Stephen Fry under police investigation......for blasphemy?

[Antar Bolaeisk]

Gets even weirder.

"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."

2009?

Why are such draconian laws being allowed in 2009?

It's an ancient law that someone was last prosecuted under back before Ireland was a Republic. We inherited it from you lot! It was kept because when Ireland was founded the Catholic Church was granted a high level of importance.

In 2009, rather than just removing the law, it was updated to cover blasphemy against any religion, prior to that it was only illegal to blaspheme against Christianity.

It's a rather stupid thing and the point of the complaint (1 person out of 5 million people) was to highlight the archaic law and the Gardai, correctly, filed this under could not be bothered because I doubt anyone wants to prosecute someone under this law.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

Ergo why include any reference to blasphemy at all!

It's in the Constitution unfortunately. It requires a referendum to remove.

Nate

 

[Nasher]

Even if it was taken all the way I can't see the UK extraditing someone for blasphemy lol, even if it is to Ireland.

 

[Fishbait]

Richard Dawkins is offering himself up for arrest too.

"
To show solidarity with Fry, Dawkins quoted a sentence from his book, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

On Twitter, Dawkins added: “The Irish blasphemy law must go. An embarrassment to the civilised world, it encourages the uncivilised one.”"

Apparently they dropped the investigation against Stephen Fry already.

It's also had good effect elsewhere.
"A blasphemy investigation into Stephen Fry has prompted New Zealand's major political parties to commit to repealing the country's blasphemy laws."

 

[Destination]

Perhaps dawkins would pay the funds for the referendum then?
If he insist it 'must' go.
Then let it go by will of the people paid for by him.

I would have no issues voting to remove it, but as it is constitutional, it does require a vote of the people.

 

[Gerard]

Richard Dawkins is offering himself up for arrest too.

Yeah he's a bit late hopping on the bandwagon considering its already been dismissed.

 

[stewski]

Yeah he's a bit late hopping on the bandwagon considering its already been dismissed.

I find glossing over the fact that idiotic laws exist (complete with their chilling effects) because a case is dropped, something of a joke!

 

[Destination]

I find glossing over the fact that idiotic laws exist (complete with their chilling effects) because a case is dropped, something of a joke!

So pay for a referendum and see if the people of that nation agree with you.
Tiss easy.

 

[cheesyboy]

So pay for a referendum and see if the people of that nation agree with you.
Tiss easy.

No reason it would have to be particularly expensive: just tack it on to the next election polling

 

[Angilion]

[..]
It's also had good effect elsewhere.
"A blasphemy investigation into Stephen Fry has prompted New Zealand's major political parties to commit to repealing the country's blasphemy laws."

From the news story linked to, above:

News of the investigation brought to light the existence of blasphemy laws in New Zealand, which neither the prime minister nor the Anglican archbishop were aware of.

Another example of how blasphemy laws work in a civilised country - they're ignored. In New Zealand, ignored so much for so long that not even the most relevant people knew they existed at all.

In related news - it's illegal to carry a plank of wood on a pavement in London. Few people know that, nobody cares and it's never enforced, but it's still law (Metropolitan Police Act 1839, section 54 subsection 8). I also like subsection 3, which makes it mandatory to take due care when driving cattle along streets in London. It doesn't make driving cattle along London streets illegal, only doing so in a negligent manner.

 

[Washout]

In before someone shoots a Welshman crossing the border with a crossbow on Sunday! What day is it today.... ooooh, I'll be right back!

 

[Fishbait]

In before someone shoots a Welshman crossing the border with a crossbow on Sunday! What day is it today.... ooooh, I'll be right back!

Don't drive to church whilst out & about, as there's laws against that too.

 

[mrk]

Lord have mercy on his foul mouthed soul!

 

[Destination]

In before someone shoots a Welshman crossing the border with a crossbow on Sunday! What day is it today.... ooooh, I'll be right back!

Isn't it a longbow?

 

[Washout]

Isn't it a longbow?

It is?! Oh dear, I think I just broke the law...

 

[Freakbro]

A sensible result.

If it had gone ahead, if I were representing Fry in Court, I would have requested the Judge summon God to appear before the Court to ascertain if he had been offended by Fry. Send the summons to the nearest Church and give him a week to attend. If he didn't turn up request he be held in contempt of Court and issue a warrant for his arrest. Then request an adjournment until such time that the witness was arrested and brought before the Court

The Man who sued God

 

[Angilion]

Isn't it a longbow?

It's neither. The whole thing is a myth.

Either would be silly by itself, because both types of bow were available. If carrying one might get a person killed, they'd carry the other one.

 

[dowie]

It's neither. The whole thing is a myth.

Either would be silly by itself, because both types of bow were available. If carrying one might get a person killed, they'd carry the other one.

eh? The factor that gets them killed is being welsh - the longbow refers to the person doing the shooting and not an item being carried by the person the law allowed to be killed.

(any yes it is a bit of a myth)

 

[Washout]

It's neither. The whole thing is a myth.

Either would be silly by itself, because both types of bow were available. If carrying one might get a person killed, they'd carry the other one.

There isn't even a law! Oh man. Does anyone know any trustworthy pigfarmers in the Greenwich area?

 

[Angilion]

eh? The factor that gets them killed is being welsh - the longbow refers to the person doing the shooting and not an item being carried by the person the law allowed to be killed.

(any yes it is a bit of a myth)

Both versions of the myth exist. It's not a bit of a myth. It's completely a myth.

The version in which the weapon is being carried by the person who can be legally killed is less nonsensical. Still completely fictitious, but less nonsensical. The idea that killing was legal if the killer used a longbow but illegal if they used anything else really doesn't make any sense. The idea that it was legal to kill a person from a hostile country if that person was armed makes some sense. It wasn't true, but it's not as obviously nonsense.