Richard Dawkins has really flipped this time

[Lonemagpie]

Apparently in some attempt to prove that atheists fundies can be just as barking as religious fundies, and setting back the cause of rationalism by decades, Dawkins - and Chris Hitchens - intends to have the Panzerpope arrested on "crimes against humanity" charges (relating to a letter he signed, preventing the the punishment of a US paedophile in 1985!) when he visits the UK this year...

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

 

[Roger Wilco]

So?

 

[Marten]

Doesn't he have diplomatic immunity? He clearly represents a state.

 

[Amaris]

Apparently in some attempt to prove that atheists fundies can be just as barking as religious fundies, and setting back the cause of rationalism by decades, Dawkins - and Chris Hitchens - intends to have the Panzerpope arrested on "crimes against humanity" charges (relating to a letter he signed, preventing the the punishment of a US paedophile in 1985!) when he visits the UK this year...

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

Actually, I see it more as an effort to get the head of the Catholic Church to stop protecting the Priests under his authority who commit acts of sexual molestation against thousands of children around the world. Instead of shining the light on their actions, the Pope is covering it up. That is a crime, and considering that it's children being molested, I would consider that a crime against humanity.

Dawkins probably knows it won't work, but this will generate even more awareness of the situation. The Pope needs to do something about it other than hide these men in other parishes where they can continue to molest children.

 

[Defiant]

Instead of shining the light on their actions, the Pope is covering it up. That is a crime, and considering that it's children being molested, I would consider that a crime against humanity.

Dawkins probably knows it won't work, but this will generate even more awareness of the situation. The Pope needs to do something about it other than hide these men in other parishes where they can continue to molest children.

It's an interesting legal issue - Did the pope know that children were being molested in a particular case, and did he then take affirmative steps to avoid disclosure of such information to Law Enforcement after discovering such?

That could be, at a minimum, obstruction of justice, in the US system. Not sure about UK...

 

[Roger Wilco]

Doesn't he have diplomatic immunity? He clearly represents a state.

Apparently Dawins thinks he can get around that because the Vatican is not a member of the UN. On first glance that seems like a questionable opinion to me, but I guess he looked into that.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Doesn't he have diplomatic immunity? He clearly represents a state.

Well, that's what the link is about...

 

[Amaris]

Instead of shining the light on their actions, the Pope is covering it up. That is a crime, and considering that it's children being molested, I would consider that a crime against humanity.

Dawkins probably knows it won't work, but this will generate even more awareness of the situation. The Pope needs to do something about it other than hide these men in other parishes where they can continue to molest children.

It's an interesting legal issue - Did the pope know that children were being molested in a particular case, and did he then take affirmative steps to avoid disclosure of such information to Law Enforcement after discovering such?

That could be, at a minimum, obstruction of justice, in the US system. Not sure about UK...

Under U.S. law it could be obstruction of justice, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aiding and abetting a criminal.

Under International Law:

Child sexual abuse is outlawed nearly everywhere in the world, generally with severe criminal penalties, including in some jurisdictions, life imprisonment or capital punishment.[158][159] An adult's sexual intercourse with a child below the legal age of consent is defined as statutory rape,[160] based on the principle that a child is not capable of consent and that any apparent consent by a child is not considered to be legal consent.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is an international treaty that legally obliges states to protect children's rights. Articles 34 and 35 of the CRC require states to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This includes outlawing the coercion of a child to perform sexual activity, the prostitution of children, and the exploitation of children in creating pornography. States are also required to prevent the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children.[161] As of November 2008, 193 countries are bound by the CRC,[162] including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia.[163][164]

So Dawkins may be able to actually do something in this case, if it is found the Pope has knowledge of the actions by any of these Priests. It is very likely the Pope does have knowledge of many of these offenses, and was a part of the move to redistribute these Priests to other parishes where they would be able to commit more acts of molestation against children. If so, I would like to see him taken to task for it. It is inexcusable.

 

[Kemaiku]

I would very much like to see that happen as well Axiom.

 

[sidious618]

While I'd love it if it happened it won't.

 

[Pingfah]

Sounds like fun. They should go for it, can't wait to see what happens

 

[Shazam!]

Doesn't he have diplomatic immunity?

"It's just been revoked"

 

[Mark de Vries]

Sounds like fun. They should go for it, can't wait to see what happens

Yes, because obviously the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't go for Catholics.

These propagandistic statements from loons like Dawkins are only worsened by the media's anti-Catholic agenda. And Dawkins is barking mad, blinded by his irrational hatred for anything smelling of religion.

Before spouting nonsense about the pope and his alleged knowledge about abuse cases, do some research: there is actually no evidence that Pope Benedict has been involved with any abuse cases. But since many media outlets are now incapable of doing independent and objective research, many people are unaware of this.

Research first, than draw conclusions.

 

[Amaris]

Sounds like fun. They should go for it, can't wait to see what happens

Yes, because obviously the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't go for Catholics.

These propagandistic statements from loons like Dawkins are only worsened by the media's anti-Catholic agenda. And Dawkins is barking mad, blinded by his irrational hatred for anything smelling of religion.

Before spouting nonsense about the pope and his alleged knowledge about abuse cases, do some research: there is actually no evidence that Pope Benedict has been involved with any abuse cases. But since many media outlets are now incapable of doing independent and objective research, many people are unaware of this.

Research first, than draw conclusions.

Dawkins isn't "barking mad". Zealous? Yes, but not "barking mad". If it is found that the Pope had knowledge of these incidents, and was involved in getting those Priests moved to other parishes, where they could molest again, wouldn't you agree he should be held responsible for such?

 

[cultcross]

Instead of shining the light on their actions, the Pope is covering it up. That is a crime, and considering that it's children being molested, I would consider that a crime against humanity.

Dawkins probably knows it won't work, but this will generate even more awareness of the situation. The Pope needs to do something about it other than hide these men in other parishes where they can continue to molest children.

It's an interesting legal issue - Did the pope know that children were being molested in a particular case, and did he then take affirmative steps to avoid disclosure of such information to Law Enforcement after discovering such?

That could be, at a minimum, obstruction of justice, in the US system. Not sure about UK...

Under U.S. law it could be obstruction of justice, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aiding and abetting a criminal.

The first two don't exist here. The third, I'd say it's wobbly at best. Even if we take the letter at total face value, that he was trying to stop the priest in question being defrocked despite knowing his criminal past, you'd have a hard time proving intent to aid and abet criminal action or evasion of justice. Being removed from the priesthood isn't a criminal sanction, so you can't 'aid and abet' someone to avoid that. You'd have to show that the then Cardinal intended to assist the priest in committing further crimes. A tough sell.

In fact, I'm racking my brains, and I can't think of a UK criminal sanction which applies to writing a letter suggesting a criminal not be fired. I may be missing something, but it's not coming to mind. Maybe a 'causing or allowing' offence relating to child sexual assault, but again the burden of proof of what the Cardinal was aware of or intended would probably render that unlikely.
Certainly Dawkin's hyperbolic 'crimes against humanity' is ludicrous. Heck, if we locked people up for not firing subordinates who broke the law, most of our cabinet (actual and shadow) would be indictable.

 

[Amaris]

It's an interesting legal issue - Did the pope know that children were being molested in a particular case, and did he then take affirmative steps to avoid disclosure of such information to Law Enforcement after discovering such?

That could be, at a minimum, obstruction of justice, in the US system. Not sure about UK...

Under U.S. law it could be obstruction of justice, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aiding and abetting a criminal.

The first two don't exist here. The third, I'd say it's wobbly at best. Even if we take the letter at total face value, that he was trying to stop the priest in question being defrocked despite knowing his criminal past, you'd have a hard time proving intent to aid and abet criminal action or evasion of justice. Being removed from the priesthood isn't a criminal sanction, so you can't 'aid and abet' someone to avoid that. You'd have to show that the then Cardinal intended to assist the priest in committing further crimes. A tough sell.

In fact, I'm racking my brains, and I can't think of a UK criminal sanction which applies to writing a letter suggesting a criminal not be fired. I may be missing something, but it's not coming to mind. Maybe a 'causing or allowing' offence relating to child sexual assault, but again the burden of proof of what the Cardinal was aware of or intended would probably render that unlikely.
Certainly Dawkin's hyperbolic 'crimes against humanity' is ludicrous. Heck, if we locked people up for not firing subordinates who broke the law, most of our cabinet (actual and shadow) would be indictable.

Ah, that does sound like a tough sell. Wouldn't the international law against statutory rape hold water for any non-U.S. incidents? In the U.S., I believe we should pursue it and take it all the way up to the top if necessary. Surely international laws have some way to prosecute those who rape and molest children.

 

[Mark de Vries]

Dawkins isn't "barking mad". Zealous? Yes, but not "barking mad". If it is found that the Pope had knowledge of these incidents, and was involved in getting those Priests moved to other parishes, where they could molest again, wouldn't you agree he should be held responsible for such?

Well, we'll just have to disagree about Dawkins, then. If not mad, he certainly isn't consistent. With the majority of sexual abuse happening within families and schools, why isn't he demanding the arrest of fathers and secretaries of education?

But that's not the point. If (I repeat, if) it is proven that the pope has personally been responsible for protecting child molesters then, yes, he must be held accountable by law, and I believe he would agree himself.

But the trouble is that there is no such proof. Certain newspapers and websites would like us to believe otherwise, but none of the claims have been proven, or even stand up to scrutiny.

An interesting collection of articles and analyses in defense of the pope can be found here: http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/. Some of the pieces there don't directly deal with the pope's alleged defense of abusers, but it is worth a look nonetheless.

 

[cultcross]

Under U.S. law it could be obstruction of justice, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aiding and abetting a criminal.

The first two don't exist here. The third, I'd say it's wobbly at best. Even if we take the letter at total face value, that he was trying to stop the priest in question being defrocked despite knowing his criminal past, you'd have a hard time proving intent to aid and abet criminal action or evasion of justice. Being removed from the priesthood isn't a criminal sanction, so you can't 'aid and abet' someone to avoid that. You'd have to show that the then Cardinal intended to assist the priest in committing further crimes. A tough sell.

In fact, I'm racking my brains, and I can't think of a UK criminal sanction which applies to writing a letter suggesting a criminal not be fired. I may be missing something, but it's not coming to mind. Maybe a 'causing or allowing' offence relating to child sexual assault, but again the burden of proof of what the Cardinal was aware of or intended would probably render that unlikely.
Certainly Dawkin's hyperbolic 'crimes against humanity' is ludicrous. Heck, if we locked people up for not firing subordinates who broke the law, most of our cabinet (actual and shadow) would be indictable.

Ah, that does sound like a tough sell. Wouldn't the international law against statutory rape hold water for any non-U.S. incidents? In the U.S., I believe we should pursue it and take it all the way up to the top if necessary. Surely international laws have some way to prosecute those who rape and molest children.

Well we should probably take step back and remember that the Pope didn't rape and molest children. If he had then there's plenty of offences he could be arrested for. What he's accused of is writing a letter which intended to spare a priest who did from being defrocked. That's pretty twisted, but not illegal unless his intent was to actively facilitate further crime, or evasion of criminal justice.

 

[Pingfah]

Sounds like fun. They should go for it, can't wait to see what happens

Yes, because obviously the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't go for Catholics.

You understand what the purpose of prosecuting someone is yes?

Trying to bring charges against someone is not judging them guilty without proof, if it was we couldn't very well bring charges against anyone could we

These propagandistic statements from loons like Dawkins are only worsened by the media's anti-Catholic agenda. And Dawkins is barking mad, blinded by his irrational hatred for anything smelling of religion.

Before spouting nonsense about the pope and his alleged knowledge about abuse cases, do some research: there is actually no evidence that Pope Benedict has been involved with any abuse cases. But since many media outlets are now incapable of doing independent and objective research, many people are unaware of this.

Research first, than draw conclusions.

I didn't draw any conclusions, I said it looks like fun. I look forward to seeing how far they'll get, which I imagine is not far at all.

 

[Mark de Vries]

Actually, the letter that's being discussed by cultcross and Axiom above dealt with a request from the priest himself, via his bishop, to be defrocked (he asked for dispensation of the requirement of celibacy). Cardinal Ratzinger advised caution. He didn't say yes or no, but advocated further investigation before coming to a conclusion. An important difference.

The priest in question was 'defrocked' eventually and served time in prison.

Here's a link to the text of the letter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm?loc=interstitialskip