Richard Dawkins: "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI"

[moobu2]

RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

~~ LiNk ~~

[HelenWheels]

1. Good for Dawkins n/t

[ananda]

2. Not .. above .. the .. law.

Indeed.

[RKP5637]

3. Good!!! n/t

[rug]

4. Dawkins is as ill-informed about law as he is about religion.

Deep-seated opinion causes one to overlook facts.

[skepticscott]

5. And you, of course, are very well-informed

about both. But I'm betting you will backpedal rapidly from actually having to justify your claim and subject it to real scrutiny. Again.

[rug]

6. OK. Inform me about standing.

[skepticscott]

11. Backpedaling and dodging, as I predicted

You made the claim, YOU back it up. I made no claim about Dawkins being uninformed and have nothing to explain.

[rug]

12. Actually Dawkins made the claim.

He said he'll arrest the Pope. I say he can't. You defend him. You back him up.

Oh, and thank you for the information on standing.

[skepticscott]

16. As expected, you're all bluster and no evidence

Here's YOUR claim: "Dawkins is as ill-informed about law as he is about religion." You made it with no support and I challenge YOU to either back it up with facts and logical arguments or admit that you're a nothing but a blathering blusterer.

As far as Dawkins' claim, please cite a direct quote from him where HE says he will arrest the pope. There is none in that article, only an invented headline.

[rug]

19. Oh, the poor man is a victim of shoddy reporting.

"Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

"They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action.

"The lawyers believe they can ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action against him or refer his case to the International Criminal Court."

If he believes that first paragraph, he's an idiot. If you believe it, you're in good company.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. The suggestion that he can't claim immunity comes from Robertson

who knows more about international law than you or I ever will. He brought it up over a week ago, which got the reporter to phone Dawkins for a quote.

Well may the pope defy "the petty gossip of dominant opinion". But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny.
...
The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion: other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood – and immunity from liability.

This claim could be challenged successfully in the UK and in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court (see its current indictment of President Bashir). The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope-legal-immunity-international-law

Some other international lawyers think Robertson is probably wrong, but it's not foolish to think Robertson's arguments hold some water.

But Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge delivered key decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the invalidity of amnesties for war crimes, believes it could be time to challenge the immunity of the pope — and Britain could be the place. He wrote a legal opinion on the topic that was published Friday in the U.S. news site The Daily Beast and Saturday in the British newspaper the Guardian.
...
Still, Israeli officials, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, have recently been targeted by groups in Britain under universal jurisdiction. The law principle is rooted in the belief that certain crimes — such as genocide, war crimes, torture and crimes against humanity — are so serious that they are an offense against humanity and must be addressed.

It's a tactic that the British government would likely abhor, but British judges have often gone against government wishes in lawsuits.

Recent examples include British judges who issued an arrest warrant against Israel's former foreign minister for alleged war crimes, and a British court ruling this year that forced the government to release its intelligence exchanges with U.S. officials about the torture claims of a former Guantanamo detainee.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcxiBTY31XjpK5oDY9h3emUID9FwD9ESAVU80

[rug]

24. They are both outstanding human rights lawyers. I doubt they need this distraction from Dawkins,

let alone Hitchens.

That said, their argument is likely to lose. It is less likely they will find a forum in which to make it.

[trotsky]

25. And the pedophiles win again.

How lucky for them your church protects them!

[rug]

29. No. The law can prosecute them. Cheering idiotic stunts won't.

[trotsky]

42. These "stunts," as you dismissively call them...

keep the focus where it needs to be: the church hierarchy, which has protected and enabled and given fresh victims to pedophiles for far longer than we can guess.

Dawkins with this "stunt" is doing far more to fix your church than you are.

[rug]

43. Dawkins has done more to advance himself with this stunt than to "fix" anything.

But carry on with your posts. You are making children around the world safer.

[trotsky]

44. In comparison to your efforts, that's pretty easy to do.

At least I'm not continuing to give time and money to support this corrupt criminal institution.

[rug]

45. You have no idea what I do or don't do.

It cannot be said that ignorance ever stopped you from posting.

[trotsky]

49. The same would apply more readily to you.

But I do know that you continue to give time, money, and membership to the institution. You are far more part of the problem than I will ever be.

[rug]

51. You know none of that at all.

Furthermore, your self-righteous disgust over the current scandals does not disguise your glee in finding ammunition to support your crusade against religion in general and Catholicism in particular.

You cannot honestly state that your view of religion would be anything different than it is now, even absent any sexual abuse.

Using abused children to promote your ideas does not abate the problem. It only exacerbates it.

And that is precisely the responsibility you share with Dawkins and Hitchens.

[trotsky]

52. Too bad you still view everyone else as a bigger threat to your religion...

than the old dudes who run it. It's almost instinctive how you viciously lash out at EVERYONE ELSE instead of the people who deserve your wrath.

Peace to you - you certainly need it.

[rug]

55. Sorry, your posts are always so tempered and peaceful.

[laconicsax]

39. If you had an ounce of curiosity, you would have probably found that he didn't actually say that...

...or anything of the sort.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Oops...looks like you really don't know what you're talking about.

[rug]

40. Perhaps you should inform the OP and everyone who supported it.

This was posted in GD a good 12 hours before you posted it here. Make sure you tell them too.

[laconicsax]

57. Of course you deflect.

I point out that something you claim is flat out false and you pull out the "but they did it too!!!" card to deflect from the fact that you bought it and started arguing it.

I've already posted the same information on this thread and I have no obligation to go into GD and look for the thread there.

The fact is that you were arguing a falsehood and rather than own up to it, you try to pass the buck. "It's not my fault I was making shit up! They did it too!"

[rug]

58. First off, the OP stated it.

Second, it rapidly attracted cheers.

Third, I pointed out it was bullshit claim.

Fourth, I made no claim.

Fifth, I have no obligation to explain anything to you.

The bottom line: the notion that the Pope is subject to arrest in the UK, which Dawkins supports, is a crap claim.

[laconicsax]

59. First off, whining doesn't change what you did.

Second, whining doesn't change what you did.

Third, there was no point where you called it a bullshit claim. You pointed out that what Dawkins allegedly said is impossible, but that requires acceptance of the claim as legitimate, which it is not.

Fourth, your response #12 reads

Actually Dawkins made the claim.

He said he'll arrest the Pope. I say he can't. You defend him. You back him up.

Oh, and thank you for the information on standing.

Fifth, I never asked you to explain anything to me.

Bottom line, Dawkins doesn't support arresting the Pope, but a legal challenge to his visit. As I stated above, he never said he does.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

[rug]

60. Of course he supports arresting the Pope. He simply said he won't do it himself.

Which is the only intelligent thing he's said about this.

And you have a rather peculiar view of whining.

[laconicsax]

61. It's really quite entertaining sometimes seeing you directly contradict yourself.

Here's what you said in comment #12: "He said he'll arrest the Pope."
Here's what you said in comment #60: "He simply said he won't do it himself."

I guess Dawkins will be using that great atheist superpower I used this morning to eat breakfast without actually doing it myself.

[rug]

62. And reading your posts is less amusing than, though similar to, watching a kitten chase a feather.

And less productive.

The OP stated Dawkins will arrest the Pope and that was a comment on the OP.

I'm sure you'd rather read a lusty cheer for that sentiment, no matter how idiotic it is.

Given the shit that headline generated towards him, it's not surprising he posted on his website a statement backpedaling . . .er, clarifying his remarks.

I hope you didn't dribble milk on your shirt this morning.

[laconicsax]

63. Deflect, Evade, Ad Hominem

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[rug]

64. Blather, rinse, repeat.

[laconicsax]

65. Good one!

Did you come up with that all on your own?

[uberllama42]

66. We should find cosmik debris's list of evasive tactics

That was a classic.

[skepticscott]

67. Still waiting for that quote

*crickets*

You really are having a bad week, aren't you?

[rug]

68. Read the headline of the OP.

My week is nothing compared to your life.

[skepticscott]

69. As you'd know if you read the rest of thread

and would admit if you had a shred of intellectual honesty, the headline is a false attribution and not a direct quote from Dawkins.

See my challenge in #16 and then read #38 and try again.

[rug]

70. Challenge?

:rofl:

[skepticscott]

71. Apparently more of a challenge than you can handle

Either cough up the quote or admit that the OP is completely dishonest for posting that headline, and that you are just as dishonest for claiming it's true when you know it isn't.

[KansasVoter]

7. OK, then fill us in since you know it so well!

[rug]

8. Here is the email of the solicitor he hired.

[e-mail]

Quite an impressive cv.

Please post his response to your query.

[edhopper]

9. Uniformed about religion?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rug]

13. Grievously.

[edhopper]

18. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: and :rofl:

[rug]

20. I commend your well-reasoned argument.

[rrneck]

10. What facts? nt

[rug]

14. The laws governing arrest, for one thing.

[moobu2]

15. Do you think Pope Ratzinger could be arrested and charged

if he were just an ordinary citizen and not (allegedly) a head of state?

[rug]

21. Chargeslike these generally precede an arrest.

If he is charged and could not claim sovereign or diplomatic immunity, yes, then he could be charged and extradited. But not from the Vatican. I don't believes it's a party to any extradition treaty.

If charges are forthcoming, my bet would be on Germany. That California case won't touch him.

[moobu2]

26. If he's arrested when he enters Britain then extradition wouldn't be an issue.

If criminal charges are brought he could claim diplomatic immunity but there is some disagreement about the Vatican being a sovereign country. I don't know about the legality of it really, all I do know is he was a principle in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to cover up systematic child rape.

[skepticscott]

17. And what are the laws governing arrest

in Great Britain?

But of course, you're an EXPERT on those, as you are on everything else, right? So you can tell us exactly what they are and why they would make any attempt to arrest Ratzi impossible, right?

Now go do your desperate Google and Wikipedia search for the knowledge you claimed to have already. Let us know when you're done.

[rug]

22. Why don't you ask Richard and Christopher?

They're eminently reasonable and not prone to precipitous publicity stunts.

As for you, why don't you get a drink and lay down before you hurt yourself.

[skepticscott]

28. More bluster and again, no facts

and no responses to direct challenges to your position, a sure sign of an empty argument. And if YOU had read the article, you'd have seen that Dawkins and Hitchens "have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church". They are seeking knowledge about the law before they act, which is certainly more than you have done before posting BS.

And save your snark and blathering...when it's all you have (as usual), you just embarrass yourself.

[rug]

30. I only embarass myself when seen in proximity to you.

[darkstar3]

31. And anyone else who disagrees with you. n/t

[rug]

32. Actually I think I'd be embarassed if we were agreeing.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

33. OH SNAP!

Fine work, sir.

[darkstar3]

34. Oh, I didn't do much

I mean, he teed it up all nice and neat. All I had to do was knock it down the fairway...

[ChadwickHenryWard]

36. I know, right?

To be fair, he pretty much made a statement all on his own about consistently embarrassing himself in arguments. All it took was a slight nudge to change the meaning around against him. Still, it made me laugh.

[rug]

41. You really should read it again Chadwick.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

48. Oh, no, don't get me wrong.

I know what you meant. It's just what he said made me laugh, that's all.

[DeSwiss]

27. K&R

I have no illusions that Great Britain will actually arrest this Nazi bastard.

- But I live in hope......

[ChadwickHenryWard]

35. I dearly hope they succeed.

A lot of jokes get made about it, but the systematic child rape that has been occurring in the Catholic Church for at least the past 50 years is a very serious matter. These priests, because they are members of a powerful and wealthy organization, have insulated themselves from the normal rules of justice under which the rest of us must live. Something desperately must be done to stop this terrible perversion of justice, and holding accountable the man who both was in the past in charge of the cover-up and today is in charge of the whole organization is the perfect place to start.

[uberllama42]

37. "You have to remember that the Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper..."

Dawkins disputes the story, particularly the headline.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

[laconicsax]

38. Here's the relevant text for those who don't actually follow the link:

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard

[iris27]

53. Dawkins: "I did NOT say 'I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI' "

Just think that bears repeating.

[TZ]

46. Whats interesting to me

Is those who actually spend time trying to split hairs on what Dawkins said, or legal standing on this. But clearly avoiding the elephant in the room. THAT THE POPE HAS BEHAVED IN A CRIMINAL MANNNER.
I would like one of these Dawkins hating folks tell me how the Pope's behavior is justified or in any way shape or form ETHICAL?

[trotsky]

50. That's kind of the rub, eh?

I know there are PLENTY of Catholics who have a conscience and a good sense of morality who are deeply, deeply troubled by the actions of their church. However, anytime a story comes up about it, they launch into a knee-jerk defense mode and begin attacking the messengers. (And anyone else conveniently in the target range.) Clearly it bothers them but it's almost like they've been indoctrinated to defend their church above all else.

[TZ]

54. I worked with two very nice Catholic women

who could not even seem to conceive of priests doing anything bad. Like it was physically impossible. I pointed out that being a priest doesn't change ones humanity...The naivity it was shocking to me...

[The Night Owl]

47. Starsky and Hitch? {EOM}

[gcomeau]

56. He never said that. It's fiction.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,UPDATE-4-11-Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page4#478714

The author of the article appears to have simply attributed a statement to him that never passed his lips. what he actually said was that he would support legal action against the Pope on humans rights violations grounds.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.