Debate on pope's invitation to UK with Johann Hari

This House would rescind the UK invitation to the Pope

05 Jun 2010

Speakers: Nik Gowing, Helena Kennedy, Phillipe Sands, David Aaronovitch, Johann Hari

This debate took place at the 2010 Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts. Only audio is available for this event; you can listen to the debate on the player above.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Johann Hari and David Aaronovitch.

Johann Hari begins the debate by arguing that the pope holds ultimate responsibility for allowing the ongoing abuse of children to take place and for maintaining the Vatican policy of dealing with the abuse in house. He states that opposing the visit is not anti-Catholic and furthermore, should the Pope be allowed to visit, then he should be arrested upon arrival.

David Aaronovitch asserts that there is no place for the Pope in the modern world. The lack of accountability and transparency that surrounds the Vatican and the position of the Pope is a contradiction with our values to such an extent that the invitation should be rescinded.

Arguing against the motion are Helena Kennedy and Phillipe Sands.

Helena Kennedy states that to rescind the motion would be to prevent a debate on the issues taking place. On the grounds of the freedom of speech, she argues that the Pope should be invited in order to prompt a free and fair discussion of the issues in Britain.

Phillipe Sands comments that we are a nation that values freedom of speech and that to rescind the invitation to the Pope would undermine our own values. Further, if we are to be consistent in the manner in which we treat those who have had allegations made against them then we cannot assume guilt, Pope Ratzinger is not the subject of any international arrest warrants and should not be treated as such.

A show of hands at the beginning of the debate revealed around half of the audience in favour of the motion. At the end of the debate, this proportion had grown to around 4/5 of the audience.