As offensive as it gets
Posted by Tim Ireland
September 16th, 2010
The Daily Mail have just engaged in what can fairly be described as a typically misleading attack* on someone with whom they have a difference of opinion; rather than allow their argument to stand on its own merits, they have chosen to entirely misrepresent the position of their opponent.
All praise to Stephen Fry, not only for having the courage to stand up to the Daily Mail, but for also having the wit and patience to pick their pathetic straw man to pieces:
I was one of 50 signatories to a letter that called into question the official state nature of the papal visit. I didn’t write the letter, but am proud to stand behind it and with my fellow signatories. Otherwise my “hate campaign”, as they well know, begins with the words, “I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…” it is, as I go on to say, none of my business. I go out of my way to make it clear that I fully respect the desire of the pious, the faithful and the devout to welcome their spiritual father, their supreme Pontiff.
My only objection is that this be a State Visit. It hasn’t happened before and the Vatican is in no real sense a nation state. Visit the place: it takes fifty minutes to walk round. You don’t need a passport or visa to enter. It is a curlicue of history that makes this “absolute monarchy” (to quote the Holy See’s own website) a “country”. Under no reasonable or worthwhile definition does the Vatican match up to the old-established and widely accepted Montevideo protocols on statehood. So by all means come, but please don’t ask the British taxpayer (a figure whom the Daily Mail is usually so zealous to protect) to help foot the bill.
Believe me, there is no hate there. None whatever. The Mail knows this perfectly well.
As Fry points out in his opening remarks, this is an example of the staff at the Daily Mail “intentionally, knowingly lying” to their readers, and we make no secret of the fact that the purpose of this site is to warn their readers that they are under a constant barrage of balderdash designed to make them afraid and/or hostile, sometimes for no other discernible logical purpose than to keep sales ticking over… but we do not discount the theory that some of this activity may be due to an unknown number of writers and editors being as mad as cut snakes.
[*The online version of this article was updated at 10:29am, and presently acknowledges the true position of the signatories of this letter (that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country), in passing, before going on imply/maintain that this equates to a refusal to engage in or allow open dialogue on religious matters. Further, this minor acknowledgement of reality does nothing to address the "atheist hate campaign led by Stephen Fry" text under their front page headline.]
-
UPDATE – You’ll probably want one of these as much as we do:
Click to buy! You know you want one!
Categories: Religion |
I think you’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter if we’re footing the bill in tax, because we’ve all got 20% OFF AT DEBENHAMS!
I have a Hated by the Daily Mail T-shirt!
With Stephen Fry’s slightly odd face staring out of the television every five minutes, promoting tea and presenting QI, I was of the opinion that he was overexposed. I was close to disliking the bloke, in spite of four excellent series of A Bit Of Fry & Laurie and a couple of good books.
Now, in the light of these Mail-related revelations, I have reappraised Fry for a second time, and can happily say that I think he’s a great bloke again. So, in short: STFU Daily Mail. I might even borrow Stephen’s new autobiog from the library, if the Big Society hasn’t ballsed it up.
Ironically there’s a whole half-page advert in the very same edition of the Mail featuring none other than Stephen Fry and his latest book. The strapline? “Honest, funny, touching”.
Talk about consistency!
“So by all means come, but please don’t ask the British taxpayer to help foot the bill.”
A bit hypocritical coming from someone whos salary is paid for by the British licence fee payer.
how? he’s not a civil servant (nor for that matter does he recieve a salary, he’d get a fee per series or appearnace, which is a different thing to a salary) and even if he was it still wouldn’t be hypocritical. do you really think no one who works for the government (which again he doesn’t anyway) should be able to critisise it?
Not at all. But everybody who pays the licence fee has to pay towards Stephen Frys income, whether they like him or not (I am a fan by the way).
One in 10 Britons regard the Pope as their highest religious leader, and a great many others admire the man and welcome his visit. It is a great public occasion and an apropiate use of taxpayers money.
The papal visit costs a tiny fraction of what it will cost to host the Olympics.
Sure, but Stephen Fry has never suggested that condoms do not help against the spread of AIDs, and the Pope could be the most loved entity in the universe and it wouldn’t stop him from being another idiot who refuses to analyse the formation of his own church and find out that it’s all based on a myth anyway. He even has the audacity to tell Britain to think, which is pretty rich if you ask me. I couldn’t care about the Olympics either, mind. Waste of money considering the hard times we are a facing. Running about a bit and throwing stuff should be the cheapest of all things to do.
Anyhoo, Catholics already give money to their church – the trip should have been funded out of that. You don’t have to watch TV, you don’t have to give to a Church, but you do have to pay taxes. Well, unless you’re Vodaphone or someone, and the fact that a tiny fraction of mine went to help continue this 3rd century mindset is pretty annoying if not a bit frightening. I doubt many out of those who don’t flatout disagree with the license fee have much against Fry appearing on TV being enlightening and amusing – he’s like the anti-Pope. Now the government is saying that it does do god. The year is 2010. It’s ridiculous.
@JSwindle…another enjoyable and feisty piece from you and I actually agree with some of what you say. Just a thought though…if it was a prominent Muslim cleric visiting, some Grand Mufti or Supreme Mullah, would you be so ‘anti’ then? Or would you be saying that the visit would be good for community relations and a major contribution towards strengthening multiculturalism in British society?
Well, aside from there being no Islamic version of what the Pope represents I wouldn’t take either of your suggested positions. Some prominant Muslims seem to hold very moderate views, others want the world to burn. Neither would get the fawning that the Mail has given the Pope.
Hi all, just wondered, what is going on with the Daily Mail comments, are they stopping it, it seems they are?
a big part of the issue with the pope (indeed, the major one fry is talking about) is the “state” nature of the visit, which he get solely via the vaticans dubious status as a state. no other religious leader is offered such a privalige, as no others claim to be a head of state.
The Daily Fail have done an article today, where they jump on some dubious survey that says 71% of people here are Christian. They don’t back it up, and ask why nowhere near that figure actually attend church.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314720/Only-1-100-Britons-gay-despite-myth-71-say-Christian.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And they make a BIG thing out of this same dubious survey, which claims less people are gay than we first thought.
They use this unproven statistic as evidence we shouldn’t be putting so much efforts into letting gay people be treated as equal.
Surprise surprise, they’ve not allowed comments on that article!
So now we have it: Paul Dacre the editor of the DM supports a cleric who has demonstrably sought to conceal not only those of his clergy who have abused children, but made a statement in an enciclical to the bishops of the Catholic Church that the good name of the Church must come before the suffering of children.