General Chat

I see Stephen Fry is under a police investigation in the RoI for comments he made about god. In the 21st century, it's hard to believe that a fellow member state of the EU (for now) that embraces ECHR and the right of freedom of speech, can even consider investigating someone for saying what he thinks.

It raises the question of privileged positions. Do we, as a society, grant privilege to a group of people whereby they are not allowed to be criticised or lampooned? Politicians, celebrities, footballers, you name it, all are fair game. But to reserve one section for special treatment...is that right?

No one ever died from being offended. And there is an easy answer to being offended - just ignore whatever is said. As Mr Fry said himself - it's the most overused phrase there is.

Blasphemy laws are the last bastion of a medieval society, implemented now only in places of dictatorship and authoritarian states. It absolutely beggars belief that someone could be prosecuted for the offence in an English speaking member state. I seriously hope it goes nowhere, which will probably be the case.

Ridiculous. I saw most of the interview and there was nothing he said that most of us haven't thought at some time.

.

Ruddy hell Eldrick you do know how to get this Ostriches head out of the sand.

but it´s that crap person Mr. Fry so the sand is more interesting

Do we (or them ) grant privileges to certain well known groups ha ha he he would they ? .
That sand was really warm

It took them long enough to 'be offended' - that interview was 2 years ago...

Sheila you have so nailed it in one.

It's mediaeval. I can't believe the police are taking it seriously. Utterly pathetic.

Meanwhile the civilised world has moved on. Time they caught up.

One report in the media said the anonymous person who instigated the investigation did so to highlight the archaic (sp) law.

I don't much listen to SF's pontifications anyway but I'm guessing he has not had enough publicity of late?

It isn't Mr Fry who is seeking the publicity. I would heartily recommend brushing up on the story. You will discover that he is not making any comments. Its a bit like saying someone who has just got a speeding ticket is really just seeking attention.



:-D

Eldrick, I do not need to brush up as you so eloquently wrote for I did read about it.

However, unlike some people, I always ask myself who, if anyone, benefits from a story.

My conjecture is that I believe SF says something with the express knowledge that someone will report his statement - that is a sure-fire way to court publicity.

It's interesting seeing this now as I watched it on the Gaye Byrne show on Irish tv a couple of years ago It was on whilst we were on our eight week holiday in Lanzarote. The interviewer was very clearly uncomfortable and the audience remained silent throughout. However no mention of anyone being offended as far as I recall. I spoke to several friends about the programme the next day. As in life some mixed reviews but no one said that they were offended.

Edit

We stay on a predominantly Irish owned complex and Irish tv is number one channel there

Its a bit of an ad hominum argument, then. Intead either tackling and disputing the points he was making, and/ or accepting that he has a perfect right to state his belief in a TV interview (a trait that religious adherents all claim vocifierously), saying that he was just publicity seeking is merely a body swerve in an attempt to avoid the issue.

It's a bit like me dismissing the Pope as just a failing celebrity who is only addressing the crowd in St Peters in order to boost his flagging career. Of course, I would prefer to tackle what he is saying rather than claiming he is a just a strangely dressed person who mumbles meaningless phrases in a dead language so that lots of people will give him money. Far be it from me :) :)

I would think if SF was courting publicity he would have been satisfied by the response at the time, which was in all the papers. If attention seeking is what someone is doing, then it is an immediate response they are after and not 2 years down the line?

I'd subscribe to DET's theory that it is someone highlighting an archaic law ( the same has fairly recently been done in the US I think...different law though) OR, as there is a move to a more secular outlook in Ireland ( see the recent abortion discussion) it could be someone like my Irish acquaintance who is anti anything that might be construed as an encouragement to shift away from, an insult to, or a questioning of, his religious beliefs.

Yes, its very much yesterdays news. I wonder (cant be bothered to look) if Richard Dawkins or Professor Nash have ever been threatened with blasphemy?

But regardless, the whole thing is just so idiotic its beyond human comprehension. I doubt that its being done just to highlight the stupid law, but harbour hope that if it is, that it is succesful. We really do need to euthanise and eradicate this medieval nonsense if we are going to face up to the problems of the 21st Century. Arguing about bronze age mythology is utterly insane.

I believe Dave Allen got into trouble for some of the sketches in his shows.

I think you are right - wasn't it the one about the little boy going to school and the nun teacher? Funny, it has to be said!

Dave Allen was so unPC can you imagine him on stage now....with his drink and his fag and the content of some of his jokes.

See they've dropped the case then...not enough people complained or were offended.

That's good - although it might have been interesting to see it go ahead in the spotlight, just to highlight the absurdity of it.

Was very unlikely to happen though was it, even they can see the stupidity I'm sure.