http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-launch-blasphemy-probe-into-stephen-fry-comments-on-the-meaning-of-life-35684262.html

The specific complaint relates to an interview conducted on 'The Meaning of Life' with Mr Fry. During the show the comedian and writer was questioned about what he might say to God at the pearly gates.

Mr Fry replied: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It’s not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

He added: "Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.

"We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of god would do that?"


Blasphemy is still a criminal offence in the Republic:
http://www.blasphemy.ie/history-of-irish-blasphemy-law/


See what happens when you mix religion, law, and politics? Better to keep them separate.

I totally agree - with you and with Mr. Fry who is a fascinating, charming and courageous man.

Tom in Paris

This is extremely alarming to me. I had the wrong idea about Ireland and did not realize they were still debating such an issue as recently as 2009. I thought Europe was WAY ahead of us in the USA when it comes to keeping religion out of human rights.

In my eyes, this is no different than drawing cartoons that will insult Muslims. Death to the infidel and all that!

I'm sorry, but your silly gods are only sacred to you. Suppression of other people stating different views about gods has been an ongoing goal of religion in general for centuries.

I hope over time religion will lose all the special protections they have managed to get built in to laws and will be treated like any other topic.

Christians, take note. These are not fringe Mormons. Many of those who say that Christians aren't that bad don't seem to have the ability to extrapolate what their own religion is doing.

What if there was a science blasphemy law that fines religious people who insult science? See how stupid that sounds?

When I saw this headline about Stephen Fry, I thought somehow we went back in time. Cheer up, Mr. Fry. At least they won't try to burn or stone you.

I love that word extrapolate. And the exercise of it. I think if more of us were skilled in extrapolating our perception would be wider, sharper. How is it we can easily see our own point of view (i.e. that of our personal faith) but not at all that of others? Or see a lesson or truth in one situation but fail to apply it to our own case (which would be of great value)?

Dagny, I like your what if about a science blasphemy law. That lays out the situation very clearly. But so many don't see it.

My own personal hell is that I can see both sides but still go with some of the faith stuff, not the science. I'm more of a smorgasbord person!

Re thinking Europe is so far advanced in this regard. I'm not surprised that it's not. We humans haven't progressed far enough yet, for sure. An Irish friend tells of her mother feverishly instructing them as kids to avoid telling anyone they eat fish on Friday (which marked them out as Catholic). The Catholic/Protestant divide suffuses books I read about Ireland, novels and non-fiction. My mom (with an Irish mother) tells of their school being a dead give-away as to their faith, as well as their names in many cases, what they ate and when, and more obviously, their celebrations and restrictions and accents of course. There was no hiding, no escape. This is only one/two generations ago and it's not resolved there yet. It's hard for me to conceive of religion being so all-encompassing. Your voice. Your name. Your school. Your food. The sports team you support. No escape.

And this is me, the teenage JW who took it so seriously and absolutely. They believe in retreating from the world, "being no part" of it. In every way possible. And yet I could walk down the street and nobody would know my religious beliefs (or lack) just from looking at me (except maybe for clothing choices but that too is flexible and within your own control to some extent).

Scary to think that a menu choice or a favourite football player can give away your religious affiliation, whether you chose it or just were born in. And can get you into big trouble even if you don't subscribe to it.

When you think of bitter rivalries, based on miniscule differences, going back centuries that survive to present day we don't seem that advanced as a species. That's what surprises me. I used to have the naive idea that the human march was always forward. Not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 03:52PM by Nightingale.

Good comments.

I do think most humans naturally decide things from a smorgasbord of their experiences and views.

The whole Catholic/Protestant divide is an interesting topic in itself. I guess it is related to identity and history.

Mormonism provides a cultural identity too which is a primary reason I don't think it will go away. It doesn't matter what they actually teach or believe. People seem to pick what they want and maintain the cultural identity. Most people need to belong to a group and use it to define excluding others.

Europe is made up of many countries ;-), each with its own approach to 'blasphemy'.

France doesn't recognize it as an offense as it concerns religion, which is considered part of the private sphere and only touched by the law if it becomes abusive or dangerous.

The Uk used to but I don't think it does any more... I hope someone in the UK such as essex exmo may know more about this ;-)

It's all changed since I lived there ;-)

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 10:12AM by Soft Machine.

Tom in Paris,

Yes, Europe is not uniform on a lot of issues. Good point.

PS...

Congratulations to the people of France on their new president.

I'm hopeful the new young guy will do a great job.

Needless to say, yours was an important election to watch.

Ireland is the country that kills women who need abortions.

Blasphemy in Ireland. Sounds like the title of a really good book!

Or a really good cocktail!

Well, really, from the Irish people whom I used to live among, I sort of had the idea that blasphemy would be considered to be a virtue.

However, there is always some party-pooper on the loose....

I can totally see the ones that I knew happily joining the band.

I've always loved Stephen Fry, particularly in Cold Comfort Farm. He supposedly got kicked off Temple Square during his documentary on driving through all the states in the country. Here, I believe, is his story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzfCtGFgRS

At any rate, if you followed the documentary, you might remember that he didn't even mention Utah. I think he just left them out for the rude treatment he got at Temple Square.

They're always after me lucky charms.

What else passes for blasphemy in Ireland? Desecrating potatoes?

Try badmouthing Guinness.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> See what happens when you mix religion, law, and
> politics? Better to keep them separate.


yah, uhhhh go ahead and send that message to the Islamic masses that you are always attempting to apologize for and to justify.

The investigation is apparently closed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stephen-fry-blasphemy-ireland-probe-investigation-dropped-police-gardai-not-enough-outrage-a7725116.html

I seriously doubted Ireland would have any luck with getting the UK or anyone else to extradite Fry, but the whole idea was still quite mind-boggling.

Fry was attacked by a mob of Irish fundamentalists that took him out and got him drunk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 05:38PM by thingsithink.

And this at a time of incredibly scarce police resources.

Can't help wondering how many rapists, burglars, muggers etc might have been dealt with using the police resources wasted on this madness.

The big issue here is not what mr fry did or said, it is that anyone can make a complaint to the police and it will be investigated. Does not matter whether or not a complaint will lead to a court case, the issue is the right of the individual to seek redress through the police.

In many countries this is not the case and I applaud ireland for 'wasting resources' to uphold the right of each person to seek legal redress.

Mr Fry will love the attention this generates - it suits his particular style of disdain to a tee. He has been touted as a 'national treasure' but I am afraid he is starting to believe he is as important as oscar wilde (ever since he played him). He is not. He is not that funny either, imo.

To the poster who equated Mr Fry's comments with drawing pictures of mohammed - I do not hear anyone calling for Mr Fry's head to be removed from his body, however, if Mr Fry had said the same about another religion's god, or drawn a picture, there would be calls for Mr Fry to lose his head and he would forevermore need police protection, just like salman rushdie did.

Christians are a lot more civilised - even rural irish ones (joke - my inlaws are rural irish)

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In many countries this is not the case and I
> applaud ireland for 'wasting resources' to uphold
> the right of each person to seek legal redress.

So you're all for "wasting resources" by police because somebody calls them and says, "Hey, I don't like what this guy said about my religion!"?
Really?

> To the poster who equated Mr Fry's comments with
> drawing pictures of mohammed - I do not hear
> anyone calling for Mr Fry's head to be removed
> from his body...

No, they just called for putting him in jail. For his opinion.

> Christians are a lot more civilised...

Sure, it's oh-so-much-more-civilised to want to jail blasphemers than to kill them. You know, like christians did (killing them) for centuries, until secular governments stopped allowing them to do that...

are you against people having the right to make a complaint to the police and have it taken seriously?

really now, that is what you are inferring; that some people are allowed to make complaints and some are not because YOU are not offended so therefore no crime was committed.

ONE person complained - no-one else was offended but that person who was offended has the LEGAL RIGHT to make a complaint in his own country. In fact, even if he was not a citizen, he could still make a complaint to the police in the country where he was 'offended' and expect to have it investigated properly. The police and guarda are the servants of the people (who pay their wages through taxation), they are not prison guards keeping the pax romana on behalf of the government.

When we begin to 'grade' complaints as worthy or unworthy of investigation we have an unfair system of law that only serves the few and therefore is not just.

I find it hard to believe that you would prefer limits on what people are allowed to make complaints about. It is people feeling empowered enough to make complaints to the police and the guarda that have led to people going to prison and crimes being stopped. When legal redress is limited we are in a police state/autocracy. Is this really what you are advocating????

Be careful what you wish for. I wish for rule of law and equality of all under the law. If you think the law is silly then campaign to have it changed. Oh yeah, you cannot - because you do not live in ireland.

I think it is a dangerous road to travel when you feel you have the right to decide whether or not someone can use their rights under the law of their land of residence.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> are you against people having the right to make a
> complaint to the police and have it taken
> seriously?
>
> really now, that is what you are inferring; that
> some people are allowed to make complaints and
> some are not because YOU are not offended so
> therefore no crime was committed.

I never get "offended."
I'm very much against people being able to make "complaints" to police because they don't like somebody's opinion about a religion, and having police investigate somebody's opinion about a religion, and having somebody's opinion about a religion be a potential crime.

> ONE person complained - no-one else was offended
> but that person who was offended has the LEGAL
> RIGHT to make a complaint in his own country.

It's the fact that the "complaint" was about somebody's opinion regarding a religion, and that if more than one person had complained, Fry could have been put in jail that bothers me.
THEY HAVE MADE BLASPHEMY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
Do you get why that bothers me?
I can explain it further if you need me to.

> When we begin to 'grade' complaints as worthy or
> unworthy of investigation we have an unfair system
> of law that only serves the few and therefore is
> not just.

You can't be serious...police already "grade" them all the time. And if what the "complaint" was about was NOT illegal, no police time would have been wasted.

THEY HAVE MADE BLASPHEMY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
Do you get why that bothers me?
I can explain it further if you need me to.

> I find it hard to believe that you would prefer
> limits on what people are allowed to make
> complaints about.

I find it hard to believe you misunderstood so completely.
Yet, you did.
Oh, well.

> When legal redress is
> limited we are in a police state/autocracy. Is
> this really what you are advocating????

THEY HAVE MADE BLASPHEMY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
Do you get why that bothers me?
I can explain it further if you need me to.

> Be careful what you wish for. I wish for rule of
> law and equality of all under the law.

Be careful what YOU wish for.
If blasphemy against christianity can be a criminal offense, so can blasphemy against Islam. I'll bet real money you don't want THAT...in fact, you've railed against it numerous times.
Hmm...

You don't seem to have a consistent stance on this.
Not surprising.
Here's mine:
'Blasphemy' should never be a crime.
Ever.
Period.
No matter who is "offended," or what religion is involved.

What strikes me as odd is that you are arguing against the Freedom of Speech and arguing for Higher taxes. That someone said something that even one person found to be offensive should have tax dollars spent in researching to see if that speech should be allowed.

I'm not saying that legitimate complaints shouldn't be researched, but the police get complaints that are NOT legitimate all the time and, correctly, don't waste tax dollars researching, because those things are often not illegal, they are just things that the complainant doesn't happen to like.

You're arguing that every one of those complaints, regardless of their obvious legal or illegal nature should have tax dollars spent researching them, up to and including perceived offensive speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and something that pretty much everyone from any party agrees should be protected. But you say that the legal system should waste resources researching such matters.

Also, if every complaint was researched, the amount of money required to do so for personnel and tools would be much greater than most police budgets even come close to allowing...

I'm guessing that based on your prior posts that you are conservative and are probably against higher taxes. I could be wrong, maybe you're OK with higher taxes for police officers. That way they'd be able to track down people who complain that their neighbor didn't clean up after their dog walked past their lawn, or that they over heard their neighbor saying that the Pope should be replaced or some other horrifying statement...

Anyway, How do you propose that police departments pay for this, when many are already stretched so thin that some have even stated that they can't deal with non-injury traffic accidents or other minor crimes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 04:59PM by Finally Free!.

it is not a case of advocating free speech and high taxes and to say it is so is quite frankly clutching at straws to make an argument for argument's sake. It is, however, about equality under law and being able to use the law - equally, regardless of religious belief or non belief.

I am not advocating the particular law involved, I am applauding the fact that equality under the law still exists.

Yourself and ificouldhietokolob, amongst others, appear to be the ones who seem to consider that everyone should NOT be equal under the law of the land. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, perhaps?

If you don't live in Ireland you cannot change their laws, unless you are part of the EU Commission, then everything you dictate becomes law in member states eventually.

I didn't make the law you guys do not approve of. Should we just have the irish do away with the law and due process completely because a few archaic laws are still on a statute book that is one more than a thousand years older than the american statute book? We like our heritage here in these islands, we've been here thousands of years, some of our laws are from old tribal times, long before the magna carta - they have not yet been repealed or abolished; please see my previous post for details on the law system in use.

Please do not do down the irish - they have been done down enough in their history without you lot adding to it and missing the point under debate entirely.

You appear to be outraged over something you have little understanding of: the irish.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it is not a case of advocating free speech and
> high taxes and to say it is so is quite frankly
> clutching at straws to make an argument for
> argument's sake. It is, however, about equality
> under law and being able to use the law - equally,
> regardless of religious belief or non belief.

Here, let me dissect this steaming pile of straw-men and obfuscation...

> I am not advocating the particular law involved, I
> am applauding the fact that equality under the law
> still exists.

So you're OK then if somebody calls to complain to the police that their neighbor is a christian, and that offends them? And you think the police should spend time and money investigating the complaint that a neighbor is a christian?
How about is somebody is offended, and complains, because their neighbor is white? Does that merit police time and money too?
Because those are "equal" to complaining that somebody blasphemed your religion. If you want equality under the law, you must be OK with those things, too. Or is it that you just want "equality" for your preferred religion, and not anything else?

> Yourself and ificouldhietokolob, amongst others,
> appear to be the ones who seem to consider that
> everyone should NOT be equal under the law of the
> land. All animals are equal, but some are more
> equal than others, perhaps?

And there's straw-man #1. Neither of us ever said anything of the sort. We both pointed out that "blasphemy" shouldn't be a "legitimate complaint." Anybody's "blasphemy." Against any religion. Equal treatment under the law -- the same for everyone, criticizing any religion should not be a crime.

> If you don't live in Ireland you cannot change
> their laws, unless you are part of the EU
> Commission, then everything you dictate becomes
> law in member states eventually.

I've been to Ireland a number of times. Had a damn fine time, too. Had I known, though, that if I'd mentioned in a bar how idiotic I find christianity, and somebody got "offended," I could have wound up in jail, I might not have gone. And publicizing such middle-ages stupidity still being the law of an otherwise modern country might help change it. So, actually, I *can* change their laws -- or at least try to influence others to do so.

> I didn't make the law you guys do not approve of.
> Should we just have the irish do away with the law
> and due process completely because a few archaic
> laws are still on a statute book that is one more
> than a thousand years older than the american
> statute book?

First, nobody advocated getting rid of all laws or due process. There's straw-man #2.
We pointed out how ridiculous and unjust this law was.
Oh, and this law isn't "archaic" and didn't come from "a thousand years" ago. It was passed recently. Maybe you should have read the article that was originally linked to, where it gave that bit of information...

> We like our heritage here in these
> islands, we've been here thousands of years, some
> of our laws are from old tribal times, long before
> the magna carta - they have not yet been repealed
> or abolished; please see my previous post for
> details on the law system in use.

Good for you.
This law is blatantly stupid. It merits criticism. "Heritage" or not.

> Please do not do down the irish - they have been
> done down enough in their history without you lot
> adding to it and missing the point under debate
> entirely.

Nobody "did down" the Irish. There's straw-man #3.
We pointed out how ridiculous one law was. That's all.
A point YOU apparently missed.

> You appear to be outraged over something you have
> little understanding of: the irish.

And of course, you have to throw in insults, claiming that we have little understand of the Irish.
Which is false, insulting, and irrelevant.

"Blasphemy" laws merit all the criticism they get.
Whether they're Irish, English, American, Saudi Arabian, or anything else.

roflmao - some of you guys are so predictable it is hilarious.

my reply needs no dissection, YOU need to understand other countries and you also need to stop taking offense at imaginary insults. No-one but the irish understand the irish.

Being a christian is not illegal in ireland - claiming someone can go to jail for offending a christians is demonstrating your love for false arguments (straw men as you like to call them out). I have discussed archaic laws and how to change them (you cannot, not being in eire of course) and why getting all worked up over them is useless.

Stop doing the irish down, which when you attack their system of law you are doing - their law system and statue book is older than yours.

So it's OK for Christians to have the right to call blasphemy upon people with hom they don't agree, but an atheist like me who finds religion rather offensive doesn't have that right under the law and you're saying that's "equality under the law"?

That's nonsense.

no - you totally miss the point.

this case aptly demonstrates that all people have equal access TO USE the law: it is not strictly for only those who can afford legal representation, or own property/business, or hold a position of authority in society. Neither is access to use the law dictated by whether or not any individual law is relevant or 'fashionable' in contemporary society. As I said in a previous post, the guarda and police serve the public, they do not act as prison guards keeping the pax romana for the government. If a law has been broken and complaint made, the individual servant of the public has no right to decide what is worthy of investigation and what is not as he/she/it has a job to do.

When laws become outdated they must be changed, unfortunately no test case is being gathered as no-one else in eire is outraged enough to join in to get the law changed through the court system. The only other redress is to petition a member of the house to have an act passed to repeal or abolish said 'archaic' (very valid to the irish just twenty years ago) law.

It seems more people are interested in slagging off the irish law system and an 'archaic law' than interested in seeing how they are being used by meddlers who wish to interfere in the politics of other countries. It's bad when 'the russians' do it to america, but okay when americans (individuals or government agencies) do it to other countries?

Double standards. Throw back to being mormon, perhaps? We all know how much they have double standards and obviously taught those of us BIC the same way of thinking: with double standards.

For me, it's nothing to do with slagging of the Irish. I simply reject the idea that blasphemy (as defined by anyone) should be an actionable offense.

In amidst the vast pile of strawmen which you have built in this thread, you also accused me of "Double standards. Throw back to being mormon, perhaps?".

I have never been a mormon. EPIC FAIL!

You should try seeing the world without your very right-wing glasses on.

As usual, you don't address any of the points I made.
You simply repeated false and irrelevant insults.

Very sad. Try thinking next time.

What century do you want to live in? The Tudor Era? The sole purpose of a secular state having a religious law such as this is to enforce order and mandate belief.

Only dictators and tyrants fear freedom of expression and the freedom of thought.

What do you have to fear?

I think it is you who are missing the point. You even said dictators and tyrants are the only ones who fear freedom of expression - is it only non-christians who are free to express offense and outrage?

Twenty years ago the blasphemy laws were very relevant amongst most of the population of ireland, and still are to a large part, so suggesting this law harks from tudor times is a bit insulting to the irish, don't you think? I think I may be offended by your anti-irish sentiment (not really).

Ireland has a living law, like the US. To change a law a test case or act of parliament must be used. Who benefits from promoting this story of this single complaint from one solitary complainer? Activists, that's who - activists that want the law changed. Probably the same group that targeted the bakery, who incidentally have just refused another pro gay marriage cake - ordered by someone in London for a non-specific wedding.

What do you have to fear by respecting the laws of another land? Is your country superior in every way? Have you all the answers? If so, please tell the whole wide world because world leaders are waiting for you to solve all the problems in this world.

good luck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

The idea that blasphemy should be a criminal offence in this day and age is totally insane. You don't have to listen to offensive speech if you don't want to. Every person on Earth at one time or another has cursed the gods. Buddhism, Judaism, Christanity, Islam, Shinto, or whatever the religion. Are you going to prosecute everybody? It doesn't make any sense.

All of these were judged to be offensive at one time or another
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo
https://www.backstage.com/news/10-plays-faced-major-controversy-throughout-history/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_God_(film)


You might not like a work of art, you might find it offensive, but the artist has every right to create and display his art -- whatever it may be. If you choose to go see it that's up for you decide.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 04:57PM by anybody.

No, YOU don't really get it - you are being used by a bunch of activists that want to meddle in irish politics.

One single solitary person complained, we do not even know if the person is irish or in eire but the 'offensive act' was carried out in ireland so that is where the complaint was made; equality under the law dictates it must be investigated. The police could not find anyone else wanting to get involved in the complaint so unfortunately no test case will be forthcoming soon. Obviously, the law can be abused to a certain extent - that's why wasting police time is a very serious offense - but better a couple of eejits abuse the law than everyone live under a totalitarian state.

Shame, all that publicity and outrage for nothing - the only person who will benefit from all this is mr fry with his next interview/book deal and his many forthcoming dinner invitations so he can relate about the time when he was victimised and persecuted in ireland by those superstitious, drunken, backward catholics.

@ificouldhietokolob - do you really think if it got to court any judge would jail him? A case like this would not make it past the public prosecutor unless a test case was being made. Public interest (and funds) would not be best served trying anyone in court for blasphemy in this day and age.

Blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime. You're insulting a non-exisent thing. It's like insulting a unicorn.

hilarious - all of you. what a tiz to get yourself worked up into over something you have no control or influence over; something ancient that no public prosecutor or judge would ever entertain in the modern age.

Who gives a castlemaine fourX what mr fry thinks of god? Only athiests apparently, and a single, solitary complainer who is probably an activist or mr fry's publicist. It still seems strange that any irish would complain about the radio program as most do not care what anyone thinks or doesn't think about god. I wonder if the guarda are now investigating whether the complaint was malicious or not and if anyone has been guilty of 'wasting guarda time', something the courts take very, very seriously.

His old partner Mr Hugh Laurie (House) is doing much, much better than he so something needs to be cooked up to keep mr fry relevant and give him an excuse to believe as to why he is not as successful as his funnier onetime comedy partner.

No-one else in ireland cared about the alleged blasphemy - why are any of you from other countries even getting upset about this?

mr fry probably would have retained his untouchable national treasure status if he had married someone near his own age, not gone and married someone three decades younger than him; someone barely legal. When hetero guys do that we call them dirty old men. It is certainly what made me - and many others in the UK - change our opinion of him.

This thread is hilarious. thanks for the laughs :D

This is a great response. You took the time to post a reply in this thread, because you seemingly thought you had something valuable to say, now, this thread is "hilarious"

>"something ancient that no public prosecutor or judge would ever entertain in the modern age."

I love this part. You have been arguing all along that this whole thing was significant and important because, "anyone can make a complaint to the police and it will be investigated"... Now, you are saying that it's pointless and no one would ever entertain prosecuting it. Which is it? Every complaint should be taken seriously, or even though this is a "complaint" it shouldn't be bothered with? You can't have it both ways. Either every complaint should be investigated, or maybe, just maybe, worthless ones should be ignored.

>"No-one else in ireland cared about the alleged blasphemy"

Then who made the complaint? (you make the attempt at discrediting Fry by blaming a publicist, even though if that were found out, that would far more widely reported than this blasphemy news) Which departments were reported to investigate the supposed blasphemy? Are you saying that the media reports of this were lying?

You go on about how only atheists care about what he said, ignoring the fact that we couldn't care less what he said, what we care about is that there are blasphemy laws still on the books and a modern, supposedly free country and a police department took any time at all to investigate it.

The rest of you post is nothing more than straw men, ad hominem attacks of the kind which say, "I have no ground to stand on so I'll go after you and Stephen Fry, trying to discredit them rather than actually answer anything.." Which is basically, I've lost, I know it, so I'm going to dismiss you by calling you "hilarious" while I continue to ignore any of the arguments presented.

the police do not decide which laws to honour and which to ignore - they serve the public and investigate complaints and crimes. Maybe this does not happen in your country, but it does here in one of the oldest legal systems in the world.

This is what is great about true democracy; equality under the law. Not positive (populist) discrimination, not serving only the rich and well educated, not picking and choosing which complaints to investigate or not. This is what I have been lauding, the fact that ireland is not quite a police state - yet. If you guys cannot appreciate this point then more fool you, I hope you are not IN a police state already.

The public prosecutor then decides (after a police/guarda investiagtion) whether or not to pursue a case through the courts. He/she is given the right to decide whether or not the public interest is best suited pursuing a conviction. THIS is the point when money and resources come into question and are answered by someone in the law profession, not just a mere public servant. This is fair and just in a democracy whether or not ancient laws are still on the statute books.

I apologise if I (in your opinion) took 'too long' to reply to your various responses, but I have a life and two young children who require my attention. If that means you think I am trying to figure out a suitable response to your alleged straw men or logical arguments or outrage that blasphemy has not been removed from the statute books (why not complain about sharia instead?) then I apologise that I did not fit with your needy timetables for 'suitable' or 'timely' responses.

Some of us have more things to do in our lives than just come on this site and post responses to sensationalising something that happened to a rather prominent and very vocal homosexual athiest when he was on a radio program in Ireland/eire.

To the poster who thinks I have no ground to walk on, I'm sorry but my feet make contact with quite solid ground, thank you very much.

Very funny, yet again. This starts my day off quite well having a laugh at the state you all work yourself into.

If you guys wish to meddle in/complain about the politics and laws of another country, you have no right to complain about 'people who hate america' meddling/complaining about your own political and legal system.

Carry on getting manipulated and used by activists - you seem to enjoy the feeling of superiority it gives you. I hope your own police 'service' never becomes the enforcing arm of a police state. I also hope you come to realise that democracy is much more than just casting your vote for an election, it is about making every single citizen equal under the law with equal access to the protections that law provides, which includes the police taking everyone seriously.

Forgive me if I do not hereby pledge to fit your timetable for 'appropriate responses'. I was unaware there was an unofficial time limit on replies.

>"the police do not decide which laws to honour and which to ignore"

Please call your police and tell them that you saw your neighbor cross the street outside a crosswalk. Let me know how quickly they respond to your complaint. After all, jaywalking is a crime and according to you, they should honor your complaint and investigate. I'm actually curious to see how they respond.

>"This is what is great about true democracy"

Going for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy...

>"equality under the law. Not positive (populist) discrimination, not serving only the rich and well educated..."

Except for religion... Because there are actual blasphemy laws which fly in the face of equality and free speech.

>"I apologise if I (in your opinion) took 'too long' to reply to your various responses"

I honestly have no idea where this is coming from. As far as I can tell, no one has complained that you've "taken too" long to reply. Also, you point out that you have other things going on in your life, I do to, and good for you. You've managed to reply several times, making statements directly in response to other people, yet never answering their arguments or comments. You've had plenty of time to build straw men and ad hominem. So, this is a truly weird statement to make. "I have plenty of time discredit the character of Mr. Fry, but I don't have time to answer your statements."

The rest is just nonsense, straw men, and more ad hominem attacks and stating that you won't reply on our timetable, even though literally no one has suggested that you should.

wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2017 10:35AM by Finally Free!.