Pope 'has no UK arrest immunity'

[Tifosi]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100411/tuk-pope-has-no-uk-arrest-immunity-6323e80.html

That would be class if he was locked up, never come about but if it makes him shit himself I'll be happy

[Mendax]

Potential charges against the Pope would be crimes against humanity


This would certainly be a pretty major court case and one that would pretty clearly show the decline of christanity in England. Although I'm sure some way for him to get off will be found :(

[bricolage]

Christopher Hitchens is still a knob though.

[Robocommie]

This would certainly be a pretty major court case and one that would pretty clearly show the decline of christanity in England. Although I'm sure some way for him to get off will be found :(

Conflicts with the Pope in England is hardly something new.

[Demogorgon]

They are going to have a nasty surprise if they try taking it in front of a judge, because the Holy See is recognised internationally. And besides, even if by some quirk it turned out he didn't, there are some rather big problems like the fact that so far as I know none of the coverups alleged took place in Britain, so for him to be arrested in the UK, a foreign court would have to issue a warrant and moreover even if that did happen he won't be arrested anyway, because it would be catastrophic for the UK's image and would lead to it becoming something of a pariah.

[Sasha]

he is the serving leader of an nation state (vatican city), i think that gives you imunity for everything except the den haag international court.

[InTheSystem]

he is the serving leader of an nation state (vatican city), i think that gives you imunity for everything except the den haag international court.

In that case, perhaps some bold lawyers could argue that the pope's position as Sovereign of Vatican City is legally distinct from his role as Bishop of Rome, with completely different rights and responsibilities? It's true that as a foreign leader he has diplomatic immunity, but as a member of the clergy, maybe he could be indicted?

[~Spectre]

It's the thought that counts. :)

[cb9's_unity]

Not arresting the pope would be a crime against humanity.

[Demogorgon]

In that case, perhaps some bold lawyers could argue that the pope's position as Sovereign of Vatican City is legally distinct from his role as Bishop of Rome, with completely different rights and responsibilities? It's true that as a foreign leader he has diplomatic immunity, but as a member of the clergy, maybe he could be indicted?
That wouldn't work either. Remember he isn't accused of anything since he became pope. But the trouble is that once he becomes head of state, it covers him generally.

Sovereign Immunity isn't absolute incidentally, but in Britain it would be enough to make him bullet proof. And at any rate, does anyone seriously think the UK authorities would allow an attempt to arrest him?

[Andropov]

Its all irrelevant, it wont happen in my lifetime anyway.

[YKTMX]

It's being cooked up by Hitchens and Dawkins, which probably means it's bullshit.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's being cooked up by Hitchens and Dawkins, which probably means it's bullshit.

I hope you're kidding. Whatever you may have against these guys, they are hardly known for spreading lies, but rather quite the opposite.

[YKTMX]

I hope you're kidding. Whatever you may have against these guys, they are hardly known for spreading lies, but rather quite the opposite.



Hitchens is a pro-war racist scumbag.

Dawkins is an arrogant git.

[~Spectre]

Hitchens is a pro-war racist scumbag.

Dawkins is an arrogant git.


I don't really know enough about Dawkins, but Hitchens certainly got his honesty union membership revoked a looooooooong time ago.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hitchens is a pro-war racist scumbag.

Dawkins is an arrogant git.

Dawkins is arrogant because he refuses to take such flawed illogical thinking as a norm anymore? I guess being a "militant" atheist is wrong since we choose to rather embrace science which has helped out understanding of life & other means far more than religion has ever given us. I choose to not play around with the b.s. spewed by the religious, because it'll never move us forward. Only science can do that.

[Robocommie]

Dawkins is arrogant because he refuses to take such flawed illogical thinking as a norm anymore? I guess being a "militant" atheist is wrong since we choose to rather embrace science which has helped out understanding of life & other means far more than religion has ever given us. I choose to not play around with the b.s. spewed by the religious, because it'll never move us forward. Only science can do that.

I think you're making a horrendous mistake, by assuming for others what religion has to offer to them. Just because it holds no meaning for you, doesn't mean it holds no meaning for others. You're also forcing competition between science and religion when many scientifically-minded religious people see them as serving two separate roles: science improves our understanding of the world we live in, religion helps us understand how we should behave towards others and how we should approach day-to-day life.

[bailey_187]

Dawkins is arrogant because he refuses to take such flawed illogical thinking as a norm anymore? I guess being a "militant" atheist is wrong since we choose to rather embrace science which has helped out understanding of life & other means far more than religion has ever given us. I choose to not play around with the b.s. spewed by the religious, because it'll never move us forward. Only science can do that.

Yeah sorry, i dont if you realise but you are talking to the SWP -friends of the clerics

i heard a SWPer call Dawkins an "Islamophobe" once.

[YKTMX]

Dawkins is arrogant because he refuses to take such flawed illogical thinking as a norm anymore? I guess being a "militant" atheist is wrong since we choose to rather embrace science which has helped out understanding of life & other means far more than religion has ever given us. I choose to not play around with the b.s. spewed by the religious, because it'll never move us forward. Only science can do that.

What is this thing called "science" that's going to move us forward? Where is it located? Who runs it and in whose interest? Are you seriously waiting about for GlaxoSmithKline to liberate humanity?

It's such a trope of reified mechanical materialism to see "science" as a thing, separate from the workings of actually existing society, and to promote scientists, those who guard the Knowledge, as kind of secular priests. Science, or, more accurately, the social practice known as the scientific method, is rooted in society. As such, it doesn't "move society on" like some kind of divine hand, pushing history along, but is located within a complex of ideological and material processes that structure it.

Less abstractly: when Dawkins waffles on about the religious "delusion", he is not representing some historically abstracted 'scientific' perspective. Most of the creators of the modern social practice known as the scientific method believed in God. He is representing the views of a particularly militant rationalist viewpoint which, let's be clear, is totally bound up the current foreign policy objectives of Western Imperialism.

Dawkins is the worst type. His brand of Darwinism is mechanistic and reductionist and totally in league with reactionary sociobiology.

His vision of religion - that it's a kind of conspiracy against the young, or a 'residue' from some mythic pre-rational past we've now moved 'beyond' - is similarly simple minded and patronizing.


As for Hitchens: he's a fraudster, a homocidal maniac and a drunk.

Anyone who takes anything he says at all seriously is, as he might say, credulous.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I question the pragmatism of "militant atheism", personally. Currently over eighty percent of the world follows some form of religion*, including well over three billion followers of Christianity and Islam, and loudly proclaiming that they're all morons probably isn't the smartest tactic for winning people over to our side.

That's without even mentioning the fact that many militant atheists have a shaky understanding of the way materialism works, to say the least.

*http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[danyboy27]

i dont care about what should be wrong for our side, the good thing to do is to arrest the fucker.

He should serve a life sentence for his recomendation regarding condoms, Putting the life of million of people at risk over religious dogma should be considered a war crime.

[InTheSystem]

That wouldn't work either. Remember he isn't accused of anything since he became pope. But the trouble is that once he becomes head of state, it covers him generally.

Sovereign Immunity isn't absolute incidentally, but in Britain it would be enough to make him bullet proof. And at any rate, does anyone seriously think the UK authorities would allow an attempt to arrest him?

Have there been many instances of abuse perpetuated by Catholic clergy in the UK? If not, I guess he would probably have to be indicted by the legal system of a country where crimes were committed, such as Ireland. Even so, I have to agree with you that the chance of prosecution is nigh impossible. Perhaps a more realistic goal would be to pursue criminal charges for diocesan bishops?

[Demogorgon]

Have there been many instances of abuse perpetuated by Catholic clergy in the UK? If not, I guess he would probably have to be indicted by the legal system of a country where crimes were committed, such as Ireland. Even so, I have to agree with you that the chance of prosecution is nigh impossible. Perhaps a more realistic goal would be to pursue criminal charges for diocesan bishops?
There have been abuse cases here, but that isn't relevant unless it is proven he tried to cover them up. And so far nothing particular has emerged here. But like I say it is not going to happen because even if by some extraordinary series of events an arrest did happen, a conviction would not be possible and all that would happen would be the UK being stuck in diplomatic hot water.

Dawkins and Hitchens are doing this to drum up publicity (or out of sheer attention seeking depending on your perspective), and it isn't going to amount to anything. They could try a Citizens arrest like Tatchell tried on Mugabe years ago, but neither man strikes me as being the sort to wrestle with security and end up spending a night in the cells.