Dawkins and Hitchens want to sue the Pope

[Dutch90]

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

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 The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.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 don’t think I can put it better  than Hitchens – this man is not above the law and what he did was a crime. Sue the bastard.

[Kaneda]

As morally reprehensible child molestation and rape is, and I do believe the Pope is responsible for booting out and rejecting people with that history from serving as clergy (when he hasn't), I think this has less to do with that and more to do with Dawkins and Hitchens having an axe to grind against religion.

And before anyone asks me, I'm not Catholic.

[Dutch90]

As morally reprehensible child molestation and rape is, and I do believe the Pope is responsible for booting out and rejecting people with that history from serving as clergy (when he hasn't), I think this has less to do with that and more to do with Dawkins and Hitchens having an axe to grind against religion.

And before anyone asks me, I'm not Catholic.

And I think it's sad that people think that just because these two are the ones calling for it.

[Neltharion]

If anyone else called for it no one would listen or just call them morons.

Since its Dawkin's he will be called a moron, but people will listen.


If the pope willingly and knowingly did not get rid of Pedophile priests and charges can be brought against him. Go for it.

[SM]

I don't think Dawkins is a moron (Hitchens on the other hand...)

And as much as I despise fundies like Dawkins, it's hard to dispute they have a very good point.  And I AM for all intents and purposes, a Catholic.  It'd be nice for someone high up in the church be held accountable for something for a change.

[beckmen]

And I think it's sad that people think that just because these two are the ones calling for it.

You seriously think they don't have ulterior motives here? Give me examples of them going after any other kind of criminals in this way.

[Hieronymus]

I think it's quite likely that Dawkins and Hitchens are pursuing this matter because of their stance on religion.  But that doesn't mean it's disconnected from the Pope's role in the protection and enabling of pedophiliac rapists.  This seems more like a gesture to say that His High Holy Pointy-Hattedness cannot be above the law in a sane and just society.

[Neltharion]

You seriously think they don't have ulterior motives here? Give me examples of them going after any other kind of criminals in this way.

They are not criminal lawyers. Nor are they policemen.

They are passionate about this subject, thus have even more motivation to go for it. And to be frank, its about fucking time someone stood up to the Church to show them they can be held accountable for their compliance and they are not above the law.

[Nev]

Dawkins and Hitchens are obviously just taking their crusade against religion on another level. Anyone who actually thinks they have no ulterior motives lives in denial.

That doesn't mean I don't agree with D and H.

[beckmen]

Right, I didn't mean to imply that the pope doesn't deserve to be brought up on criminal charges. Hitchens and Dawkins' motives are just pretty clear to me. Don't ignore what they are trying to do, but note why they are trying to do it. It would be better if a member of the Catholic church was doing this, but who is going to go against Mister Infallible? I'll stop before I click into Cathlolic-bashing mode.

[Neltharion]

I'm not denying it. I know they are.

[dude]

If a legitimate case can be made go for it. It's 110% obvious what Dawk and Hitch motives' are, there's absoultely no denying it. But as an agnostic, the only apeal to my belief system/personal bias that I have is that children should not be touched. If a court of law can prove the Pope covered up kiddy fondling, then throw the book at him.

[SM]

The Lord's book.  One of them big ones all covered in gold so it really hurts.

[dude]

Mind you, should the Pope be found innocent, he should counter sue Dawk and Hitch for defamation or slander or something along those lines.

[SiL]

It's only slander if the person saying it knew it wasn't true.