an entire group, is going to be offended, even by the most innocuous comments and jokes. This is why punishing speech is so problematic, and governments should use the precautionary principle when law making; i.e., the default should be not to punish, more so when considering subjects like religion and politics. Note that this is different from defamation, which is a direct accusation of wrong doing without evidence, and causing panic or violence.

[Altfish]

[quote=""JamesBannon""]Somewhere someone, or even an entire group, is going to be offended, even by the most innocuous comments and jokes. This is why punishing speech is so problematic, and governments should use the precautionary principle when law making; i.e., the default should be not to punish, more so when considering subjects like religion and politics. Note that this is different from defamation, which is a direct accusation of wrong doing without evidence, and causing panic or violence.[/quote]

Ideas should be open to criticism and ridicule.
People and races should be protected.

Religion does seem to get extra protection regarding verbal criticism. But religion is still an idea just like (say) capitalism, Marxism or belief in your mid-table football team.

[DMB]

An Irish view in The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ste ... 22906.html

I know how the Irish head-in-the-sand brigade is going to respond to this latest piece of evidence that Father Ted was, in fact, a documentary. They’re going to say that the complaint against Fry is just some crazy hick exploiting a harmless law, and it’ll go nowhere, so we should all calm our jets and laugh it off. I can see the jocular tabloid headlines already: Fry in Hell! And I agree that the case is likely to go nowhere. But we are deluded if we think that the 2009 law is not actively influencing, limiting, even dictating the content that we are offered by our national media.

And we are even more deluded if we think that we are living in a secular society. Just days ago, on 3 May, the Irish government made it mandatory to stand during the prayer that opens the Dáil (parliament) and to observe a moment of silence afterwards. This is an obvious infringement on the freedom of conscience of our elected representatives and coercion of this sort has no defensible place in a secular society. The motion passed by 97 votes to 17.

This is the public discourse and political context that allows for a situation where our elected representatives think it’s acceptable to give full ownership of a state-of-the-art national maternity hospital to an order of Catholic nuns who are ideologically opposed to contraception, IVF, and, of course, abortion. This is the context that enables Catholic control of the Irish state-funded education system. It is the context that denies Irish women their reproductive rights.

It has to change – not because we’re all a bit embarrassed about inviting Stephen Fry on Irish telly and then casting him, without his permission, as a heretic in a medieval docudrama – but because the church should have no place in politics. We deserve a secular state. And we need to start insisting on one.

[DMB]

And another article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben/ste ... 5042.html?

I stand one hundred per cent in solidarity with Stephen Fry. Of course I don’t endorse, approve, let alone agree with his remarks. Indeed I profoundly disagree with them. But I absolutely defend his right to think and say them, just as I defend the right of a Christian to express their beliefs, or a person of any other faith to do the same.

As I have written before, I am one hundred per cent against blasphemy laws. A God who needs man-made laws to protect His reputation is not God - or at least not a deity I would wish to believe in. Furthermore, blasphemy laws in many countries lead to people being jailed or killed. Such laws are frequently misused to pursue vendettas unrelated to religion - in the case of Ahok, there is little doubt of the political motivation behind the decision to charge him with blasphemy, contributing to his defeat in the recent gubernatorial elections. My colleagues at the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide and I have advocated for years for the repeal of such laws in countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and even Burma where the Penal Code is used to prosecute people deemed to have ‘insulted’ Buddhism. For the Republic of Ireland, or any other Western democracy, to keep such legislation on its statute books, let alone use them to prosecute, is immensely unhelpful...

...There are clear and reasonable boundaries which freedom of speech should not cross. One should not incite hatred or violence. One should not cry ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema. And there are, rightly, laws to prevent such speech. But from what I have seen Stephen Fry was not inciting anyone to do anything against people of religious belief - he was merely expressing his view of God. And precisely because some of my own friends have been killed or jailed under unjust blasphemy laws, I take very seriously Voltaire’s principle - I disagree with what he said, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

[DMB]

And here's an example of a nasty blasphemy conviction. At least it's not yet as bad as Pakistan or Saudi, where it is a capital crime.

http://www.france24.com/en/20170509-jak ... -blasphemy

Jakarta's Christian governor was jailed for two years Tuesday after being found guilty of committing blasphemy, capping a saga seen as a test of religious tolerance in the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation.

Presiding judge Dwiarso Budi Santiarto told the Jakarta court that Basuki Tjahaja Purnama was "convincingly guilty of committing blasphemy and is sentenced to two years in prison".

He ordered Purnama, known by his nickname Ahok, to be detained. Purnama said: "We will file an appeal." Islamic hardliners outside the court cheered as news of verdict emerged and shouted "God is greatest".

Purnama was hauled into court last year to face trial for allegedly insulting Islam while campaigning for re-election in a case critics said was politically motivated.

The trial came after a series of major protests against the capital's leader that drew hundreds of thousands onto the streets.

His once unassailable opinion poll lead shrank amid the controversy and he lost the race to lead Jakarta last month to a Muslim challenger, a result that fuelled fears of Indonesia's moderate brand of Islam coming under threat from increasingly influential radicals.

[DMB]

In the mean time the case against Stephen Fry has been dropped. I hope, however, that Irish people will now work hard to get rid of this stupid law.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/st ... 92915.html

Gardaí have decided not to proceed with a blasphemy investigation against Stephen Fry after they failed to find a large group of people outraged by comments he made on an RTÉ show.

Detectives spoke to the man who made the original report this evening and confirmed they will not be carrying out further enquiries.

Independent.ie understands that detectives were unable to proceed with the investigation as there was no injured party.

Under the controversial legislation, introduced by then Justice Minister Dermot Ahern in 2009, it is illegal to publish or utter a matter that is "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion".

A well-placed source said: "This man was simply a witness and not an injured party. Gardaí were unable to find a substantial number of outraged people.

"For this reason the investigation has been concluded."...

...Michael Nugent, Chairperson of Atheist Ireland said the reason for dropping this investigation is "even more dangerous than a prosecution would have been."

"This creates an incentive for people to demonstrate outrage when they see or hear something that they believe is blasphemous.

"It also shows that the police take our blasphemy law seriously, as indeed they should do, regardless of the nod and wink attitude of our legislators."...

...Today Health Minister Simon Harris said a referendum should be held to change the constitution’s stance of blasphemy.

"It’s silly. It’s a bit embarrassing. It needs to be changed. I’m very pleased that the Government wishes to see a referendum in relation to this issue. It obviously does require constitutional change," he said.

Mr Harris said the Government has committed to holding a number of referendum during its lifetime and he hopes blasphemy is one of them.

[ruby sparks]

[quote=""DMB""]An Irish view in The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ste ... 22906.html

I know how the Irish head-in-the-sand brigade is going to respond to this latest piece of evidence that Father Ted was, in fact, a documentary. They’re going to say that the complaint against Fry is just some crazy hick exploiting a harmless law, and it’ll go nowhere, so we should all calm our jets and laugh it off. I can see the jocular tabloid headlines already: Fry in Hell! And I agree that the case is likely to go nowhere. But we are deluded if we think that the 2009 law is not actively influencing, limiting, even dictating the content that we are offered by our national media.

And we are even more deluded if we think that we are living in a secular society. Just days ago, on 3 May, the Irish government made it mandatory to stand during the prayer that opens the Dáil (parliament) and to observe a moment of silence afterwards. This is an obvious infringement on the freedom of conscience of our elected representatives and coercion of this sort has no defensible place in a secular society. The motion passed by 97 votes to 17.

This is the public discourse and political context that allows for a situation where our elected representatives think it’s acceptable to give full ownership of a state-of-the-art national maternity hospital to an order of Catholic nuns who are ideologically opposed to contraception, IVF, and, of course, abortion. This is the context that enables Catholic control of the Irish state-funded education system. It is the context that denies Irish women their reproductive rights.

It has to change – not because we’re all a bit embarrassed about inviting Stephen Fry on Irish telly and then casting him, without his permission, as a heretic in a medieval docudrama – but because the church should have no place in politics. We deserve a secular state. And we need to start insisting on one.

[/quote]

[DMB]

It seems to me that in this context it's a good idea to look at the relevant article of the constitution of Ireland(consolidated text):

Article 44

1.The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2.

1. Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2. The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3. The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
4. Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
5. Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6. The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

[DMB]

Obviously 44.1 is a big problem. The wording of 44.4 is problematic when taken in conjunction with article 42

Article 42

1The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3

1. The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2. The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In practice there is very little state schooling of children. Most publicly-funded schools are run by the churches and a majority by the RCC.

[Jobar]

[quote=""DMB""]In the mean time the case against Stephen Fry has been dropped.[/quote]

I expected that, but I'm a bit disappointed. The publicity surrounding the court case would have sold lots of popcorn, I think.

[Copernicus]

The publicity may have helped the public to think more clearly about getting rid of the law. It isn't clear to me how deeply the public is wedded to the idea that the government should be in the business of promoting religion. Their Constitution seems to want to have a pro-Christian secular government, which is the de facto situation in the US.