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.
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 If we are not prosecuted, it will again highlight the absurdity of this law, which should be repealed immediately.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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
[+] [-] brynedwards|9 years ago|reply
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_...
[2]: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasp...
[+] [-] Zuider|9 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] stringcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] g5555|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morganvachon|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] xroche|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] blibble|9 years ago|reply
abortion is still illegal in nearly all circumstances, divorce was only legalised in 1997 and only in very specific circumstances
[+] [-] tomjen3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angry-hacker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|9 years ago|reply
And Hate Speech laws are not dangerous (and a different issue than blasphemy)
[+] [-] kristianc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eternalban|9 years ago|reply
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 ..
[+] [-] stringcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmh_ca|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|9 years ago|reply
Apparently 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.
[+] [-] II2II|9 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] idop|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tomis02|9 years ago|reply