[Aptorian]

http://www.timesonli...icle7094310.ece

Quote

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

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.

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.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: "This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence."

Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: "This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.

"There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring," said Stephens. "Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature."

---------------------

Now, this is Richard Dawkins along with fellow atheists, so of course they're just doing their usual shtick with their attacks on the church. bashing peoples faith in God, etc. but is their cause just? Is the pope a criminal?

I'm sure most of you will have heard of the new allegations being made in these days, among them records of Benedict helping to cover up several cases of child abuse. Is the Pope accountable for the crimes of his clergy men and the churches cover ups?

Personally, I think something should be done about this. All the money in the world paid to victims of the priests is not enough. The church needs to start turning in child rapists. I really do not care about their positions as holy men and their need to keep up the appearance of "innocence".

Anyone want to chime in with knowledge about the possibility of arresting the Pope? I seriously doubt any one is ever going to be able to put a hand on him, but it would be interesting to see if there was a case.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 11 April 2010 - 11:56 AM

[Cougar]

I normaly find Dawkins' efforts pretty entertaining, but I think this a bit problematic. So we are clear, I don't object to his agenda against the church, even though he has occasionally made himself look a little petty. However, I can't help feeling that, in this case at least, he's hijacking a rather grave set of crimes by the Pope and the church at large for cheap secular/political point scoring. By doing that he's cheapening the suffering of the victims.

[Gothos]

It would be amusing to see. It'd probably end as bad as Samuel L. Jackson attempting to arrest Chancellor Palpatine.

[King Lear]

I agree the church should start turning in clergymen who abuse children. It's sick that they haven't been already. But I really don't see how attempting to put some old man who wears a special dress under arrest helps anyone, except said arrestors who are currently getting a hell of a lot of limelight and free advertising. The whole thing makes me feel sick to be completely honest. Taking people's pain and suffering and using it as a platform to reinforce essentially meaningless philosophical arguments seems very callous. But maybe I'm just cynical.

[Aptorian]

Crone, on 11 April 2010 - 01:40 PM, said:

But I really don't see how attempting to put some old man who wears a special dress under arrest helps anyone, ...]

The point would be that the Pope is the head of the Church, as such, like the CEO of a company, he has a responsibility for the actions of his "employees".

The Pope as the head honcho holds the responsibility of his churches actions and their neglect and secrecy is certainly criminal. Imagine if this had been govenment run schools instead of churches. Heads would roll and people would go to jail.

[anothevilbadguy]

Aptorian, on 11 April 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

Crone, on 11 April 2010 - 01:40 PM, said:

But I really don't see how attempting to put some old man who wears a special dress under arrest helps anyone, ...]

The point would be that the Pope is the head of the Church, as such, like the CEO of a company, he has a responsibility for the actions of his "employees".

The Pope as the head honcho holds the responsibility of his churches actions and their neglect and secrecy is certainly criminal. Imagine if this had been govenment run schools instead of churches. Heads would roll and people would go to jail.

It isn't just that, he has had direct personal oversight oversight over a number of cases and there is quite a lot of evidence of him ignoring it for the 'good' of the church. I am a bit of a fan of Dawkins generally, but do think this is a bit of a stunt. Would have been better if someone else started it and he just showed support later.

[King Lear]

Yes, but will that actually help the victims? Will it have an impact on the prevention of future victims? Unless he can be forced to start making changes to the institution of the church itself, arresting him is just a media spectacle. Simply proving that the Pope is not the head of State, and therefore subject to arrest, is the kind of court wrangle that could last years, never mind proving culpability and all the rest of it. Also, what if he dies? Does the responsibility pass on to his successor, who may or may not have had anything to do with the cover ups? And how do they go about making amends and preventing occurrences, such as are possible?

Government run institutions are and have been in the past the subject of sex scandals along the same lines; children's homes and guardian programmes as well as nursing homes are all places where abuse and cover ups have been known to occur. The difference is that they are not built on an international scale. The effect on the victims is still the same, but there's is no major non-stop news coverage for them.

[Gem Windcaster]

I am not particularly surprised, since this is what Dawkins generally do - using people's pain and suffering as a platform for a political agenda. In my book he's just as cynical as some bad churches has been throughout the history. That's irony for you.

I personally wouldn't mind the head of the catholic church taking some responsibility of the actions of the people representing it, I would in fact insists on it, but Dawkins is not the right person to demand it; he should get the hell out of the way and let the victims take the podium.

Thirdly, I actually think a lawsuit would be good for the Catholic church, or at least for the people in it, but I'm not sure what good the pop bashing is doing anyone. The Catholic church is a giant, ancient, organism that is much more than the person sitting at the 'top', and bashing the pope wouldn't accomplish a thing besides bashing the pope. I'm not saying I know the right thing to do here, but it seems people are correct when they say that this isn't as easy as Dawkins seem to think.

[Tiste Simeon]

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

[Aptorian]

Tiste Simeon, on 11 April 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

Never mind Dawkins. For the sake of argument, lets say an anonymous victim vent to the Police and wanted them to press charges when the Pope stepped foot on English soil.

As one of the "really religious" members, I'd like to hear your opinion on this Tiste. Should the Pope be accountable for the crimes of the clergy? And do you think a Pope could be judged by the justice system, or is he, and the rest of the clergy for that matter, exempt from criminal prosecution?

[D'rek]

His justification for being able to do this is that the Vatican is not a recognized state. Fine. But then he can't say that the Pope has no responsibilities as head of state to act a certain way. Nor is he a CEO. So I think Dawkins is using the very reasoning that'll crush his chances of this ever succeeding...

[Morgoth]

Tiste Simeon, on 11 April 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

Because being sued for concealing cases of child rape is comparable to suppressing people of opposing views?

[Cougar]

D, on 11 April 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

His justification for being able to do this is that the Vatican is not a recognized state. Fine. But then he can't say that the Pope has no responsibilities as head of state to act a certain way. Nor is he a CEO. So I think Dawkins is using the very reasoning that'll crush his chances of this ever succeeding...

This doesn't makes sense D'rek, can you clarify what you mean? His justification is that the Pope oversaw a massive cover-up of child rape and there is evidence to prove it, it's his motivations that are really at question.

I think Apt, that you have asked a question about Dawkins rather than the one you really wanted to ask about the possibility of arresting the Pope, you can't really separate Dawkins' past or agenda from this as a discussion. If it was a hypothetical victim then I think the CEO angle might be a bust as he wasn't in charge at the time, if he was responsible for the cover-up personally then you'd have to show that he had obstructed the police investigations or withheld evidence. Not defrocking a know rapist, so far as I know, isn't actually a criminal offence, it's just morally questionable.

[Gem Windcaster]

Morgoth, on 11 April 2010 - 05:52 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 11 April 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

Because being sued for concealing cases of child rape is comparable to suppressing people of opposing views?

AH, semantics, you gotta love it.

[Aptorian]

It appears that the article may have given the matter a more sensationalist headline that was intended by Dawkins:

http://richarddawkin...t/articles/5415

Quote

Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
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://richarddawkin...t/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://richarddawkin...t/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

[Use Of Weapons]

There was a post recently on the Jack of Kent blog about the legalities surrounding secular and canon (Church) law. According to it, there is no conflict between them, and canon law requires that the secular authorities be informed when a secular crime has occurred. The problem with the paedophilia scandals is not a legal one, but the culture of silence that the Church, informed by the Pope, encourages. If nothing else, Dawkins's stunt (and it is a stunt) may serve to weaken that barrier of silence. If that's all it does, then it will have been well worth it.

http://jackofkent.bl...iminal-law.html

[Sinisdar Toste]

Aptorian, on 11 April 2010 - 08:30 PM, said:

It appears that the article may have given the matter a more sensationalist headline that was intended by Dawkins:

http://richarddawkin...t/articles/5415

Quote

Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
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://richarddawkin...t/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://richarddawkin...t/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

leave it to the lackeys of rupert murdoch to put words in peoples mouths

[knight of shadows]

I believe that if he was covering up the sexual abuse of children he should be held accountable there is absolutely no excuse for that but at the same time arresting hiwm will create some major problems around the world probably more than a few riots and some serious turmoil in the UK. However in my opinion the pope and anyone else that ever abused a child or covered it up should be thrown out of the church and be brought up on charges. How can a man that is supposed to represent a god that stands for all things good willingly cover up acts this evil and heinous its wrong and he should be punished in order to prevent others from following in his footsteps

[stone monkey]

Before you lot all get on your high horses. Let's point out that this is a Murdoch rag (who have their own axes to grind in the matter of publicly avowed atheists) that's blowing a story out of all proportion for both the sake of sensationalism and their own reasons [understatement]which we all know isn't exactly unheard of...[/understatement]. What Dawkins actually said, in reply to Chris Hitchens (whom I personally can't stand, even when I find myself agreeing with him), was that he would support some sort of effort to prosecute the Pope for his actions in the matter of covering up the child abuse that took place and wanted to direct him to a Human Rights lawyer You can read his own words in reply to this story here, if you can be bothered.

The noted Human Rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson (btw you should all read his book Crimes Against Humanity, it's sobering stuff) appears to have gotten involved, again at Hitchens' instigation. So we'll see how it turns out.

And tbh the cries of foul play and attention seeking here smack of hypocrisy. If you're a supporter of religion you've got people like Fred Phelps on your side (and the "No true Scotsman" style of argument that I suspect will be deployed at me making this point is very weak sauce...)

[Edit - It would appear some people have got in ahead of me. Oh well]

Anyway, a fairly good point on this (imo obviously ) is that the establishment of the RC church was aware of these issues decades ago and Ratzinger was the head of what used to be called the Inquisition (whose current name currently escapes me), which was the organisation within the church charged with investigating the matter. So he may very well have directly contributed to the cover-up that took place. So there would certainly appear to be a certain amount of justification for this train of thought.

Now obviously Hitchens' and Dawkins motivations are at question, they being very vocal atheists and this being a very pertinent way of pointing out some severe failings within a religion that are at odds with its stated purpose and philosophy, but people have very often, in the past, done the right things for the wrong reasons. And I'm not entirely convinced that these are the wrong reasons tbh - both religions and religious belief are man-made constructs and therefore cannot fail to be flawed because of that; isn't making an effort to point that out and holding religious leaders to account in the real world at least consistent with being an atheist? I know I certainly try to do something along those lines in my own small way.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 11 April 2010 - 10:19 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

SM, can you define 'supporter of religion'?