Standing at the crossroads

According to The Daily Mail newspaper, the controversial subject of religious symbols in public buildings is about to hit the news headlines once again seeing that the paper became privy to a proposal regarding equality law. The proposed legislation will, for example, provide redress to "upset" atheists and, hence, allow them to sue companies and organisations that hang crucifixes on walls or are put on public display. Conversely, it would also provide for Christians to bring action against organisations that display material deemed offensive to their religious sentiments.

According to the same newspaper, these proposals seem so broad as to allow a spate of civil cases by individuals claiming that their dignity is being violated by the "hostile" environment of an organisation. Critics of this proposal say this would "open a Pandora's box" to a controversial debate that has apparently not subsided following a series of lawsuits instituted in the last few years.

Furthermore, they add that this would lead to the stifling of freedom of expression and marginalise religion. So what has been the story so far?

Several landmark rulings have, at best, left the issue of religious symbols on display unresolved. The issue was raised in the United Kingdom back in 2005. The British government had attempted to introduce similar legislation. It was unceremoniously dropped after a complete rejection when the Bill was presented in the House of Lords. The decision was based on the fear that it would encourage overzealous officials to go as far as ban public expressions of religion such as Christmas carolling or bibles by hospital bedsides.

Other cases were instituted in staunchly Catholic countries such as Spain and Italy. In the latter, the issue took an even more complex turn. In 2006, a case was brought by a Finnish woman whose children attended a school in Padua and who had asked for the removal of crucifixes in the school her children attended. In case 83.1, the judges ruled clearly against the plaintiff. They stated that the crucifix, as well as being a religious symbol, was a symbol of "the values which underlie and inspire our constitution, our way of living peacefully". They added that principles such as tolerance, respect and the rights of individuals had their origin in Christianity and, hence, were pillars of Italy's secular state.

All this was remarked within the context that Italy has no official state religion and the separation of state and Church is set down by post-war Constitution. At the same time, an Italian judge, Luigi Tosti, who had refused to have crosses in his courtroom, was suspended by the self-regulating judiciary body and convicted of criminal charges for dereliction of duties.

Things took a different turn in Spain only a few months ago. A judge in Valladolid decided that a locally-run primary school should not allow any display of religious symbols, including the crucifix. This was decided in the light that this might give the impression that the state was "favouring one religion ahead of another". The regional government of Castilla has made it clear that it would appeal because it deems the ruling as undermining the independent running of school boards. Once again, Spain has no official religion. In fact, the Spanish government had welcomed the ruling. It is yet to be seen whether this decision will be implemented across the country.

Where does all this fit in our local context? Clearly there has been very little or no controversy about this issue so far. Although all this must surely link to the recent distasteful shenanigans witnessed at the Nadur carnival, I very much doubt that the crucifix symbolism will ever be an issue for the Maltese. For all intents and purposes, unlike many European countries, Malta safeguards the personal religious freedom of each individual although its official state religion is the Roman Catholic faith.

Yet, it will be interesting to observe the unfolding of this EU proposal. One will have to wait and see whether such legislation will be binding... most probably not! What complicates matters further is that the debate seems to be moving from a moral issue to an economic one.

Since this legislation is based on the right to sue, it must clearly affect the economic rights of the individual. Although it may not be legally binding at a national level, one will surely ask: Can these rights be re-dressed at a European level? Will all this shift the parameters of the whole issue? Time will tell!

info@carolinegalea.com