Richard Dawkins solicitor says that the Vatican is not a state

[theDoctorisIn]

According to accepted international law, Vatican City has been a sovereign state since the 6th century. Good luck, Mr. Dawkins.

This may be, but where is the evidence for that? International law?

They have embassies around the world, permanent observer status at the UN, and have been accepted for years.

Mr. Dawkins will lose any case he attempts to try.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Holy See is recognized by the UN.

It has permenant observer status. They have embassies in NY.

And they've been accepted as a Sovereign State since the Lateran Treaty in 1929.

Richard Dawkins doesn't get to override international law because he feels like it.

true but...

here is the argument...

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.

And that's my point. They're wrong. The UN does recognize the Holy See as a sovereign state. They're not a member of the UN, but they are recognized.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

According to accepted international law, Vatican City has been a sovereign state since the 6th century. Good luck, Mr. Dawkins.

This may be, but where is the evidence for that? International law?

They have embassies around the world, permanent observer status at the UN, and have been accepted for years.

Mr. Dawkins will lose any case he attempts to try.

I don't think it is a slam shut case for either view...but you are avoiding the argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Holy See is recognized by the UN.

It has permenant observer status. They have embassies in NY.

And they've been accepted as a Sovereign State since the Lateran Treaty in 1929.

Richard Dawkins doesn't get to override international law because he feels like it.

true but...

here is the argument...

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.

And that's my point. They're wrong. The UN does recognize the Holy See as a sovereign state. They're not a member of the UN, but they are recognized.

My understanding is that there is a difference with a distinction (which the law allows) between Vatican and Holy See.

"Vatican City is a city-state that came into existence in 1929 and is thus distinct from the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See, which existed long before 1929. " -Vatican City - Re.ViCa

The argument being made by Dawkins and Hitchens is not based on the Pope being head of the Holy See.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This may be, but where is the evidence for that? International law?

They have embassies around the world, permanent observer status at the UN, and have been accepted for years.

Mr. Dawkins will lose any case he attempts to try.

I don't think it is a slam shut case for either view...but you are avoiding the argument.

I'm avoiding the argument because things get VERY COMPLICATED when you're talking about the distinction between the Holy See and the city-state of Vatican city. Yes, technically they're not the same thing. My argument is not based on whether or not according to international law Dawkins has a case - my argument is that no accepted law will side with Dawkins.

Since I lack a degree in International law, and don't know enough about the legal distinctions, I can't base my argument on anything other than the simple fact that Dawkins will lose this in ANY court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They have embassies around the world, permanent observer status at the UN, and have been accepted for years.

Mr. Dawkins will lose any case he attempts to try.

I don't think it is a slam shut case for either view...but you are avoiding the argument.

I'm avoiding the argument because things get VERY COMPLICATED when you're talking about the distinction between the Holy See and the city-state of Vatican city. Yes, technically they're not the same thing. My argument is not based on whether or not according to international law Dawkins has a case - my argument is that no accepted law will side with Dawkins.

Since I lack a degree in International law, and don't know enough about the legal distinctions, I can't base my argument on anything other than the simple fact that Dawkins will lose this in ANY court.

I understand and I have no degree in law either, but the case against Pinochet set a precedent. Your argument was used by people before that case.

Predicting a loss in an area so vague is silly. Saying Great Britain or some authority will block giving the case a fair hearing is another thing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think it is a slam shut case for either view...but you are avoiding the argument.

I'm avoiding the argument because things get VERY COMPLICATED when you're talking about the distinction between the Holy See and the city-state of Vatican city. Yes, technically they're not the same thing. My argument is not based on whether or not according to international law Dawkins has a case - my argument is that no accepted law will side with Dawkins.

Since I lack a degree in International law, and don't know enough about the legal distinctions, I can't base my argument on anything other than the simple fact that Dawkins will lose this in ANY court.

I understand and I have no degree in law either, but the case against Pinochet set a precedent. Your argument was used by people before that case.

Predicting a loss in an area so vague is silly. Saying Great Britain or some authority will block giving the case a fair hearing is another thing.

Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that NOWHERE in the world would even HEAR the case.

I'm not talking about the merits of the case, I'm talking about the facts of the matter: Catholicism is one of the largest religions in the world. NO country, or international court would even hear the case.

And Dawkins knows this as well as I do. It's a publicity stunt, and nothing more - one more reason that I can't really respect Dawkins.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm avoiding the argument because things get VERY COMPLICATED when you're talking about the distinction between the Holy See and the city-state of Vatican city. Yes, technically they're not the same thing. My argument is not based on whether or not according to international law Dawkins has a case - my argument is that no accepted law will side with Dawkins.

Since I lack a degree in International law, and don't know enough about the legal distinctions, I can't base my argument on anything other than the simple fact that Dawkins will lose this in ANY court.

I understand and I have no degree in law either, but the case against Pinochet set a precedent. Your argument was used by people before that case.

Predicting a loss in an area so vague is silly. Saying Great Britain or some authority will block giving the case a fair hearing is another thing.

Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that NOWHERE in the world would even HEAR the case.

I'm not talking about the merits of the case, I'm talking about the facts of the matter: Catholicism is one of the largest religions in the world. NO country, or international court would even hear the case.

If I had to bet, I'd agree with you. But where law is concerned I am never sure of anything. We are a nation of laws and increasingly we are becoming a world of laws.

Precedents have a funny way of changing things: Pinochet.

 

[Political Junky]

Bush never allowed sovereignty to get in his way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Vatican is not a nation.

Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

I don't see it happening, but I see no credible arguments from the idiots here @ USMB. No arguments, just attacks in Dawkins.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dawkins should round up Pelosi and Reid and go for it, claiming the DNC stands behind him

 

[JenyEliza]

true but...

here is the argument...

And that's my point. They're wrong. The UN does recognize the Holy See as a sovereign state. They're not a member of the UN, but they are recognized.

My understanding is that there is a difference with a distinction (which the law allows) between Vatican and Holy See.

"Vatican City is a city-state that came into existence in 1929 and is thus distinct from the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See, which existed long before 1929. " -Vatican City - Re.ViCa

The argument being made by Dawkins and Hitchens is not based on the Pope being head of the Holy See.

You're such an undeducated dickhead. The Pope IS The Holy See, as is acknowledged by most of the world, including Roman Catholics (except probably you and Hitchens).

Here's some breastfeeding, you infantile dolt:

The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, in which its Bishop is commonly known as the Pope. It is the preeminent episcopal see of the Catholic Church, forming the central government of the Church. As such, diplomatically, and in other spheres the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Catholic Church. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained.[1]

Let you, Hitchens and the other sucklers try some stupid stunt with Pope B. You'll have your asses handed to you post-haste.

Go find a permanent nipple to suck on until you grow up.

 

[nraforlife]

The man is a Fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dante's hero