Stephen Fry Blasphemy Investigation

[ludwig]

I thought this was a joke article from one of those spoof news sites when I first saw it. There are lots of questions here but I'll go with 'Does anyone think he'll actually be charged with the offence?'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/stephen-fry-police-investigation-blasphemy-branding-god-utter/

[naomi24]

Khandro, //if they were to turn on him he would quickly drop his ranting. //

Is that a good thing - in your opinion?

[Khandro]

n. //Is that a good thing - in your opinion? //
It would be a good thing if he were to belt up. Though I dislike him intensely, not enough to wish a fatwa on him as has befell many brave people such as Hamad Abdel-Samad who have criticized Muslim extremism. Fry isn't being brave, he's a coward.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // Fry isn't being brave, he's a coward. //

I am not sure that not being brave makes someone a coward - why do you believe Mr Fry is a coward?

[naomi24]

Khandro, why do you think he should belt-up?

[Khandro]

He's a coward because he uses his (non-deserved) fame to attack an institution which he knows will 'turn the other cheek'.
As I have indicated and v_e has said earlier, he wouldn't dare say such things to Muslims - though it is the same God he is denigrating, but they don't seem to be aware of him - yet.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // He's a coward because he uses his (non-deserved) fame to attack an institution which he knows will 'turn the other cheek'. //

I don't believe he has attacked any 'institution' - merely given his views on the prospect of God being real, and if so, behaving as he does.

In terms of 'turning the other cheek' - that is what the Christian faith dictates, you really can't confirm with that faith, and then moan because other people act in a way that makes you exercise what your faith demands.

// As I have indicated and v_e has said earlier, he wouldn't dare say such things to Muslims - though it is the same God he is denigrating, but they don't seem to be aware of him - yet. //

He hasn't said anything against any religion per se - so Muslims are just as included - although actually not - in terms of what he said.

[EDDIE51]

There is no parallel between this case and that of Asia Bibi and others in Pakistan and those in Indonesia. Those states have constitutions based on Religious Sharia law under which blasphemy is a serious crime. Ireland is a secular state with secular law, to have a blasphemy law in a secular state is an aberration.
This is NOT to say that I do not deplore the blasphemy charges in Muslim states. It is very wrong and needs to be changed, not that there is much chance of it happening !

[vetuste_ennemi]

//There is no parallel between this case and that of Asia Bibi and others in Pakistan and those in Indonesia. Those states have constitutions based on Religious Sharia law under which blasphemy is a serious crime. Ireland is a secular state with secular law, to have a blasphemy law in a secular state is an aberration.//

Quite so, Eddie. But there are hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people living in secular Europe who remain attached to the Sharia and would be happy to see its laws enforced and its punishments enacted. So, while no Frys will be charged and punished for breaking an anomalous Irish or other blasphemy law designed to protect Christianity, people in the West will continue to be attacked and punished for flouting Sharia blasphemy laws. Not as many, perhaps, as in the past: the capitulation to Sharia by the mainstream media which started with the Rushdie affair has now been made complete by the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Furthermore, the blasphemy provisions of Sharia have found new friends in many Western legislators. Hate-speech laws are an example. As these are entirely subjectively defined they can be used to punish any criticism of Islam. Here's a recent totally unembarrassed example from Trudeau's Canada:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/canada-passes-103-motion-islamophobia-170324074557381.html

[andy-hughes]

vetuste - Your post is taking the thread so far off topic that it's not possible to see it any more.

Blasphemy laws and culture in Islam are not the topic of debate - blasphemy maws in Ireland, and Stephen Fry is what we are discussing.

If you want a Sharia Law debate, I suggest you start your own thread instead if chicaning this one.

[mikey4444]

.

[naomi24]

Mikey, are you trying to tell us you're dotty?

andy-hughes, I for one don't mind v-e extending this discussion and it appears neither do others. I can't see the OP complaining either..... so onwards.

[naomi24]

By the way ....

//I don't believe he has attacked any 'institution' //

.... not on this occasion perhaps, but the Catholic church wouldn't agree with you.

[Khandro]

postscript (maybe); Not only is Stephen Fry a coward for attacking the God of the bible, knowing that he will face no incrimination and as has been stated, he dare not say the same things about 'Allah' even though it is the same God, for fear of reprisal from the Muslims, he would also not attack the God of the Jews - also the same God again and with may names including 'Yahweh' - not because he would face reprisal from the Jews, but because he would fear being called an anti-Semite by civilised society.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - if it's the same God, then surely he is attacking it on all fronts - so your argument falls down.

[EDDIE51]

The Bible list over 80 names for 'God'
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god-titles.htm

[vetuste_ennemi]

Islam has 99 names for God, Eddie. "Father", though, is not one of them. Attributing "partners" to God (as in the Trinity, calling Jesus the "Son of God") is blasphemy. That's why the Koran spends so much time vilifying Christians.

[EDDIE51]

I agree with what you say v e, but it has nothing to do with this thread!

[andy-hughes]

Eddie - I have already pointed out to vetuste that he is taking the thread off-topic, but he appears determined to bring the topic around to his favourite subject - Islam - whether it is appropriate to the debate or not.

[naomi24]

It is appropriate to the debate. We're talking about blasphemy.

[anotheoldgit]

Oh dear it seems that there is yet another one who dares to mention the name 'Muslim', since it seems it is more than a week since some were referring to such a thing as the 'anti-Muslim post of the day' could it be the reason why AB seems to be getting rather rather boring?