Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe

[Blackleaf]

Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.

Officers are understood to be examining whether the British comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.

Fry had asked why he should "respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world.... full of injustice".

Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments

6 May 2017
BBC News

Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.

Officers are understood to be examining whether the British comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.

Fry had asked why he should "respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world.... full of injustice".

He later said he was not "offensive towards any particular religion".

According to a report in the Irish Independent newspaper, no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place.

'Such misery'

Appearing on The Meaning of Life, hosted by Gay Byrne, in February 2015, Fry had been asked what he might say to God at the gates of heaven.

Fry said: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault. It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

He went on to say that Greek gods "didn't present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent", adding "the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis in the same month the programme was broadcast. He was recently contacted by a detective to say they were looking into his complaint.

The viewer was not said to be offended himself but believed Fry's comments qualified as blasphemy under the law, which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of 25,000 euros (£22,000).

The law prohibits people from publishing or 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".

The government said at the time it was needed because the republic's 1937 constitution gives only Christians legal protection of their beliefs.

'Absolutely astonished'

Fry's representatives have been contacted for a comment.

Speaking to the BBC in 2015, Fry said he had been "absolutely astonished" by some of the reaction on social media to what he had said on the show.

He said: "I don't think I mentioned once any particular religion and I certainly didn't intend, and in fact I know I didn't say anything offensive towards any particular religion."

A police spokeswoman told the BBC: "We are not commenting on an ongoing investigation."

Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments - BBC News

 

[petros]

Who?

 

[White_Unifier]

I agree wh blasphemy laws in principle, but only as they might apply to inciting violence. However ignorant I find his comment have been, I don't see how it would cross the threshold of inciting violence.

According to what appears to be poor wording of present Irish law though, he should be found guilty only to reveal the flawed wording of that law.

 

[Blackleaf]

The Republic of Ireland is a rabidly Catholic nation where the Vatican still has its vice-like grip, unlike England which freed herself from the Vatican and the Pope under Henry VIII.

 

[Serryah]

The Republic of Ireland is a rabidly Catholic nation where the Vatican still has its vice-like grip, unlike England which freed herself from the Vatican and the Pope under Henry VIII.

So he could marry another woman to be queen after his first wife couldn't have a son for him, so he lied when he went to court and when he didn't get his way, then he took his Religious ball and split from the church. Henry the VIII was a dipstick.

That said, I hope Stephen has this BS complaint dropped against him. It's beyond senseless and he made valid points in his comments. This is just the case of people too religious getting their panties in a knot when they can't handle the heat of someone opposed to it.

 

[Blackleaf]

So he could marry another woman to be queen after his first wife couldn't have a son for him

You can't blame him for not wanting to stay with thr women who couldn't produce a male heir for him.

so he lied when he went to court and when he didn't get his way, then he took his Religious ball and split from the church.

I think you'll find he couldn't take the matter to the Pope because, rather ironically, the Pope was currently a prisoner of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, so Henry left the matter in the hands of Thomas Wolsey.

Henry the VIII was a dipstick

Henry VIII was probably the greatest king England has ever had, who made many great accomplishments - including the break with Rome.

 

[Bar Sinister]

You can't blame him for not wanting to stay with thr women who couldn't produce a male heir for him.

Sure I can, given the fact that it is the male of the species that determines the sex of the offspring. Now, I realize Henry didn't know that, but let's face it, his marital relations were disastrous and he was the one who chose each wife.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The Republic of Ireland is a rabidly Catholic nation where the Vatican still has its vice-like grip, unlike England which freed herself from the Vatican and the Pope under Henry VIII.

That's a bit out of date. The Irish have dropped Catholicism faster than a live grenade. (So did Quebec). This law is a weird holdover, I will admit.

 

[tay]

Maajid Nawaz cannot believe it.

He said: "The sheer hypocrisy of this, the sheer idiocy of this, makes me completely, as you can hear probably in my voice, enraged.

"First off, I'd like to say to, you dear listeners, I'd like to- this liberal, openminded, Muslim man with a microphone, would like to say to you: the hypocrisy of religious God-botherers, who think they have the right to preach and proselytise their view of God being the most kind, the most merciful, the most magnificent, the most omnipotent, the most omnipresent, the one and only love of their lives.

"They have the right to preach this, they believe, to everybody else, whether invited or uninvited, often you see them on the street stalls. Distributing leaflets, telling you how good God is.

"They have the right to preach this, and yet an atheist doesn't have the right to preach his view on God? That he doesn't like God, that he thinks God is, as Stephen Fry said, an utter maniac?

"How is it that a religious person can grant themselves the right to preach, while denying the right of an atheist to speak to their own beliefs. So that's point number one. The sheer hypocrisy of this. And it's an embarrassment.

"It's an embarrassment that in Ireland this law even exists. But the other point I'd like to say about blasphemy, is that it's a victimless crime. Who are you really hurting?

"Who did Stephen Fry really hurt? I'll tell you who is being hurt. You know one of the most oppressed minorities in the world today are atheists.

"If you look to America, more people, when surveyed, this is just a fact, I'm telling you stats, more people when surveyed, discriminate against atheists in America, than they even do against Muslims and Jews.

"There has never been, I think until Trump, who may well be an atheist, there had never been an atheist President in the United States. Atheists in Pakistan, Egypt, and other Muslim majority countries, are regularly hounded.

"In Bangladesh, a list was produced, basically telling jihadists to go and hunt out and seek out people that were merely accused of atheism, and about ten or thirteen of them were murdered, because their names were put on this list.

"Saudi Arabia has deemed atheism a terrorism offence. So when we talk about blasphemy, which is a victimless crime, the real victims here, are the atheists, which in most Muslim majority countries in the world are criminalised. Are criminalised.

"Yet religion still has state sanction even here in the United Kingdom, because the official religion is the Church of England, it's the atheists who are discriminated against.

"And why are you so insecure? God-botherer, who complained about Stephen Fry, why are you so insecure? If your God truly is omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing, and all everything you can ever think of, then surely, surely the minuscule Stephen Fry, in comparison miniscule to this great God, you know his comments on your God will basically deflect like the wings of batfink?

"You know, whose wings are made of steel, it won't touch him at all, why on earth do you think God is so weak, that he would be harmed by the words of a comedian? Whereas those atheists who are being killed across the world, they are genuinely in danger.

"That's where your focus should be. So blasphemy is a victimless crime. Then the other thing I'd like to remind you of, is the history of this, the history of blasphemy laws and hounding people for heresy, you know, was not the Spanish Inquisition enough for you?

"Were not the witch hunts in this country, during medieval times, enough for you? Can we stop going after people because of their thoughts? Because of their opinions?

"And truthfully offence, you may have been offended by this, but offence isn't given, offence is taken. You, Godbotherer, who complained about Stephen Fry, decided to take offence on behalf of a God, who is above taking offence, because he's this omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing being that you've said he is.

"So actually it's you who's been bothered, it's you who has the insecurity. It's you who is weak, it's you who has chosen to take offence, because offence is not given, it is taken.

"And yeah, fine, you're offended, you've got the right to be offended, you have every right to be offended, but you have no right to tell me, or anyone else, not to offend you."

Why Are We Still Legitimising Blasphemy? It's Embarrassing, Says Maajid - LBC

 

[Johnnny]

Who cares if his comment was ignorant, he is right....

**** Religion, **** God and Allah.

 

[MHz]

All this shows is they are (truly) part of mainland Europe and are in need of the same level of mental issues as the current EU is facing.

 

[Jinentonix]

Huh, Irish taliban.

 

[Cliffy]

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. "Nobody is right if everybody is wrong." Charging anybody with blasphemy is just plain stupid. I really don't understand people who think that another person's opinions are a direct attack on theirs. If you are allowed to have an opinion (let's face it, your beliefs are just your opinion) then everybody should be allowed to have an opinion. Otherwise you have dictatorship and lord knows we have had plenty of that when it comes to religions.

 

[Serryah]

You can't blame him for not wanting to stay with thr women who couldn't produce a male heir for him.

Why, because at the time women were expected to produce males? Scientifically it is his fault since males determine the sex, as Bar said. And while he could be forgiven for not knowing this, the point is, he treated women like they were cattle and worse as time went on.

And as history notes, Catherine did have sons, just not any that survived, or lived very long in the case of her one son, Henry. And considering the number of times she did get pregnant, the fact he had no concern for her emotional state shows the kind of person he really was.

So with that information, absolutely yes I can blame him and he deserves that blame.

I think you'll find he couldn't take the matter to the Pope because, rather ironically, the Pope was currently a prisoner of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, so Henry left the matter in the hands of Thomas Wolsey.

Actually that's not likely true. It's a belief people have, but not valid. Faith wise, only death can annul a marriage. Since Catherine and Henry were very much alive, the Pope was unlikely, even if he had not been held captive, to agree to the annulment. That Charles V 'had him' made the Pope only stall, and the fear the Pope likely had of the man didn't help matters either.

It was the stalling that got Henry po'ed enough to buck the system and make an outlandish claim that Catherine and his marriage was a farce because she was married to his brother - which as I understand she said they had not consummated, thus taking the wind from Henry's sails whether true or not. In the end, people bowed to Hentry's will because he was the King, and he believed he could only be overruled by God.

You really need to stop lying just to try and boost your delusions of English greatness.

Henry VIII was probably the greatest king England has ever had, who made many great accomplishments - including the break with Rome.

Uh, actually no. He was if anything kind of 'meh' at being a King.

If there was anyone of Henry's rein that you should admire, it's Catherine for how she handled things home when the Scots rose up while Henry went on a disastrous campaign in France.

 

[gerryh]

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. "Nobody is right if everybody is wrong." Charging anybody with blasphemy is just plain stupid.

Nobody has been charged.

According to a report in the Irish Independent newspaper, no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place.

and no one will be charged. An investigation does not mean charges will be laid. It's just an investigation because some idiot whined.