Benedict XVI arrest: Catholicism is above the law
Posted on Tuesday 20 April, 2010
Filed Under Religion
HOT gospel preachers I heard as a boy growing up in a hardline Protestant denomination regularly used to speculate on whether or not the Pope was the Antichrist. I think the verdict was not proven, although the onus rested firmly on the Vatican to establish innocence.
In fairness to Benedict XVI, branding him the Whore of Babylon probably is overdoing it, at least a tad. Nowadays it may even be deemed illegal incitement to religious hatred. Yet as a secularist and a humanist in adult life, I still have not learned to love the man they call God’s Rottweiler.
I am aware that the term Catholicism covers a range of views, ranging from South American guerrillas inspired by Liberation Theology to Tridentine groupings allied with overt fascists.
Yet the centre of gravity is firmly on the right. Indeed, I have spent a few moments pondering whether the Catholic church deserves the title of the most reactionary mass organisation on Planet Earth. If there are any alternative contenders, they do not come immediately to mind.
Catholicism seems to take all the improbable doctrines to which Christians are anyway enjoined to subscribe, and then add some more, just for good measure. Not only does one have to believe in the incarnation, the resurrection and the second coming, but transubstantiation, Papal infallibility and the Marian Dogmas to boot.
It says much that Tony Blair rejected such wussy options as Quakerism or the Unitarians and signed up for a package like that. Then again, as a former member of several democratic centralist sects, perhaps I shouldn’t mock.
The charge sheet further runs that the Catholic church has in operated a regime of systematic child abuse on a sustained basis, for decades and perhaps even centuries. It has covered up the crimes in a deliberate manner, and often simply shunted miscreants to other parishes.
Some of the proffered defences – from the argument that the accusations are a Zionist conspiracy through putting the blame on homosexuals and onwards to the disclaimer that this whole affair has been got up by the media – are as flimsy as they are distasteful.
It is further alleged that Benedict XVI was complicit in hiding some of these horrendous crimes, and this has prompted Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to commission a legal opinion on the chances of having His Holiness arrested when he visited Britain later this year.
This is a simple publicity stunt on the part of two gentlemen rarely short of a headline or two. Whatever the legal position, a country that let Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet off the hook is never going to risk the ire of the world’s billion or more Catholics. There is no more chance of it happening than there is of Blair being prosecuted for war crimes.
In other words, we are left with an injustice of monstrous proportions, which would compel any fair-minded person to demand redress if it were the work of any other perpetrator.
Yet the guilty party is set to suffer no more sanction than having to part with a fraction of the wealth accumulated over two millennia in order to secure some out of court settlements. In a world in which not even the mighty Goldman Sachs is above the law, it seems that Catholicism alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution.
<<Go back
Comments
139 Responses to “Benedict XVI arrest: Catholicism is above the law”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
“I have spent a few moments pondering whether the Catholic church deserves the title of the most reactionary mass organisation on Planet Earth.”
What about pondering whether that is a meaningful question at all?
Paul Stott -
The definitive book on the House of Saud WAS Robert Lacey’s ‘The Kingdom’ – the yarn being that the Saudi Embassy in London assumed that ‘Majesty’ was a work of hagiography and that Lacey was, in effect, commissioned to write a similar work extolling the manifold virtues of the House of Saud.
The book was never legally published in, or imported into, Saudi Arabia.
There ARE a few good things which can be said but they are outweighed scores of times over by all the hideous bad stuff.
A rumour I heard in Taif was that there is, or was, in that city a ‘borstal’ – for want of a better term – for errant princes.
Bear in mind that there are between 2,000 and 5,000 princes [different estimates vary widely] from newborns to nonagenarians, so to have a place of detention for the worst among them makes sense.
I see, H, this wonderful rationalist body which you espouse actually has secret beliefs which you can’t openly discuss! what an example to us all. Are you sure you didn’t join up with the Masons just to get into the golf club?
“But an obvious example would be solidarity work, fund-raising etc around the H-Block hunger strikers”
Working to advance the agenda of the Provisional IRA would hardly be an “obvious example” of basic political activity to anyone, and coming from somebody who believes the Catholic church to be “vile” it is seriously weird. I don’t take this as an example of your ecumenicism, but rather the fact of you being a seriously screwed up person politically. And incidentally, how did you manage to do all this H block work if you were in Militant?
“you accept responsibility, take action and cut out the cancer – you bead-worriers ought to try it some time”
That is exactly what has happened in relation to this issue since Ratzinger took responsibility for it, and Bill Corr continues to provide us with lists of ecclesiastical heads rolling. By your own admission you were not even aware that priests had been prosecuted in Ireland, and I suspect you don’t really care. Can you tell me what measures your movement has taken to ensure that something like P2 would not reemerge? Oh no, of course you can’t, it’s a secret. I never thought I would claim that the Catholic church was a model of transparency, but compared you trouser-rollers it surely is.
“If you could think outside of your rigid mentality you would see that when Dave uses the words “Catholicism” he’s talking about the Vatican and child abuse scandal, he is not suggesting that if you were a Catholic you would be immune to all forms of prosecution in all instances”
Modernity, please if I had thought that Dave meant Catholics, as in individual Catholics I would not have brought up Israel or the US governments, I would have said Israelis or Americans! I fully understand that Dave meant to say the Catholic church as an organisation “alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution”, which while they obviously do have to some extent de facto immunity from prosecution, they are NOT ALONE in enjoying that immunity. And the principle that defines who has immunity is the principle of might is right, whether it be Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or the Sudanese government’s actions in Darfur. So I all ask is lets be consistent fighters against this principle, lets not rage against the Catholic church while backing and apologising for Israel’s crimes against humanity.
Let us rail against both! Or is that too flexible an idea to get your rigid intellect around?
“I see, H, this wonderful rationalist body which you espouse actually has secret beliefs which you can’t openly discuss! what an example to us all. Are you sure you didn’t join up with the Masons just to get into the golf club?”
*** chuckle, dear me, relax! The secrecy is for two reasons: a legacy of ancient times when the Catholic Church would arrest/torture/murder us merely for being Freemasons and, more relevantly today, is merely to preserve the impact of the lessons as one progresses from one degree to another. We don’t want anyone ‘reading the last page of a book’ beofore they’ve absorbed all that preceeds it. That’s it. Apart from anything else, every organisation has secrets, or confidential matters to which only members are privvy. As for golf, yuch! A good walk ruined!
“Working to advance the agenda of the Provisional IRA would hardly be an “obvious example” of basic political activity to anyone, and coming from somebody who believes the Catholic church to be “vile” it is seriously weird. I don’t take this as an example of your ecumenicism, but rather the fact of you being a seriously screwed up person politically. And incidentally, how did you manage to do all this H block work if you were in Militant?”
***Er, again, you show your skewed world-view for what it is. The hunger strikers were a basic human rights issue which many, many people not sympathetic to the aims of the IRA got involved in. And the IRA is NOT the Catholic Church and really only just reinforces my take that Catholics as people are not a problem to me per se, only the organisation and it’s twisted and malevolent ‘crooks in frocks’ to quote Dawkins. I was only a teen-ager at the time and was long before my membership of Militant so no contradiction there.
“That is exactly what has happened in relation to this issue since Ratzinger took responsibility for it, and Bill Corr continues to provide us with lists of ecclesiastical heads rolling. By your own admission you were not even aware that priests had been prosecuted in Ireland, and I suspect you don’t really care. Can you tell me what measures your movement has taken to ensure that something like P2 would not reemerge? Oh no, of course you can’t, it’s a secret. I never thought I would claim that the Catholic church was a model of transparency, but compared you trouser-rollers it surely is”
***You’re doing it again! I want YOU make some admissions, I want YOU to accept that, yes, your mob have been responsible for some heinous crimes.YOU not anyone else! I’ve done it regarding P2 and i’m STILL waiting for you to make evena token acceptance of the vile, disgusting acts of the organisation you defend through thick and thin. Regarding P2, it was not a lodge ‘in amity’ with UGLE so I can’t really tell you what steps our Italian Brothers have taken to prevent a reoccurence because I just don’t know. You’ve got a fecking cheek, though!I agreed with you, put my hand up and told you what happened, i.e. they were expelled and then dissolved, they were a ‘renegade’ lodge but you won’t even admit ANYTHING regarding your beskirted mob of perverts, control-freaks, child-abusers, self-abusers, homophobes and mysoginists!!!! What a fecking hypocrite you are!
“Apart from anything else, every organisation has secrets, or confidential matters to which only members are privvy”
Not usually about its core beliefs though, or whether or not it believes in a Supreme Being.
“The hunger strikers were a basic human rights issue”
The question of defending political status for the prisoners of an organisation espousing armed struggle and generally informed by a profoundly reactionary and sectarian version of Catholicism is hardly up there with opposition to cruelty to dolphins as a baseline issue everyone can agree on. I think you are just a trifle odd.
It may surprise you after a lifetime of windbaggery in far left sects, but I don’t believe condemnations of bad things made by anonymous people on the internet who have no power to change anything are very useful. So you won’t generally find me condemning anything, I’m not pompous and self-important enough.
I understand the bit about not revealing secrets though, I mean, don’t you get your tongue cut out or something if you blab? All highly civilised.
I thought Paul Stott’s comment at SU Blog clarifies the issues rather well:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5677#comments
I can’t remember Paul Stott making any similar arguments in relation to other organsiations that commit crimes against children, for example (and purely at random) the regular slaughter of Palestinian children by the Israeli state, whose ceo travels very freely around the world, without a peep from the Modernity’s and Stott’s of this world. Therein lies the problem, their condemnations against the Catholic church are hollow and hypocritical.
If the Pope is arrested by the government that waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan then the Catholic church will not become bankrupt but will get a surge of support! Infact this is an argument pro Zionists themselves use all the time to argue against Israeli officials being arrested in this country!
What we need is an international criminal system that can deal with these issues but certain vested interests, such as the US givernment have thwarted such moves in order to protect their own immunity from prosecition, though Modernity is blind to this as being a pro imperialist he supports their immunity from prosecution.
You can normally tell someone with serious hangups about a particular group, be it Afro-Caribbeans, immigrants, the Roma, Muslims or Jews, etc
You can tell because they repeatedly returned to the same themes, the same target of their animus, time after time.
We’ve seen it all before from the BNP cranks to Pat Robinson and beyond, they returned to themes that they are comfortable with, irrespective of the topic.
They will invariably link back to their pet hatred whatever the current topic is on debate.
So I’m not particularly surprised that the Former neo liberal is still at it, given the fact that his first post was to somehow bring in Israelis, when the topic of conversation was the Catholic Church,
No doubt, if Dave ever contrived to write a post on the Eskimos or Ming pottery then Former neo liberal could almost be guaranteed to find some linkage back to his pet hatred, Israelis!
Quel surprise.
Monsignor Babini would be most proud of him.
I have given my views on the Catholic church, I take H’s position, though I sympathise with Pharisee’s view of the freemasons. The reason I brought up Israel was to expose your hyocrisy, which is important because the left should have no truck with people like you who are happy to see immunity from prosecution for certain groups. This is why I have no problem with H and his views because he has not demonstrated the hypocrisy you have. It should and needs to be exposed.
So Modernity do you think Olmert and Barak should be arrested after the crimes against Palestinian children? Should Blair and Bush be arrested for the countless children killed in Iraq, what about all the corporations that exploit child labour to make vast profits, should they all be arrested? -notice here how I pick out Britain, my own nation, as an example!!!
Or is your hang up only with this particular group?
If it is Ian Paisley would be proud of you!!
Speaking of the far right and racist BNP, doesn’t Paul Stott promote the racist Harry’s place?
Yes it is quite an incredible state of affairs when so called Leftists such as Modernity call for Britain to arrest the Head of the Catholic Church for crimes against children. That would be like calling for Ian Huntley to go out and arrest Gary Glitter!
As Former neo has hinted at, we should mobilise our forces against all the ruling criminals and not call on them to arrest each other!
As usual Modernity flouts his dire political logic! As well as his ridiculous style of argument.
Apart from avoiding every point I’ve made that you cant’ answer you finish up with this breathtakingly pious piece of hypocrisy:
“It may surprise you after a lifetime of windbaggery in far left sects, but I don’t believe condemnations of bad things made by anonymous people on the internet who have no power to change anything are very useful. So you won’t generally find me condemning anything, I’m not pompous and self-important enough”
Absolute bollcks and lies! From your sneers and condemnatory asides on ‘left sects’ & Freemasonry, to give just two examples, you have condmened plenty when it suits you – just not kiddy-fiddling nonces, murderers of women, homophobes and any other sort of monster provided he comes clad in a skirt with Papal authority.
You disgust and sicken me beyond measure: a defender of peadophiles,abusers, rapists and killers and a self-righteous hypocrite to boot.
Steady on old chap.
modernity – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3288515.stm
I’ll get back to you on the pottery.
JOHNNO – for Britain to arrest the Head of the Catholic Church for crimes against children. That would be like calling for Ian Huntley to go out and arrest Gary Glitter!
So everyone in Britain is like Ian Huntley?
It is a pity that Johnno’s pet hatreds and illiteracy combine to make him invent arguments.
I haven’t ANYWHERE called for the Pope to be arrested.
That should be obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.
It is ashamed that demented and limited individuals, such as Johnno and Former neo-liberals, pretend to be on the Left, when they have no interest in argumentation and couldn’t reason for six pence.
In this instance that’s indicated by Johnno’s inability to engage with my real arguments that I put forward, so instead pathetically he’s forced to invents things…
While on Matters Theological, here’s something to amuse:
International Draw Mohammed Day
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/first-annual-everybody-draw-mo
For reasons you’ll appreciate readily, I won’t be urging fellow-employees in my own workplace to take part, but I really DO urge you all to pass the good news along.
Modernity,
“I haven’t ANYWHERE called for the Pope to be arrested”
You posted a comment from Paul Stott calling for that exact thing!
He said,
“Arrest the Pope. And if compensating the victims of these scandals means bankrupting the Church of Rome – all well and good.”
And you claimed his comments “clarifies the issues rather well”
So Modernity what am I missing here? You say you haven’t anywhere called for the Pope to be arrested but endorse a comment saying that exact same thing! If you are now distancing yourself from Stott’s comment and now on reflection think he hasn’t clarified the issues very well fair enough but don’t blame me for inventing things. Blame yourself for being confused!
Skidders, when I said Britain I meant the British state obviously. I assumed Stott was calling for the British state to arrest the Pope. If he isn’t then people like him need to clarify exactly what arresting the Pope entails. Having said that I would like to see the British people arrest their own murderers and criminals who took us into imperialist wars first and then think about people like the Pope. After all it isn’t likely that our own criminals in power will arrest other criminals in power unless it is in their interests to do so. Maybe the left should be pointing this fact out.
This made me squeal with merriment:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/foreign-office-apologises-over-pope-visit-paper-1953928.html
3 or 4 F.O. juniors put on paper fouth-form-magazine ideas for the Papal Visit including His Holiness launching a range of Benedict condoms, blessing a gay nmarriage and apologising for the Spanish Armada.
Bananaman Milliband is “appalled!”
JOHNNERS – firstly, “skidmarx” has only as many letters as “skidders”, so if you want to be polite use the latter. To some extent I bring it on my self if I use a ludicrous screenname, but if you follow the link you can see how it topped off the mountain of abuse from the cretins at socialist unity, I wouldn’t have thought you’d want to be bracketed with them. I’ll take it from those like Phil BC at AVPS who come from the Militant (or post-Militant) tradition where it is difficult to associate marx with anyone to your left, but otherwise it is trying to cover the derogatory with false chumminess.
What about Tzipi Livni? Should we have said that any attempt to arrest her for war crimes should wait until the British state is pure?
Just because it isn’t likely that our own criminals in power will arrest other criminals in power unless it is in their interests to do so isn’t an argument for not asking them to do so. It is often the case that socialists will demand the state does things that it doesn’t want to and probably won’t.
Sorry, I mean the former.
“What about Tzipi Livni? Should we have said that any attempt to arrest her for war crimes should wait until the British state is pure?”
But the British state would never arrest her in a million years would they. This is why I think those calling for the arrest of the Pope need to be clear what this means. If it is merely a token gesture to highlight the corruption of the Catholic Church and those calling for it know it will never happen then OK, they should say this and say why the British state will never arrest the Pope or Tzipi Livni for that matter. We should point out that the British state does not act out of what is right and what is wrong but what is in their interests.
As former neo said “Might is right”.
As for the use of Skidders that was meant to be matey, I had no idea the term was so offensive to you.
“So Modernity what am I missing here?”
Making lazy assumptions.
If you want (which in your case is never) to know someone’s view, try this:
ask a FUCKING question, don’t assume.
That applies more so with you, Johnno, as you are clearly a bit slow on the uptake.
In the comment above I BOLDED the point that I agreed with. That should have been obvious to all but the thickest, I forgot that you, Johnno, could misread anything and make a bags of it.
Stott’s point is good because it provides a simple analogy, from which people can draw parallels:
That’s what socialists (or anyone with a few working brain cells) should be thinking about, **not** making excuses for the RC Church, the Vatican or anyone else connected to the abuse of children.
Johnno, did you get all of that or shall I explain it again?
But the British state would never arrest her in a million years would they
Quite possibly, though the extension of universal jurisdiction means that in some circumstances they might not have a choice, which is why they’ve been trying to amend the law to protect her. I’d never have thought that Pinochet would have faced arrest before it happened.
The point is this: if you think that it is always wrong to call on the state to arrest then fair enough. If you think that the systematic protection of paedophiles by an organisation which demands obedience worldwide from its followers in this life and the next is qualitatively less important than Israeli war crimes, likewise. But if you’re saying that we shouldn’t call on bad people to arrest other bad people in one case but not in another without justification for the different stance there is a hole in your logic.
those calling for the arrest of the Pope need to be clear what this means
That he be taken into custody and charged with aiding and abetting seems to be what it means.
We should point out that the British state does not act out of what is right and what is wrong but what is in their interests
I think we can agree on that.
As former neo said “Might is right”.
Hopefully not.
God forbid I should discourage you from wishing to be matey.
Look SkidMarx by calling on the British state to arrest world leaders/wrongdoers/whatever the hell you want to call them you are giving them the legitimacy of world policeman. Better would be to set up ‘neutral’ structures (the international criminal court) rather than relying on the unilateral actions of powerful states acting on their interests. All you would end up with is the most powerful nations dishing out justice as and when they see fit, which is basically what we already have. The most powerful are never going to hold themselves to account. This is why the Tipi Linvi’s, the Tony Blair’s and the Popes of this world can rest easy.
When the British state starts arresting its criminal allies come back to me and I will publicly admit I was wrong and you were right. Pinochet shows that whatever legislation is in place the British state and any state will use it in an arbitary fashion that suits their interests. They cannot be relied upon to enforce this type of justice themselves. You need a neutral body.
Modernity, why post the entire comment and say Paul Stott’s comment clarifies the issues rather well? Why not just post the bolded bit or say the bolded bit clarifies the issue? I think you are entirely to blame for the confusion.
Johnno,
You’re a waste of political space
You make lazy assumptions, and when they’re corrected you lack the candour and character to admit that you are wrong.
In short, it is a waste of time exchanging views with someone so limited and incapable of basic reading skills, as you conspicuously are.
“In short, it is a waste of time exchanging views with someone so limited and incapable of basic reading skills, as you conspicuously are.”
That’s exactly what I feel about you. Incredible that isn’t it.
The obvious parallels here as pointed out by Pual Stott are that if people wouldn’t defend a multinational company which carried out child abuse, deliberately obstructed the investigations, and wouldn’t come clean on the extent of the problem then why should people defend the Vatican, albeit in an indirect fashion.
Again, if you wouldn’t defend our multinational in the circumstances then don’t defend, excuse, apologise or otherwise obfuscate for the Vatican.
That should be a simple point for socialists to understand.
ops,
our=that hypothetical
Who is apologising for the Catholic Church, I actually think the impositions placed on priests by the church have contributed to this situation. I.E. The nature and structure of the church itself is complicit in these crimes.
The pressures of the modern world and the resultng contradictions faced by the Catholic Church will surely force some sort of change on that archaic organisation, you do have to marvel at its resilience and seeming immunity from the march of time though don’t you.
JOHNNO. It is the blind obedience to the doctrine and priests that have caused this problem. Why else has it taken so long for people to come forward! Who would have believed that those priests idolised by their parishioners were shafting their children. Perhaps the parishioners new! Maybe it happened to them. Maybe it became acceptable until now.
Pondering it, I don’t think I’m in favour of arresting the Pope.
Not that it’s not potentially an amusing scenario, but it’s just that, its not going to happen and is, in my view, a tactical error.
The whole argument about arresting the Pope is gesture politics, it would be far better if practical measures were taken against the Vatican and the Church hierarchy in this matter.
I would suggest several things:
1. The formation of an international group for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse in the Catholic Church.
In the same way that the Catholic Church is international any opposition to its secretive measures coving up abuse, must the international too.
2. Such an international organisation would also support the victim’s of child abuse in the RC Church, as there surely as a commonality between the abuse that they suffered.
3. That organisation must strive to obtain sizeable (millions and millions) funding from national governments, international foundations and bodies like the EU, etc., as considerable resources are required to prosecute the required action against the Vatican.
4. That organisation should publish regular reports on a country by country basis, trying to gain a grasp of the magnitude of the problem.
5. Whilst Priests and other low-level abusers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, that should only be part of it.
6. Bishops, Cardinals and others in the RC church hierarchy should be subject to extensive scrutiny to determine their culpability in covering up, blocking or aiding child abuse within the Church
The church hierarchy masterminded much of the cover-up and many of those who did it will still be present, they need to be rooted out and prosecuted.
The nature of this abuse was systematic and needs to be treated as such by systematically prosecuting those in power.
That would be a good start, I imagine most sincere Catholics could agree with those measures and the guility being rooted out of the Church.
Some good points Modernity but you could and possibly should extend that to all NGO’s operating throughout the world.
And it should all be done through the UN, as should all cases of international criminality.
And in this respect we still have the problem that nations such as the US want and will grant themsleves immunity from prosecution. This isn’t pandering to Babini but absolutley pertinent to the overall discussion and solution.
More nit picking, the point is to concentrate on this and ***only*** this particular issue.
It needs a separate organisation whose sole purpose is to do that, comprising those who have been abused by the RC Church and specialists who can actually make the prosecutions go through.
The prosecutions, logically, would be done in the local courts, wherever possible.
If the cases were properly prepared I cannot see how the North American Roman Catholic Church would be able to grant themselves immunity, as they have already admitted a lot.
Well NGO’s have been suspected of similar abuses and are in a position of power when dealing with vulnerable people in nations where accountability is lets say suspect. So i think they should come under the same scurtiny you advised for the Catholic church.
What you call nit picking actually determines whether any of the demands you made actually come into practice and don’t remain just self righteous proclamations. You called for the Catholic church to be made more accountable (which is a good idea) but the Catholic church is an international organisation and a state in itself (the vatican). To make them more accountable needs the setting up of international structures to oversee this accountability. What is likely to stop this from happening is the powerful granting themselves immunity from prosecution and the necessary structures will not come to fruition.
You can’t just make the Catholic church an exception, you need systematic legal structures and laws that are applicable to all or your ideas are going nowhere fast.
“The prosecutions, logically, would be done in the local courts, wherever possible”
Which means your solution is less radical than mine and does not attempt in any way to challenge the authority of the Catholic church or authority in general. A nice twist that!
Readers should take the time to read yet another ludicrous article on SU blog, entitled “Defend the Pope”.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5688
The author of the piece is Jack Valero, a senior representative and member of Opus Dei.
Opus Dei is an ultra-conservative and secretive Catholic organisation. Pope John Paul II was a great supporter of Opus Dei.
Whilst the article is awful, many of the posters in the comments thread make excellent points.
Next up on SU – Why Franco was right
Shame, Fred Halliday’s died.
I was just reviewing his article,A 2007 warning: the world’s twelve worst ideas, and here’s one that many modern socialists should think about:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/worst_ideas_4228.jsp
Fred’s no.1 is a must read, for SU blog author’s:
“Whilst the article is awful”
Apart from the fact that you don’t like the provenance of the author, can you say why?