Pope 'has no UK arrest immunity'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Yahoo News

Plans to have the Pope arrested when he visits the UK will succeed because he is not a head of state, a solicitor has said. Skip related content

Atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens proposed the action against the Pontiff for his handling of child abuse scandals in the Catholic church.

The writers' solicitor Mark Stephens said applications will be made to courts in the UK and the International Criminal Court for a warrant for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest.

His likely defence would be be that he is immune from prosecution during his visit to Britain in September, according to the lawyer.

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

[No Elephants]

1. Most drama between the Brits and the Vatican since Henry VIII.

[aquart]

2. Dawkins and Hitchens? I'm sure the British government is impressed.

A sitting head of state with no declaration of war? I'd guess that diplomatic immunity applies.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Vatican is a city state

Not a nation state.

[Wizard777]

7. Vatican City is the worlds smallest country. The Pope is a head of state.

The sovereignty of Vatican City was a lil gift from Benito Mussolini to Pope Pius XII. Vatican City is no longer a part of Italy.

[IndianaGreen]

29. A country of celibate men that don't reproduce or fuck, unless it is children

The Vatican was created by Mussolini and Pope Pius XI.

[aquart]

9. And that makes a difference...how?

[dipsydoodle]

11. Well it obviously makes some difference

under UK law because the subject of the post wouldn't otherwise arise. The fact that some may disagree with OUR law don't change the fact it is OUR law.

[FBaggins]

14. That's false logic.

It must be true or nobody would have claimed it?

This is just some guy's lawyer making his argument for him... it is in no way illuminating.

The question here is quite simple... either Great Britain recognizes the Vatican as a nation or it doesn't. They've been back and forth through the centuries (the Church of England having some small disagreement with the Church of Rome :-) ), but the Vatican is currently recognized as a nation.

[No Elephants]

12. Is the Pope officially considered a diplomat?

[Wizard777]

31. Yes and Cardinals as well. If I'm remembering correctly.

[Submariner]

3. the Popemobile will protect him

[ZombieHorde]

5. ...

[dipsydoodle]

6. Not much good

if somebody wants to buy an icecream and he slides the window down.

[ZombieHorde]

8. lol

[Soylent Brice]

20. ROFL

[eShirl]

13. "Quick, Cardinal! To the Popemobile!"

[tomm2thumbs]

17. +1 - nice

[lunatica]

19. LOL!

So that's why they all wear capes!

[DeSwiss]

10. K&R

Petty gossipers? Arrest me? Ha!

Don't they know who I am???

[dipsydoodle]

15. His Holiness

The Grope aka Mo Lestor.

[Fearless]

16. Hahaha excellent!

[boppers]

18. Put him in the cell with Kissenger, Shrub, and other criminals.

Oh, wait.

[Gman]

21. Diplomatic immunity

This is a waste of time.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Papal Perp Walk

Tis devoutly to be desired...

[ShockediSay]

30. Amen nt

[JaneFordA]

23. Won't be a slam-dunk...

... because if the United Kingdom has an ambassador/embassy presence in Vatican City, then the British Government recognizes the Pope as head of state.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. I want to see Det. Pembleton from "Homicide" work him over in the box...(nt)

[bigworld]

25. Thanks for the mental image. That would be lovely.

Loved that show.

[onehandle]

26. This is fantasy at best. nt

[Bragi]

27. A damn good stunt

This action may be of no legal merit, but it makes a point very well, which is that this Pope personally and knowingly helped sexual predators of children avoid law enforcement and prosecution.

I hope actions such as this will shame the Pope into canceling his visit to the UK, and to any other country that cares about the rule of law.

If the Pope ends up abdicating, or at least confined to the porch in his tiny city state, at least some justice will have been done.

So good for Dawkins and Hitchens.

[garybeck]

28. Question.

I understand there is evidence that the Pope knew about abuse and covered it up.

I understand there is evidence the pope was asked to kick abusing clergy out of the Church and he did not.

What I do not know is -- is there any evidence in any of these cases that after the Pope knew about abuse, that a priest was allowed to stay and/or just moved to another Parrish, and that he CONTINUED to abuse after that? It seems to me that this is the line in the sand. If he allowed priests to stay in the Church but they stopped abusing, this could blow over. But if there is clear evidence that he knew about abuse and allowed it to continue when he had the responsibility and power to stop it, I think he's toast. Not that he would be arrested per se, but he might have to step down for "personal reasons" or because he "wants to spend more time with his family" if you know what I mean.