Outspoken Atheist Investigated for Blasphemy

[really]

We have other more balanced law that acts as a more general hate speech law, it was lumped in with the defamation laws I think.

 

[Kyriakos]

I like Steven Fry

This gives me an idea, though: send Dawkins to Ireland, he deserves being milked of some of his trolling earnings

 

[Commodore]

We have other more balanced law that acts as a more general hate speech law, it was lumped in with the defamation laws I think.

Then there should be no need for a special law specifically for the religious.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I also like Fry but he seems to make two wrong assumptions:
1. If God is a maniac what is Fry going to do about it? Strangely enough Frys dissatisfaction and his will to manifest it also comes by that logic from God.
2. The assumption that by getting rid of the conception of God this world somewhat instantly is going to become a better place.

I know this isnt the main point of this thread but couldnt resists...

 

[Kyriakos]

^It is also very unlikely that the 'concept' of god itself can be gotten rid of, for nothing in the world of thought ever perishes.

 

[EnglishEdward]

So my question is: Why isn't the EU throwing some weight around on this to pressure Ireland to either modify the law to provide protection for the irreligious as well or to scrap the law altogether (the preferable option in my opinion)? I mean, you got Macron in France saying he'd push for the EU to levy sanctions against Poland over the reforms their nationalist government has instituted, so why no call for sanctions against Ireland for not respecting its citizens' fundamental right to worship, or not worship, as they please without fear of persecution or discrimination?

There are a number of reasons why the EU (Mommy) Child (Member State) act is not yet in operation on this.

These include the EU being pre-occupied with being annoyed that the USA elected the Donald, telling Russia
off about persecution of gays, thinking up things to invoice Britain for, nailing down Greece etc.

And they probably reckon the ECHR will do their work for them if a prosecution is issued against Stephen Fry.

They have already been threatening to fine Eire for not taxing US corporates and for dirty rivers.

The conformist EU SJWs have already won a major victory in Eire with the referendum on gay marriage.
I rather suspect that their next strategic target in the Republic of Ireland is its ban on abortions by choice.

And what sanctions can the EU invoke anyway?

And afterall if the EU plays hard ball, Eire can retaliate by simply vetoing everything it can.

 

[really]

There are a number of reasons why the EU (Mommy) Child (Member State) act is not yet in operation on this.

These include the EU being pre-occupied with being annoyed that the USA elected the Donald, telling Russia
off about persecution of gays, thinking up things to invoice Britain for, nailing down Greece etc.

And they probably reckon the ECHR will do their work for them if a prosecution is issued against Stephen Fry.

They have already been threatening to fine Eire for not taxing US corporates and for dirty rivers.

The conformist EU SJWs have already won a major victory in Eire with the referendum on gay marriage.
I rather suspect that their next strategic target in the Republic of Ireland is its ban on abortions by choice.

And what sanctions can the EU invoke anyway?

And afterall if the EU plays hard ball, Eire can retaliate by simply vetoing everything it can.

Your prejudices are blinding you Edward, Ireland is making these advances on our own, no need for foreign intervention.

Europe is our partner, not our parent, no need for hardball or retaliation.

We are actively revising our constitution - marriage equality was the first change, blasphemy is on the long list, abortions are legal in limited circumstances now and further liberalization has been recommended.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ireland is making these advances on our own, no need for foreign intervention.

Exactly.

 

[Hrothbern]

In Germany, especially Bavaria blasphemy is also illegal - the law is seldom applied, but it is always looming over those not being religous, as its formulation is not very precise. The intention of the law seems to prevent really offensive insults against sacred places, like this Austrian girl who shot some porn clips in her local church.

What Bavaria has fits well with continental Europe fundamentals about how to use law.
UK has less laws, no written out constitutional law and is more based on jurisprudence.
IDK that precise about other cultures.

Laws are not regulations. Regulations are a much more precise instruction set for civil srvants.
Laws are a guidance for judges and courts.

Between law and the verdict stands the court who has to interpretate how to apply law in the current time frame and mindset.
Law is not intended to be a computer program.
They are intentionally vague and somewhat abstract.
And you just cannot update law every decade with the current time frame mindset.....
.... and continental Europe did not want that fast change every decade or so and upgrade !
Most changes in that mindset, blow away after some time and the unchanged law stays the anchor keeping the ship of state moored in about the same location.
That undefined, unprecise distance between law and the interpretation gives stability and protects us from the hype of the day of politicians, tabloids and grassroot movements.

What happened in Ireland fits with the general mindset today everywhere in the world, where the hype of the moment starts getting more important than the stability of the law and the country.
A politician like Trump is a perfect example.
He probably does not even understand the Trias Politica of Montesquieu,
I guess for him the law is something that has to do with (expensive) lawyers if you close a deal or have a dispute on a deal.
But most polticians of today do not really respect the law and think they can change is at their whim

 

[Kyriakos]

Should have been 'trias politice', then, so Montesquieu does not understand use of clauses

 

[Ryika]

The offending clip - hopefully it will work outside of Ireland

One embarrassing consequence of our blasphemy law was that Pakistan referred to it to justify their own laws.

He's being investigated for that comment? Boy, that's some thin-skinned bs.
If those people ever see my Youtube comment history, they might have a heart attack.

 

[Traitorfish]

Serious Ireland, why are you investigating a comment made two years ago? Is there so little going on there this is how you entertain yourselves?

What does "investigating" actually mean, though? Going by British procedure, to which Irish law is generally similar, it only means that if a member of the public makes a plausible report that a crime has been committed, the police are obliged to do at least a minimum amount of poking around to see if the complaint is valid. It doesn't mean that they acknowledge an actual crime has been committed, let alone that Fry is being regarded as a suspect.

The only reason this is making the news is because the British enjoy any story that can be distorted into proof of the Irish incapacity for self-government.

 

[Cheetah]

From a reddit user:

The full story is actually more interesting. The guy who is making the complaint isn't doing it because he believes in blasphemy. He is doing it to highlight how stupid the law is and that we need to get rid of it. Using well loved Steven fry should give it the headroom it needs to be discussed in a decent capacity.

This isn't a big thing, but it is a good way to raise some attention to the issue.

 

[Commodore]

The only reason this is making the news is because the British enjoy any story that can be distorted into proof of the Irish incapacity for self-government.

I'd say their capacity for self-government is pretty suspect though considering they've been ruled by one foreign power or another for the vast majority of modern history.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The offending clip - hopefully it will work outside of Ireland

It worked, thanks.

So is this the result of Hate speech laws???

I didn't hear him say anything that would constitute hate speech, at least by Canadian standards.

I like Steven Fry

This gives me an idea, though: send Dawkins to Ireland, he deserves being milked of some of his trolling earnings

Yeah, it's sooo "trollish" to say "let's look at the evidence."

I also like Fry but he seems to make two wrong assumptions:
1. If God is a maniac what is Fry going to do about it? Strangely enough Frys dissatisfaction and his will to manifest it also comes by that logic from God.
2. The assumption that by getting rid of the conception of God this world somewhat instantly is going to become a better place.

I know this isnt the main point of this thread but couldnt resists...

You're making a wrong assumption by assuming there is a god who gave Fry the capacity to consider the god portrayed in the bible as evil.

It doesn't matter if an imaginary character is a maniac, because in the real world we (and Stephen Fry) live in, imaginary characters don't exist.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You're making a wrong assumption by assuming there is a god who gave Fry the capacity to consider the god portrayed in the bible as evil.

I dont make that assumption in this case. Its Fry who in this hypothetical scenario calls on God: "How dare you?" I understand that Fry doesnt believe in such a diety so he is in fact turning to a crowd of religious followes and challenging their beliefs. Which is fine only he has to realise that in the eyes of these believers and in the case of this hypothetical scenario he is no power separate from that diety. Basicaly Fry can challege God only becouse God does allows him so. And if thats the case God may not be such a bad dude after all.
I can only add: may be there is more to life then what the physical senses convey and the intellect comprehend? If so then Frys challenge is only an intelectual caprice if not then this world is quite diabolical on its own and the misguided religious fancies quite fit in.

It doesn't matter if an imaginary character is a maniac, because in the real world we (and Stephen Fry) live in, imaginary characters don't exist.

This real world is full of egos so I hear yet I have never seen one...

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say their capacity for self-government is pretty suspect though considering they've been ruled by one foreign power or another for the vast majority of modern history.

Wow.

Just....wow.

 

[Kyriakos]

^"The luck of the irish"

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: The 'Irish capacity for self-government (or lack thereof) is not the subject of this thread. Back on topic, please.

 

[warpus]

I'm focusing on the language of subdiv. (c)"It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates"

I see the crux of Fry's statement being about injustice: Justice is one aspect of politics. Thus, Fry's statement is not subject to the law.

They need to add "comedic" and "personal" to that list and remove the word "reasonable" and it'll be fine.

But yeah, what the hell Ireland?

Who wants to start a new religion with me, one under which we worship blasphemy?