The Pope’s visit and human rights

16 September 2010 by

The Pope begins a four-day visit to the UK today, the first official trip by a serving Pope for 28 years. The visit has already been controversial, and it raises some interesting questions from a human rights angle.

The leader of the Catholic church has spoken out recently on UK equality laws, complaining that they would run contrary to “natural law”. His comments were most likely directed at the effect of the new legislation on Catholic adoption agencies, making it more difficult for them to turn down gay couples. This could have been the key issue of the trip, but it has been overshadowed by a more difficult and damaging controversy.

Long before the Pope arrived in the UK, a group, notably Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Geoffrey Robertson QC, have been campaigning for him to be arrested under international law for the Vatican’s responsibility for child abuse which appears to be rife in the Catholic Church.

The first question arising is whether the charge is factually accurate. The answer is probably yes. It is clear that child abuse has been a huge problem within Catholic institutions throughout the world, not least in the UK, where a number of civil claims have been winding a tortuous route through the courts (see this post).

The next issue is who is to blame, and whether the Vatican in general and this Pope in particular can be said to hold ultimate responsibility for the abuse. The English Court of Appeal recently ruled on an case involving child abuse, and effectively extended the duty of care for abuse by a local priest to the regional Archdiocese (district) by making it vicariously liable. So the English courts seem keen – in line with child protection law in general – to continue to expand the net of responsibility for such crimes in order to increase child protection.

But can responsibility reach the Vatican itself? Geoffrey Robertson QC thinks so, and has timed a new book to coincide with the Pope’s visit – The Case of the Pope – to say exactly that. He argues that ‘Canon law’, the Vatican’s internal legal system, has been allowed to trump criminal law in countries throughout the world. This has, he says, led to an overly lenient and insufficient system for dealing with child abusers. Et voila, vicarious liability.

That is not the end of the story, however. The most pressing question is what can be done even if liability extends to the Vatican, and whether anything can be accomplished during the Pope’s visit. This is perhaps the most interesting legal question, at least from a perspective of international law. Robertson asks whether the Pope can, legally speaking, be consider a head of state, and as such whether he has diplomatic immunity. He argues that the Pope has no such immunity as the Vatican is not a valid state under international law.

This vexed question is revisited by bloggers at the European Journal of International Law in a fascinating post, concluding that whilst the Pope’s visit may raise awareness of the abuse scandal, the legal points made by campaigners are “very weak indeed“.  The Vatican, it is argued, is certainly a state according to international law as instituted by the Lateran Treaty of 1929. Moreover, the fact of statehood “cannot shelter [the Vatican’s] priests from operating under the law of the State where those priests commit crimes. The church may have its law for dealing with these crimes but that law cannot exclude the ordinary criminal law of the country concerned.” So the point may be moot anyway, as priests can usually be prosecuted under the laws of the particular states where the abuse took place.

In any event, the new Government was very quick indeed to change the law in order to make it harder to issue arrest warrants for international dignitaries accused of human rights breaches (see our post). It was speculated that this may have been in part due to the risk of private prosecutions being brought against the Pope when he visited.

So whilst the child abuse scandal will be an important background presence during the Pope’s visit, it will not be placed front and centre as campaigners had hoped. That said, the Pope’s arrest was always extremely unlikely, no matter how clever the lawyers, as they will have been well aware. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has recently adopted a tell-it-as-it-is foreign policy, and  the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that international human rights promotion would be at the heart of UK’s actions abroad. It is perhaps too much to expect for that lofty aim to extend to the Vatican, which is, after all, a foreign state with serious human rights issues.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: