T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Stephen Fry Blasphemy Investigation
232 Answers
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://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - //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? //
The Op is about Stephen Fry's blasphemy case - bringing Muslims into it steers the thread off course.
That is nothing to do with the notion that Muslims are supposedly a touchy subject - that's just in the imagination of some select AB'ers who think about such things.
The Op is about Stephen Fry's blasphemy case - bringing Muslims into it steers the thread off course.
That is nothing to do with the notion that Muslims are supposedly a touchy subject - that's just in the imagination of some select AB'ers who think about such things.
I've posted, Eddie, because when reading the OP I observed a strange irony. And it's this. There are laws on the statute books of Ireland and, almost certainly, many other European countries criminalising blasphemy. These "aberrant" law (quoting the OP) date back to God knows when (oops!) and are dead letter: when was the last time anybody in Europe was banged up, far less killed for breaking any of these laws? On the other hand there are the blasphemy provisions of the Sharia, some of which are incorporated in the constitutions of many Islamic countries as you yourself pointed out. Not a single provision of Sharia blasphemy law has any place in the criminal law of European nations. And yet (and this is the irony) we've had book burnings and riots, we've had journalists threatened, put under police protection and even killed for breaking them. The result of this intimidation has been to silence any criticism or mockery of Islam, however mild, by anyone in politics, any of the mainstream media and everyone in the entertainment industries (and that includes the Frys). So statute law is broken with impunity, but a barbaric and recent import is de facto enforced.
"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...".
If you stand by that remark, Eddie, then you must deplore Islamic blasphemy law being enforced here.
That's the point I'm trying to make. And that's why I think this OP is an appropriate place to make it.
"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...".
If you stand by that remark, Eddie, then you must deplore Islamic blasphemy law being enforced here.
That's the point I'm trying to make. And that's why I think this OP is an appropriate place to make it.
Fry's speech- including the part quoted there - " “I would say, ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’
“Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac.
“Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”"
...would apply to any God the audience believed in. He's using observation - it doesn't leave out any particular god.
“Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac.
“Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”"
...would apply to any God the audience believed in. He's using observation - it doesn't leave out any particular god.
pixie; Because of Fry's attacks on the Christian church - there are many youtubes of them - it is clear that he is venting his spleen on the religion of his country and the God of Christianity and he has no hesitation in mocking that religion and naming it.
The point is he dare not name Islam or Judaism (for different reasons) even though it is the same God.
The point is he dare not name Islam or Judaism (for different reasons) even though it is the same God.
pixie; If you agree with what Fry said, - "Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac." and you appear to, you are applying the insult to the God of all three Abrahamic religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Relating it to the first you can get away with as he has done, the second you would be called an anti-Semite, and the third, in some parts of the world, you would be beheaded!
It is called blasphemy and is the subject of this thread.
Relating it to the first you can get away with as he has done, the second you would be called an anti-Semite, and the third, in some parts of the world, you would be beheaded!
It is called blasphemy and is the subject of this thread.
Khandro - //It is called blasphemy and is the subject of this thread. //
You'd like it to be the subject of this thread, because it is your hobby horse, and you like to exhibit your knowledge.
The fact is, the thread is about Stephen Fry's blasphemy charges - it says so at the top of the page.
If you want an Islam / Sharia blasphemy thread to lecture on - please start one of your own.
You'd like it to be the subject of this thread, because it is your hobby horse, and you like to exhibit your knowledge.
The fact is, the thread is about Stephen Fry's blasphemy charges - it says so at the top of the page.
If you want an Islam / Sharia blasphemy thread to lecture on - please start one of your own.
andy-hughes, //We are discussing Stephen Fry's blasphemy case //
At 13:30 Tuesday you told us the case against Stephen Fry had been dropped, so what’s to discuss? The rest of us appear to have moved on to the wider issue of blasphemy. If you don’t want to talk about Islam there’s a simple answer – don’t – but don’t try to stop others talking about it. That isn’t within your remit - but then you know that.
At 13:30 Tuesday you told us the case against Stephen Fry had been dropped, so what’s to discuss? The rest of us appear to have moved on to the wider issue of blasphemy. If you don’t want to talk about Islam there’s a simple answer – don’t – but don’t try to stop others talking about it. That isn’t within your remit - but then you know that.
//VE your link is about combating Islamophobia in Canada , it does not mention Sharia law or blasphemy!//
I was presenting my main argument for the West's de facto submission to the Sharia in my post of 15:11 (which expanded on the earlier one), Eddie. I'll expand further on the examples I alluded to in the more recent post. The Danish cartoonists were threatened and attacked, Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh murdered and the Charlie Hebdo satirists killed by vigilantes who were taking the law (in this case the Sharia penalties for blasphemy) into their own hands. The victims were being punished for insulting Islam and its Prophet.
There were various ways the West could have responded to these atrocities. One (and here I'm taking the case of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons) would be for every newspaper and every news channel to show the cartoons which had cost the lives of twelve journalists. This might be considered the first duty of honest journalism - to report the facts: this is what happened, and these cartoons are why it happened. This reaction would have asserted the West's belief in and determination to defend free speech and that we allow NO belief system or ideology to be protected from criticism and ridicule.
What actually happened is that people walked around holding pencils, listening to John Lennon's Imagine and pretending to be Charlie for a few days, and as for the cartoons - never shown. The lesson of the murders was that blaspheming Islam is dangerous to your health. The (understandable) cowardice of the media, hypocritically disguised in weasel words such as "respect, has resulted in a universal self-censorship such that the mainstream media are now fully compliant with the Sharia prohibition on making or displaying images of the Prophet. That's what I mean by de facto "enforcement".
In my earlier references to Motion 103 and "hate crime" I was trying to make the point that laws which can be interpreted subjectively (there is no definition of "Islamophobia" in M-103, for instance) can and will be used to attack criticism of certain privileged groups.
I was presenting my main argument for the West's de facto submission to the Sharia in my post of 15:11 (which expanded on the earlier one), Eddie. I'll expand further on the examples I alluded to in the more recent post. The Danish cartoonists were threatened and attacked, Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh murdered and the Charlie Hebdo satirists killed by vigilantes who were taking the law (in this case the Sharia penalties for blasphemy) into their own hands. The victims were being punished for insulting Islam and its Prophet.
There were various ways the West could have responded to these atrocities. One (and here I'm taking the case of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons) would be for every newspaper and every news channel to show the cartoons which had cost the lives of twelve journalists. This might be considered the first duty of honest journalism - to report the facts: this is what happened, and these cartoons are why it happened. This reaction would have asserted the West's belief in and determination to defend free speech and that we allow NO belief system or ideology to be protected from criticism and ridicule.
What actually happened is that people walked around holding pencils, listening to John Lennon's Imagine and pretending to be Charlie for a few days, and as for the cartoons - never shown. The lesson of the murders was that blaspheming Islam is dangerous to your health. The (understandable) cowardice of the media, hypocritically disguised in weasel words such as "respect, has resulted in a universal self-censorship such that the mainstream media are now fully compliant with the Sharia prohibition on making or displaying images of the Prophet. That's what I mean by de facto "enforcement".
In my earlier references to Motion 103 and "hate crime" I was trying to make the point that laws which can be interpreted subjectively (there is no definition of "Islamophobia" in M-103, for instance) can and will be used to attack criticism of certain privileged groups.
I’ve been pondering this accusation that Stephen Fry is a coward and I’m not entirely sure I agree with it. As has been said, anyone from practically any religion could have taken umbrage at his claim that God is a maniac, but it just so happens that he made the comment on an Irish television programme and a Roman Catholic (I presume) picked up on it and complained.
Coward or not, Naomi, I call to mind Douglas Murray's comment on an exchange between Richard Dawkins as guest and Mehdi Hasan as host of his Al-Jazeera program "Head to Head". (Can't stand Hasan, but like his program).
Dawkins was asked about "The God Delusion" (I do wish Dawkins would stick to science!) and his description of the Old Testament Jehovah using similar language to Fry's.
Hasan: Do you view the God of the Koran in the same way?
Dawkins (after a pause): I haven't read the Koran enough to usefully comment. [or something along those lines]
Murray noted that "when asked the question there was a slight flicker in Dawkins' eyes as he prepared his answer for Al-Jazeera's audience. I sensed it was the survival instinct of the selfish gene kicking in.".
Dawkins was asked about "The God Delusion" (I do wish Dawkins would stick to science!) and his description of the Old Testament Jehovah using similar language to Fry's.
Hasan: Do you view the God of the Koran in the same way?
Dawkins (after a pause): I haven't read the Koran enough to usefully comment. [or something along those lines]
Murray noted that "when asked the question there was a slight flicker in Dawkins' eyes as he prepared his answer for Al-Jazeera's audience. I sensed it was the survival instinct of the selfish gene kicking in.".
