Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens think they can get the Pope arrested during his next trip to Britain. This might sound like a long shot, except for this:
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.
Also, a recent effort to raise an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, based on the Gaza occupation, was successful, and Livini canceled a trip to Britain.
If someone started a fund to do this in the US, I’d contribute.
The Grand Panjandrum
First thing they do is waterboard him and get him to admit that he really does wear Prada. Then put him in the general prison population to see if any of the boys are into PILF’s. I can see the Broadway musical from my front porch!
MattF
As much as I’d like to see the Pope embarrassed, I think this is hogwash. Diplomatic relations are established by bilateral agreement– i.e., the UN is not involved–and the UK presently sends an ambassador to the Vatican. So, if Vatican says Benedict is a head of state, that’s what he is.
WereBear
When monkeys fly… etc.
It’s a nice thought for agitation, but it ends there.
scav
I guess the Beatles are more popular than Jesus — certainly more popular than the Pope. The Vatican’s official newspaper is trying to make a big deal out of forgiving them (Guardian).
The Succubus
HBO might be willing to fund it. Would give them a great opening for reviving “Oz”. Personally, I’d love to see the old pervert make a guest appearance on “Dexter”. Probably take two Hefty bags for the hat alone….
shpx.ohfu
Dawkins says he was misquoted about this issue in the Murdoch Times, by the way.
Brick Oven Bill
Catholics look to men for Guidance, emblematically represented by the Pope.
Progressives look to Artificial Law to Dream, emblematically represented by the Windmill.
Teabaggers look instead to Nature for Truth, represented in due form by our Five Senses and the Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences.
The Succubus
@scav
Wow. Not only are they showing their desperation by trying to distract us by “forgiving” a pop group, but the Beatles? I guess they know better than to even try to appeal to a young base.
But much as I enjoy their music, I fear Lennon was wrong about the longevity of religion and rock. The only things left after nuclear annihilation will be cockroaches, fundamentalists, and of course, Keith Richards.
El Cid
By the time Pinochet was arrested, he was out of power, so it’s not comparable to this proposal, but it helped enormously in getting Chile and the rest of South America to start tearing up the “immunity” agreements imposed on them by many of their (U.S.-backed) tyrants and to then investigate and prosecute their functionaries.
Maybe a better first step would be to find Catholic hierarchy leaders who appear to have engaged in criminal conspiracies to aid and abet child molesters and rapists and to hide their crimes from civil authorities, and then if European judges can issue investigative warrants, that might help.
Mike Kay
An Iraqi war criminal like Hitchens has some nerve to demand arrests. What’s he gonna demand next – the return of Prohibition?
beltane
@El Cid: Ratzinger appears to be the member of the hierarchy who bears the most culpability in this regard. What would be truly exciting is the possibility of Italy issuing an arrest warrant, effectively putting the Pope under house arrest. Not that any of this will happen, mind you.
Ash Can
More power to them. But I think MattF is unfortunately right — if the British government recognizes the Vatican as a sovereign state, it doesn’t matter what the UN thinks. The article says that they’ll also try taking the case to the International Court. They may find a more sympathetic ear there.
What I’d also like to see — although it would never happen, because they’re far too diplomatic to do so — is religious leaders speaking out in support of Dawkins and Hitchens. The article is quick to identify these two as atheists, setting up the inevitable dismissal by many readers as, “Well, they’re just a couple of crackpots.” If non-atheists came out in support of their efforts, to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, people may start to think it’s a real movement.
toujoursdan
The UK has had full diplomatic relations with the Vatican since 1982. The Vatican has a Papal Nuncio in the Wimbledon section of London and their representative is considered a full ambassador.
The Queen paid several State Visits there and has been received with state honours. That’s all that matters under international protocol.
You don’t need diplomatic recognition by the UN to be granted diplomatic immunity. The UK considers the Vatican a country and its leader the head of state.
But this makes for great publicity.
beltane
@Ash Can: Sully posted something from a lifelong English Catholic who is in favor of the Dawkins/Hitchins move. I have no idea if this feeling is widespread, however.
Bill
@shpx.ohfu: Thanks for posting that, I knew that article smacked of bullshit somehow.
A lot of people Stateside don’t realize that The Times of London is basically FOX News in print, in some very real ways.
Bill E Pilgrim
@shpx.ohfu:
Thanks for posting that, I knew that article smacked of BS somehow.
A lot of people Stateside don’t realize that The Times of London is basically FOX News in print, in some very real ways.
(Reposted, I guess you can’t spell out the BS word, plus I typoed my nick)
Ash Can
@Bill E Pilgrim: It was the nick typo that got you. It makes the system see you as a brand new poster.
And yes, you’re right about the Times being Fox in print. How sad. How far the mighty have fallen.
El Cid
@beltane: Okay, but, in the case of the Pope or the direct representatives of the Vatican, they will be viewed as and treated as a heads of state [and diplomatic delegations] and no arrest will be a real possibility.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Ash Can: Ah okay thanks. In that case good thing it did, because what I had done was somehow erase E Pilgrim so my nick would have appeared just as “Bill”. Which would have confused everyone.
Or actually I guess it will still appear.
Oh and by the way what I meant was that an earlier version of the Times article said “Richard Dawkins says “I will arrest the Pope”, and other papers still have headlines they picked up from them, like this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265151/Richard-Dawkins-plans-arrest-Pope-crimes-humanity.html
…and this one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10637869
The Times seems to have edited the headline at least now, the article is more or less accurate if leaning to the sensationalist/right wing about it.
kay
@toujoursdan:
I don’t think it is great publicity. I think it will disappear in 3 days, even if they succeed.
I think the lawyers for the victims have been doling out documents to the press and bringing a good solid case to the public, brick by brick. The Vatican hasn’t been able to refute anything credibly. They’re getting slaughtered, slowly. They can’t deny these documents and witness accounts and records.
I think the victims (their advocates) tried the criminal system and then the civil system and they couldn’t reach the Vatican, so they went to the press, and they’ve been very effective there.
I think they should keep doing what they’re doing.
mai naem
OT somewhat I think Obama should nominate the Pope for Stevens’ seat. He’s an old white anti-semite, anti-gay, anti-choice and gets away with paying zero taxes. He’s got all the qualities that the Repubs like.
cleek
the Pope is not the problem. the Church itself is: the customs, rules, mindset, and the culture.
PaulW
I think the Vatican is recognized as a state of sorts via treaty with enough nations to where you can’t arrest the pope.
But what we CAN do is get our governments to refuse the Catholic Church its tax-exempt status. It’s not a church anymore: it’s an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Who do we call to get our government to drop the Church’s tax-exempt status, the Attorney General or the IRS?
scav
But for those who wish to follow Hitchens, here’s a Guardian link from March 31 that talks about early rumblings on this. This Guardlink has stuff about his trip to UK which I kinda remember had grumblings even before the latest kertuffle really got going.
someguy
That’s a good move. It really should be done to anybody who served in the Bush administration as well – put as many foreign countries off-limits to them as possible. Or if they’re stupid enough to show up, put as many of *them* in jail as possible.
I wonder if Turkish courts are hospitable to the notion of extraterritorial jurisdiction? I’m sure they’d like to be able to tell Bush what they think about the establishment of the Kurdish gangster state on their southern border. Hmmm… Bush… Turkish prison… delightful. My day is brighter already.
Bill E Pilgrim
@mai naem: I think the Hitler Youth thing might come up in the confirmation hearings.
Imagine if an actual nominee had that in his past. Think it might come up? And you better believe that “It wasn’t my fault” and “it was obligatory” and “I was too young to know the difference” wouldn’t help much in that situation.
It is easier to ascend to the throne of St Peter than to enter the Kingdom of SCOTUS. Interestingly.
Joey Maloney
@Mike Kay: Wait, what? War criminal?
Drunken asshole, sure, and I well remember Hitch slurring through various encomiums to pointless slaughter, but exactly what war crime did he commit?
Ash Can
OT, but I see the Pulitzer Prizes for journalism are going to be awarded today. That should be interesting. Roy J. Harris Jr. at the WaPo has a good take on it (h/t GOS).
mistermix
@MattF: So how does this explain the Livni incident – presumably Britian and Israel have formal relations, yet the arrest warrant kept her out of the country.
MattF
@mistermix
There’s an exception to diplomatic immunity for crimes against humanity (e.g., genocide).
Fern
@El Cid:
Makes sense.
MattF
Here’s a reference:
http://www.trial-ch.org/en/intl-law/amnesty-and-immunity.html
Anya
@Joey Maloney: he encouraged and excused war crimes. He was an enabler and propagandist for Cheney and Bush’s war crimes.
Punchy
Arresting the pope? Isn’t that like trading A-Rod to the Nats or pooping in your compost pile? Good things in the long run, but short-term a local mess and PR disaster?
master c
I love the sound of it…..it’ll never happen
Face
While this transgression wont lead to the pokey, it does open up a good thought experiment as to what exactly the Pontiff would have to do in order to be arrested. I cant think of any crime the Vatican couldn’t cast off as “out-of-context” and “just more unfounded allegations”, even if it’s caught live on tape.
By the way, if they ever did arrest Pope Benz, they’d better simultaneously call an ambulance for Bill Donahue, and describe the injury as an “exploded noggin”.
burnspbesq
@PaulW:
Fuhgedaboudit. There is the small matter of the First Amendment – what is the “compelling state interest” in discriminating against one particular religion in the granting of tax benefits? And if you wanted to take away the tax-exempt status of all churches, that would require Congress to amend the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
Not happening in any of our lifetimes.
burnspbesq
@Anya:
All of which is political speech protected by the First Amendment. C’mon, y’all, get a grip.
canuckistani
@Punchy:
The desired result is for the Pope to be frightened of visiting Britain, in case he gets arrested. That way he gets a full dose of shame and international humiliation without resolving tricky legal questions about the legality of arresting the Pope.
rachel
Pope Ratz gives evil-looking guys a bad name.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
Hold it right there, Tax Counselor — this happens to be a pet peeve of mine, seeing as how the taxes these fuckers would owe on the huge-ass estates they own just here in my neck of NoVA could wipe out the federal deficit and put another man on the moon.
What about the POLITICAL activity the Church so blatantly engages in? The very high profile lobbying the Bishops did in the whole Stupidpak mess? Isn’t that disqualifying??
geg6
And once again, I get to blame Reagan for one more piece of stupid shit this country got into because of this venal, stupid, senile fuck.
There is no way on earth that this country should have diplomatic relations with the Vatican with a full ambassador. It’s a fucking church being shown massive amounts of deference by a country that purports to have no official religion and to favor no one religion over another. The most the U.S. government had ever done as far as diplomatic relations with the Vatican throughout our entire history was have a consulate (but not ambassador level relations) with the Vatican when the Vatican still held the territories known as the Papal States. Once they lost control over the Papal States in 1870, that ended diplomatic relations until asshole St. Ronnie decided that he and Nancy liked the fashions and photo ops the Vatican provided to their vision of the imperial presidency.
If we couldn’t have full diplomatic relations with these criminal misogynists when they actually held land enough to seem like something resembling a “country,” there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to have them with them now.
Fuck the Roman Catholic Church. Fuck the Pope. Fuck all religion in public life in any way. I’m sick of it. Just sick of it.
Face
Their opposition to this common-sense bill tells you all you need to know about how rampant and far-back-reaching the abuse was.
ericblair
It looks like Pope Benny is really the wrong guy for the job at this point. Putting aside any divine intervention, I understand that Ratzinger got the funny hat by working his connections hard and through the widespread idea that he was an old guy who was going to pop off soon and the Church needed a breather from all the change of the JPII era. So essentially a doctrinaire caretaker for a bit until everybody digested what the last guy accomplished.
So now they’re stuck in this situation where the flock is up in arms, the Pope has no pastoral skills to speak of so can’t manage the “feel your pain” bits, and by the way, seems to be up to his waist in the problem and sinking. Also, he’s looking reasonably chipper and not ready to be transferred to Corporate HQ anytime soon. Well, it’s their own damn fault.
geg6
@ericblair:
This:
makes not an ounce of sense, sorry to say. The only change of the JPII era was the complete and utter dismantling of Vatican II. Which was simply an effort to take the Church back to its roots in the Dark Ages. And Ratzinger was JPII’s equal partner in it.
I’m sorry, but your statement reflects an ignorance of modern Church history.
catclub
@Face: #40
But the bill passed one house! In Connecticut! That is impressive enough.
catclub
@geg6: #42
Judging from the tone, I think Eric (#41) was pulling your leg.
He also has a little history on his side vis-a-vis the maximum age (so far, not theoretical) of popes.
For instance, one change of the JPII era was that the pope was pretty popular. Benedict seems to be fixing that.
Or, JPII came from a nation that was victim of Nazi Germany,
while Benedict is from Germany.
See, there are lots of differences!
ericblair
@geg6:
Oh, calm down. I’m quite aware of how reactionary JPII was, which was quite a big change in direction, wasn’t it? So’s Ratzy, but nobody expects him to be a “big Pope” now, do they?
geg6
@ericblair:
As someone who grew up in the Catholic Church, I can tell you that there was very little change, in fact, under JPII since vast swaths of the Church never accepted any of the change of Vatican II. The reasons so much of Vatican II was never put into action are many, but one of them is that Vatican II was one of the things that spurred many, if not the majority, of progressive and liberal clergy to leave the priesthood and the veil. Many of them had hoped that the Vatican would eventually modernize enough that married and/or female priests would soon be allowed, so they left hoping to come back when that happened. Others left because the majority of the hierarchy never accepted Vatican II and they saw that the reactionaries would win the war, so they got out while the getting was good.
burnspbesq
@eemom:
“seeing as how the taxes these fuckers would owe on the huge-ass estates they own just here in my neck of NoVA could wipe out the federal deficit and put another man on the moon.”
Well, no. Property taxes are paid to state and local governments. Just think of the bodacious Confederate History Month party you could have if all that property tax revenue were going to Richmond.
And I suspect that the bishops were lawyered up and carefully calibrated their conduct to avoid a problem. The regulations make a distinction between issue advocacy and support for candidates.
kay
@catclub:
They’ll beat it. They beat this one:
Sponsor of Priest-Abuse Bill Wants Church to Let It Pass
By Jim Siegel
Columbus Dispatch
November 10, 2005
Eight months after the Ohio Senate unanimously passed a bill praised by those who were sexually abused by priests, heavy lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church continues to bottle it up in the House.
The delays have frustrated bill sponsor Sen. Robert F. Spada, a Catholic who is disappointed in the actions of his church’s leaders.
“Their Web site says they’re protecting God’s children, but I think that only goes so far with them,” the North Royalton Republican said.
The emotional debate surrounds a bill that could mean more embarrassment and financial hardship for the Catholic Church, which has paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits stemming from sex-abuse claims involving priests since 2002.
Catholic bishops in Ohio have sent letters and held rare meetings with lawmakers, including House Speaker Jon A. Husted and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John R. Willamowski, to voice concerns about the bill.
House leaders have given it just one committee hearing since it passed the Senate in March. A second is scheduled for this morning.
The Catholic Conference of Ohio has no objection to much of Senate Bill 17, such as the provision that adds clergy members to the list of people legally required to report suspected cases of child abuse.
The bill also extends the statute of limitations for filing a suit in new sex-abuse cases to 20 years past the victim’s 18th birthday, compared with one year under current law.
Persia
Hitchens is on fire with this. Here he is today in Slate.
“I have never before been accused of taking part in a pogrom or lynching, let alone joining a mob that is led by raped deaf children, but I’m proud to take part in this one.”
brantl
@MattF: NOPE, if the NATION HE’S VISITING SAYS HE’S A HEAD OF STATE, THEN HE IS.
Glenn Smith
Add me to the list of those who would contribute!
brantl
@Brick Oven Bill: I look for you to say something idiotic. and my faith is rewarded every day that I see one of your comments on balloon juice, BoB.
celticdragonchick
@Anya:
Sorry, but that is still free speech. You were never required to read or agree with anything he said.
The Succubus
@Face:
@catclub:
The “legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut,
threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities,which is to have sex with as many children as possible, before moving on to farm animals and small yappy dogs,” the letter says.Fixed.
DK Green
Maybe someone can explain this to me.
The UN recognizes the Vatican as an observer state. It is not a member state of the UN. In that capacity, it certainly seems like the UN recognizes the government of the Vatican as it is presently constituted. It is (was) the Vatican’s choice not to participate or join the UN. I don’t think they have prevented them from joining.
I wonder where the information that the UN doesn’t recognize the Pope as the head of state of the Vatican comes from. I don’t know who else they would recognize, and they have granted them observer status (which is, I believe, their means of recognizing non-member states, the status Switzerland had for years).
So, what is the deal with the UN in this scenario??
Beyond that, I agree with the above statements that the UN recognition has absolutely no bearing on the applicabilty of UK law to heads of state recognized by the UK. That was already a given (to everyone but Dawkins, or perhaps a misunderstanding reporter, it seems).
Felonious Wench
@geg6: The existence of the Vatican as a state entity annoys the hell out of me in the first place. Talk about a misreading of “render unto Caesar.”
If the Catholic Church wants to be an entity unto itself outside of “the outer world,” fine, buy land, put the pretty stuff on it, and lobby to be an independent entity outside of the real of the world. Disengage. Turn inward.
IT’S NOT A COUNTRY, IT’S A CHURCH. If they want to be free of outside interference, they can’t have it both ways. No one can touch them, but they can insert themselves however they want…including into the legal systems of other countries.
Beyond that, the abuse and cover-ups feels more like criminal conspiracy. If we’re going to go after them in the courts, that’s the most logical place to start, it seems to me.
Theron
Well if he has diplomatic immunity then declare him persona non grata. Let him know that if lands he’ll be denied entry and put on the next plane back. Works for me.