Pope arrest will succeed, argues the lawyer
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.
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.
Mr Stephens said: “The courts will examine the claim of immunity. I believe that an English court would reject it. If the Pope was here on a state visit, ordinarily a head of state would have sovereign immunity. What I believe is that because he’s not a sovereign, not a head of state, he’s not entitled to the defence.”
He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.
Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9027087
The British Humanist Association is a founding member of the Protest the Pope campaign.
8 Comments
Trackbacks
- CANADA IMMIGRATION | HOW TO IMMIGRATION CANADA GUIDE
- Pattaya One News
- Pattaya One News
- Pattaya One News
- Pattaya One News
Unfortunately, what Benito Mussolini did may not mean much here. If the UK recognizes the Holy See as a sovereign state today then it would treat it like one, and the two countries do have diplomatic relations. The UN recognizes it (it’s a non-voting member).
Also, the treaty that protects heads of state also protects “senior cabinet members, Foreign Minister, and Minister for Defence”. A good question would be is the position of “Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” considered a “senior cabinet member”? That’s when he did most of the things that people are considering crimes. If that position is covered, and if he was carrying out “acts of state” at the time, then he is immune.
But, there are loopholes that can still get him in trouble…just ask Pinochet. There are treaties that override the Immunity from prosecution doctrine… torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Someone could make a case that the systematic concealment and otherwise abetment of the sexual abuse of children all around the world for decades, with what could easily be tens of thousands of victims, should constitute crimes agains humanity. If that’s the case the immunity for head of state issue is moot.
A small enclave within a city can not be defined as a “state”, by any sensible yardstick. Furthermore, the fact that his trip here is being labelled a “state visit” is ludicrous.
If our government had any backbone whatsoever, then were he to come here at all, it would be solely a catholic church event, and our taxpayer money would not be called upon. Nor would our Queen be subjected to the indignity of hosting him (and that comes straight from the keyboard of a staunch republican!).
And while we are on the subject of whether or not it’s a “state”, can anyone tell me why on earth we have an ambassador to the Vatican? Talk about sinecures! How much does he cost? And more to the point, what exactly does he do all day? Huff and puff and pontificate, no doubt.
Size isn’t what makes a state. Having another country recognize a state as a state makes it a state. The United States recognizes it as “sovereign, independent territory” (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm). I don’t know what exactly the conditions are between the UK and the Holy See, but I suspect that they are similar. Interestingly… the US State Department never got around to doing a Human Rights Report on the Holy See….hmmm….. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/index.htm I wonder why they get a pass.