Atheists can be morons too - probably.

[Agelastus]

I am confused what it is about saying the Pope should be held responsible for covering up kiddie rape that makes someone a moron.

Bandwaggoner.

And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?

[Agelastus]

I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron?  I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.

Strident atheists often give the impression that they consider those with faith moronic. I tend towards agnosticism, so I find the extremes of both sides quite wearing.

Besides, I'm crap at thread titles.

[Berkut]

I am confused what it is about saying the Pope should be held responsible for covering up kiddie rape that makes someone a moron.

Bandwaggoner.

And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?

I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.

Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron.

[Berkut]

I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron?  I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.

Strident atheists often give the impression that they consider those with faith moronic. I tend towards agnosticism, so I find the extremes of both sides quite wearing.

Besides, I'm crap at thread titles.

Agnostics are so cute.

[Razgovory]

They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.

[Berkut]

They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.

You don't even realize how contradictory that statement is, do you?

[Razgovory]

They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.

You don't even realize how contradictory that statement is, do you?

Apparently not.  But I imagine you're going to tell me.

[grumbler]

I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.

Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron.

Given that Britain recognized the Holy See and its Head of Government, the Pope, in 1982, I dare say you are correct (and that Agelastus could actually have looked this up with a little effort, rather than merely assuming that the board's lawyers were his to command), I think you are correct that this has no chance to go to court.

[Agelastus]

I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.

Then it has no point at all, since if they know it has no chance then they are just doing it for the publicity. Since one can hardly argue that the long-running problem of children being abused by Catholic priests has not already received worldwide coverage, wasting their effort on this non-starter of a case is moronic.

Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron.

Saying I am assuming "whatever is convenient" is something of a misrepresentation given that I stated what I had assumed from my own knowledge in the opening post. Nor have you disagreed with what I assumed, have you?

I was wondering if one of the lawyers could come up with something that explained why a lawyer was even considering making this futile claim. But none of the known Languish lawyers have posted yet.

[The Brain]

Arresting a Nazi pedophile doesn't seem that far-fetched.

[Gups]

Bandwaggoner.

And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?

According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.

What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?

[The Minsky Moment]

The last few days has made me think that someone has declared all of April to be "April Fool's Day" without telling me. I know the Vatican City only has observer status at the UN but given the number of countries it has diplomatic relations with I cannot comprehend how anybody would think this is worth wasting any time on.

Maybe one of the lawyers here can tell me what I am missing.

What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).

[The Brain]

Bandwaggoner.

And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?

According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.

What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?

You don't have to have broken any real law to get shat on by the UK. See: libel tourism.

[Barrister]

The last few days has made me think that someone has declared all of April to be "April Fool's Day" without telling me. I know the Vatican City only has observer status at the UN but given the number of countries it has diplomatic relations with I cannot comprehend how anybody would think this is worth wasting any time on.

Maybe one of the lawyers here can tell me what I am missing.

What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).

According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute.  Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).

Which brings us back to 'regular' criminal law.  I think (and I'm no expert) that the UN is a red herring, and what matters is whether or not the individual country recognizes the Vatican as an independent state, or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.

What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?

Article 7.  Crimes Against Humanity.  1.  For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:  . . .   (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
. . . .
2.        For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a)     "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack . . .

It won't be too hard to prove "a course of conduct involving the multiple comission of" rape "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" against a "civilian population."

It would be a lot tougher to prove that the course of conduct was pursuant to a policy  of the Holy See to commit such attacks.  Most likely, the worst that could be shown would be a policy of organizational indifference and aiding and abetting perpetrators after the fact.  That is probably  insufficient to establish the required element of a policy to commit the attacks, which presumably requires a more active role in facilitating and planning the commission of the offenses.

But this is still a new and evolving area of the law, so who really knows what standards could or might be applied?  A very long shot but perhaps not impossible, depending on what the evidence might show.