Dawkins calls for pope's arrest

robindch

Dawkins is finally going for the biggie -- he's announced that he wants the pope arrested during his trip to the UK later this year:

Guardian wrote:

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 The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.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.”

I can't see this getting very far, but one can't fault him for lack of ambition.

youcrazyjesus!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece


Wow. Well done to Dawkins. People don't seem to stand up for anything these days. Interestingly, the law was changed in this country to allow for the prosecution of those who have obstructed and covered up widespread child abuse, just like Ratzinger.

.

Nodin

Can't see the bould Ricardo dodging through Swiss pikes and bodyguards and making it to the Fuhrer Pope though....

kowloon

Not sure he would have any Swiss guard pikes on a visit to England, they're a dangerous weapon you know!

Irlandese

robindch wrote: »

Dawkins is finally going for the biggie -- he's announced that he wants the pope arrested during his trip to the UK later this year:I can't see this getting very far, but one can't fault him for lack of ambition.

I agree with you, but I am daned pleased to see that someone is taking this kind of action.
I posted before that catholics should have refused to let any pope agents read out the popes letter to them, unless it went through official Irish Diplomatic channels, in view of the Pope's refusal to accept any communications from the clerical abuse commission to the Papal Nuncio on the grounds that it didn't go through our Dept. of Foreign Affairs.
Is there anywhere I can send these guys some cash to help with the campaign?
Lets hear it for them, even if, as Robindch says, it will probably be stymied. But then again, maybe it will block the guy from entering and start a welcome precedent?

smellslikeshoes

That's an annoying headline, "I will arrest....." He isn't going to jump the barracades and try put the Pope in handcuffes. It's a legal challenge so if it was sucessful it's going to be the authorities doing the arresting.

youcrazyjesus!

Newspaper in formulating attention headgrabbing headlines scandal.

smellslikeshoes

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Newspaper in formulating attention headgrabbing headlines scandal.

There was no need for that.

If this is going to amount to anything more than an attention seeking endeavour by the two authors in question, a little more common sense should be used rather than just speaking to papers and creating a media frenzy.

robindch

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

If this is going to amount to anything more than an attention seeking endeavour by the two authors in question, a little more common sense should be used rather than just speaking to papers and creating a media frenzy.

Common sense has prevailed -- they've already spoken with lawyers who believe that charges might be possible through the CPS and now they're working to prepare the full set of documentation needed.

I'm sure it's been reported elsewhere, but two short articles published on the websites of two UK newspapers does not a "media frenzy" make.

smellslikeshoes

robindch wrote: »

Common sense has prevailed -- they've already spoken with lawyers who believe that charges might be possible through the CPS and now they're working to prepare the full set of documentation needed.

I'm sure it's been reported elsewhere, but two short articles published on the websites of two UK newspapers does not a "media frenzy" make.

There is already much more to it than just these two articles, but yes point taken media frenzy was a bit excessive.

Please don't misinterpret me I'm all for what they are trying to do but I believe that it would have helped the cause much more if they kept it quiet and used a little more tact. You only have to read the thread in AH to see how a lot of people are reacting to this.
Let's not forget that it's still 5 months before the Pope is to step foot on British soil.

Erkhan

Dawkins has spend his life making rational arguments against the existence of a god. He shouldn't muddy his argument against religion by taking on this issue.

However I'm glad that someone is going to tackle the pope on this issue, but if Dawkins thinks this will help his cause then he is probably making a mistake.

MagicMarker

Hopefully Ratzo won't cancel his flights.

iUseVi

This sounds great and all, but if this actually went ahead isn't this the kind of thing that starts wars?

I mean just for example; the UK already has frayed around the edges communications with Argentina over the Falklands, and Argentina is Catholic to the extent that until 1994 both President and Vice President had to be Roman Catholic by law. And I'm sure other big Catholic places would just love this...

youcrazyjesus!

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

There was no need for that.

If this is going to amount to anything more than an attention seeking endeavour by the two authors in question, a little more common sense should be used rather than just speaking to papers and creating a media frenzy.

Dawkins owns one or more newspapers? And possibly TV stations? He's directing them from his underground lair?

Look. It raises valid points and crystallizes the case against Ratzinger and his evil Church. I think it's fair game. If you don't want atheist campaigners bringing legal actions against you, don't cover up child abuse in your Church.

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

This sounds great and all, but if this actually went ahead isn't this the kind of thing that starts wars?

I mean just for example; the UK already has frayed around the edges communications with Argentina over the Falklands, and Argentina is Catholic to the extent that until 1994 both President and Vice President had to be Roman Catholic by law. And I'm sure other big Catholic places would just love this...

:rolleyes:

Dear God. Yes, Argentina and Spain are going to launch a new armada to invade Britain and free the Pope from the Atheist HQ in Whitehall.

Apologies, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but it's appropriate when dealing with ridiculous suggestions.

5uspect

The reaction to this over in AH is hilarious.
They've spend weeks baying for blood and now they're all worried for the pope and think Dawkins is a ****.
The mind boggles.

mjg

Even if this does nothing more than remind people, (particularly those that are on the fence or that support the RCC regardless of their actions) that crimes have been committed and covered up, that's a positive imo.

smellslikeshoes

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Dawkins owns one or more newspapers? And possibly TV stations? He's directing them from his underground lair?

Why don't you stop coming out with sarcastic rubbish like that to try and win arguments. It's not like the papers are mind readers. Dawkins released this information, the papers didn't just find out.

Dawkins could have kept this quiet and it would have given it more credibility when he actually went ahead with it. Until then this just seems like publicity whoring.

robindch

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Please don't misinterpret me I'm all for what they are trying to do but I believe that it would have helped the cause much more if they kept it quiet and used a little more tact. You only have to read the thread in AH to see how a lot of people are reacting to this.

The only media frenzy I see is the one on AH where around half the posters are ranting and raving not about the church covering up child abuse, but about the two lads actually trying to push the UK government to do something about it.

It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but to the best of my knowledge and despite huge amounts of documentary evidence, that (a) not a single administrator of the church has yet to be held to account for the institutional cover up and even worse (b) no state authority appears even to have initiated proceedings against any church administrator, let alone the top guy.

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Let's not forget that it's still 5 months before the Pope is to step foot on British soil.

It will take months for the paperwork to be sorted out, the CPS to evaluate it, and instruct the UK police to take action if any action is deemed appropriate. Personally, I'd have said that leaving five months for all of this was cutting it rather fine.

youcrazyjesus!

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Why don't you stop coming out with sarcastic rubbish like that to try and win arguments. It's not like the papers are mind readers. Dawkins released this information, the papers didn't just find out.

Dawkins could have kept this quiet and it would have given it more credibility when he actually went ahead with it. Until then this just seems like publicity whoring.

The next poster detailed the extensive process involved. How do you know the journalist didn't get wind of it? Do you know for a fact that Dawkins "released" this information?

Even if he did, so what? It raises some important questions. Hitchens has asked them; should the Pope be allowed travel freely? Shouldn't the EU and US Congress become involved in some form of sanctions? Should the Church be allowed tout for the hundreds of millions of dollars used to cover up these crimes?

Theses people are the lowest of the low. I have sympathy for the ordinary priest left to carry the can but the hierarchy I wouldn't let them set foot in my house. They should be brought to justice and I'm delighted Hitchens and Dawkins are doing something.

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Dear God. Yes, Argentina and Spain are going to launch a new armada to invade Britain and free the Pope from the Atheist HQ in Whitehall.

Apologies, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but it's appropriate when dealing with ridiculous suggestions.

Ha ha ha. Well, for starters I don't think missiles will be flying and I never meant that. Although Argentina and the UK did throw actual missiles at each other within (I'm assuming) both our lives so its not so far fetched as all that.

But you think the rest of the world is just going to sit back and look on.....come on, if this was actually pulled off (and I highly doubt it) there would be some sort of furor and you know it.

EDIT: and I've just been reading your posts on AH, and the trolling you've been doing, so my turn to LOL

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

Ha ha ha. Well, for starters I don't think missiles will be flying and I never meant that. Although Argentina and the UK did throw actual missiles at each other within (I'm assuming) both our lives so its not so far fetched as all that.

But you think the rest of the world is just going to sit back and look on.....come on, if this was actually pulled off (and I highly doubt it) there would be some sort of furor and you know it.

Good. I'm glad. There should be trouble over this.

EDIT: and I've just been reading your posts on AH, and the trolling you've been doing, so my turn to LOL

Read the charter.

Dades

I really don't know what to make of this.

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Read the charter.

Why is there something about trolling in it? :eek:

Dades

Put away the handbags, ladies.

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

Put away the handbags, ladies.

Sorry I'm done now.

Galvasean

I can't see the Pope actually getting arrested, but fair play to Dawkins and co. for actually bothering to try something. It beggars belief how despite huge amounts of public pressure no one has tried to prosecute the Pope for his apparent crimes until now. It's also amazing that no government or policing agency has the balls to do it, but a scientific literature writer does!

hiorta

Perhaps the Vatican has enough on various States and Governments to ensure silent compliance.

Arcus Arrow

Knights Templar 'Heirs' Sue Pope For Billions
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3002

The records of the Inquisition should be trawled for names of the victims and their desendents should sue as well.

A death of a thousand cuts would be most appropriate for the Roman Church.

youcrazyjesus!

Winston Churchill was dead right about a lie getting halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on. As I expected, a journalist got wind of it and made a sensational story out of it. Nothing to do with Dawkins whatsoever. I'll expect a restraction from those accusing him of generating a media frenzy, or carrying out a publicity stunt etc etc etc etc etc etc...

"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"

The Mad Hatter

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Winston Churchill was dead right about a lie getting halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on. As I expected, a journalist got wind of it and made a sensational story out of it. Nothing to do with Dawkins whatsoever. I'll expect a restraction from those accusing him of generating a media frenzy, or carrying out a publicity stunt etc etc etc etc etc etc...

"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"

Gah, you beat me to the punch with my own post!

GLaDOS

The AH thread on this angers the blood...

Doubt anything will come of this, but it's great to make people realise he is human and should be as accountable as anyone else.

Really noticing an increase in people not taking crap from the church in the last year and it's great to see.

robindch

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I'll expect a retraction from those accusing him of generating a media frenzy, or carrying out a publicity stunt etc etc etc etc etc etc...

That's a trifle unlikely

Here's the Times article from above, together with Dawkins' own account of what actually happened:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

youcrazyjesus!

robindch wrote: »

That's a trifle unlikely

Here's the Times article from above, together with Dawkins' own account of what actually happened:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

I quoted the same article on the previous page of this thread.

robindch

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I quoted the same article on the previous page of this thread.

Yep, but you didn't include a link to the text -- primary sources are much appreciated hereabouts

magicbastarder

i think this will be counterproductive. dawkins should have talked to some of the abuse survivor groups and offered his aid for their attempt at this, if this is what he seeks, rather than doing this with hitchens; it will seem like a solo run, a way of getting the boot into the pope under the cover of the abuse issue.

youcrazyjesus!

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think this will be counterproductive. dawkins should have talked to some of the abuse survivor groups and offered his aid for their attempt at this, if this is what he seeks, rather than doing this with hitchens; it will seem like a solo run, a way of getting the boot into the pope under the cover of the abuse issue.

Did you not read any of the above posts?

magicbastarder

i missed those two posts.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It raises some important questions. Hitchens has asked them; should the Pope be allowed travel freely? Shouldn't the EU and US Congress become involved in some form of sanctions?

the crimes of the catholic church in the last few decades pale into insignificance with the crimes of people the US and UK administrations have been happy to rub shoulders with in the past. i don't expect any official action by those governments on this.

Galvasean

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Did you not read any of the above posts?

Facts schmacts. it's Dawkins bashing time!!!!

edit: is it time the thread title was changed?

Doctor DooM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i missed those two posts.


the crimes of the catholic church in the last few decades pale into insignificance with the crimes of people the US and UK administrations have been happy to rub shoulders with in the past. i don't expect any official action by those governments on this.

Just because things have been done wrong in the past does not mean it is acceptable to continue to do wrong now.

iUseVi

The AH thread has now descended entirely into Dawkins bashing. There's just no point trying to fix that now. May as well try steering a car with no wheels on it. Oh AH.

ColmDawson

iUseVi wrote: »

The AH thread has now descended entirely into Dawkins bashing. There's just no point trying to fix that now. May as well try steering a car with no wheels on it. Oh AH.

I'm so used to reading about this stuff in nice, rational A&A that the thread in AH took me aback. So much nonsense...

magicbastarder

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Just because things have been done wrong in the past does not mean it is acceptable to continue to do wrong now.

i was talking about expectations, not aspirations, just in case there's any confusion.

but given the evidence available so far, international sanction levelled at the pope would be hysterical.

MikeC101

Galvasean wrote: »

Facts schmacts. it's Dawkins bashing time!!!!

Excellent.

He's so arrogant, plus his accent is all posh and clever like, with his fancy book-lurnin' and big words.

iUseVi

magicbastarder wrote: »

but given the evidence available so far, international sanction levelled at the pope would be hysterical.

I agree. We all know it isn't actually going to materialise, it just would be hilarious if it did.

D4RK ONION

Has everyone seen the post of the day?

Another amazing victory for After Hours. :rolleyes:

On topic though, I think if nothing else, it's a great statement from people that some of us are not content with how this is being dealt with and we wont sit back and let this blow over. Fair play to them.

iUseVi

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Has everyone seen the post of the day?

Another amazing victory for After Hours. :rolleyes:

On topic though, I think if nothing else, it's a great statement from people that some of us are not content with how this is being dealt with and we wont sit back and let this blow over. Fair play to them.

There's no emoticon that demonstrates my feelings about this. Maybe a *facepalm* will suffice.

dvpower

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Has everyone seen the post of the day?

Another amazing victory for After Hours. :rolleyes:

On topic though, I think if nothing else, it's a great statement from people that some of us are not content with how this is being dealt with and we wont sit back and let this blow over. Fair play to them.

I don't know how you deduce that.
That poster is in favour of a legal action being taken against the pope.

D4RK ONION

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know how you deduce that.
That poster is in favour of a legal action being taken against the pope.

How did I deduce what, that it was post of the day?

Drop down menus>boards.ie>post of the day

Doctor DooM

Dear lord.



(Pun intended)

Not AH'es finest hour.

ColmDawson

I am saddened by that.:(