Sant raises Italian crucifixes court case in Parliament
Labour MP Alfred Sant yesterday asked whether the government had any reaction to a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms because they could disturb children who were not Christians.
Dr Sant was ruled out of order by Carmelo Abela who was in the Chair at the time, who quoted previous rulings by the Speaker that supplementary questions had to relate to the original question.
Legal sources say a decision by the Court of Human Rights is generally binding on the respondent state but other member states retain a political discretion as to whether to get in line with the court's judgment. However, there is no legal obligation for other member states to do so, even if the judgment of the court will, when it becomes final, be a precedent that may be claimed by any person against any state that is a member of the Council of Europe.
The court's decision sparked uproar in Italy, prompting former Culture Minister Rocco Buttiglione to say that this was "an abhorrent ruling" that must be rejected with firmness. He said Italy had its culture, its traditions and its history. "Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.
A Vatican spokesman said he would not comment until he knew more about the ruling but Italy's powerful bishops' conference said the ruling "evokes sadness and bewilderment".
Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said the court had dealt a "mortal blow to a Europe of values and rights," adding that it was a bad precedent for other countries.
Members of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government bristled, weighing in with words such as "shameful", "offensive", "absurd," "unacceptable" and "pagan".
Archbishop Paul Cremona said that, should this situation arise in Malta one day, it would be the duty of Maltese Christians to insist that the crucifix should retain its place in public areas.
A spokesman for the Curia said it was still early to comment on the decision as the judgment could be appealed.
The case was brought by an Italian national, Soile Lautsi, who complained that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy that had crucifixes in every room.
In defence, Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said crucifixes on the walls of tens of thousands of classrooms "do not mean adherence to Catholicism" but are a symbol of Italy's heritage. "The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves," she said.
Ms Lautsi said crucifixes on walls ran counter to her right to give her children a secular education and the Strasbourg-based court ruled in her favour. "The presence of the crucifix... could be encouraging for religious pupils but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities," the court said in a written ruling.
"The state (must) refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it," it added, saying the aim of public education was "to foster critical thinking".
43 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerard Cassar
Nov 5th 2009, 11:18
I was wandering what his intention would be. So now we have a Mr Vella reading the minds even from far away places. How I would like that he discovers what I have in mind in his regard.
Whrther it is stupidity, paucity of thoughts,puerile mentality, hate, ignorance,pusilamity scruples, incomprehensible blind faith, brain washing,, copy cat and so on
Raymond
Nov 5th 2009, 08:26
For the sake NOT to OFFEND we should remove the George Cross from our flag, abolish all village feasts and religious public holidays, change street names, etc. ect. How about that?
Gerry Cowie
Nov 4th 2009, 23:12
Now that Malta is in Europe it must prepare itself for these silly things to happen with relentless monotony.
Political correctness is nothing new, and so many people try so hard to try to please all of the people all of the time but only succeed in completely alienating the majority.
If one person with one court case can cause such a wave throughout Europe, what hope is there for us if we do not stand up to such things. If somebody does not want to look at a crucifix then they do not need to.
You cannot possibly meet the desires of every single minority which ever existed. Many people of other religions have no problem with crucifixes. This is merely a smokescreen invented by those who are anti Christian. Political correctness is a tool often used to lever religion in particular out of the limelight.
Malta, like it or not, is majority Catholic, and it is no offence to other religions to have crucifixes wherever they are wanted. All offence mentioned is in the main sheer invention by those who wish to attack christian values.
Frans Sammut
Nov 4th 2009, 22:31
@Peter Vella
Didn't you notice this:
Galea. L (6 hours, 58 minutes ago)
There is no Alfred Sant mentioned on the link.
It was addressed at you. Do I have to repeat what Galea L. write for you to wake up and find out what you are actually writing?
Galea. L
Nov 4th 2009, 22:17
Peter Vella
First of all there is no ALfred Sant on the link that you gave, neither under Alfred, and there are several Alfreds, nor under Sant. Even if he were he is representing Roman Catholic constituents and is doing his duty. Your posting simply shows the hatred perpetrated against anything Labour for years on end.
Peter Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 17:57
@Wally Vella Zarb
The Prime Minisiter represents the whole nation, that is what democracy amounts to whether you like it or not. The party he leads represent the view of its voters who happen to be the majority, so that is why they control the parliament and are in government. The PM however does not represent only those who voted for his party but the whole nation.
Denis Catania
Nov 4th 2009, 17:30
This is just the beginning, wake up Malta.
wally vella-zarb
Nov 4th 2009, 17:07
@ Michael Seychell
I wrote "...a Prime Minister, who at the end of the day still represents only one section of the nation."
This is correct in the sense that, ultimately, he is also the head of ONE political party. He is NOT the Head of State. Our President is the only one who embodies the representation of all the Nation. The Head of State is legally an apolitical person who represents the entire spectrum of citizenry, without favouring any particular faction, regardless of its size. The post of Prime Minister is, by its very nature, a political one.
Your examples of folk-singing, band marches, bocci, etc, are irrelevant. My original point was about State buildings like schools and hospitals and not about 'murtali tal-festa' or similar 'culture'.
Peter Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 16:30
@Frans Sammut
Here is the link again - http://templeofreason.org/cyclopedia/atheist/20list.htm - Dr Sant is listed as an atheist. I did not mention Deist, you did. Do you know what you are talking about?
@Galea L
Let me tell what is strange (not wrong). That it had to be an atheist, who techinically should not be bothered by such a decision, to raise this. That is why I claim ulterior motive. Incidentally I am no PN apologist, just one who cannot stand hypocricy.
@Michael Seychell
I accept that all the things you mention are part of Maltese folklore buy they should not (and in fact are not) placed in every room of every government building to remind us. As regards the very British kind of loyalty to one's country that old Winnie preached about, all I can say is dream on. In which country do you find it these days?
As usual this is a mountain out of a molehill. Many of us are clearly have strong nostalgia for the 1950s.
Michael Seychell
Nov 4th 2009, 16:05
At Wally Vella Zarb - First of all you cannot look at this issue from a religious point of view only, but as the Italian Minister for Education and our Arcbiship stated , this is also a Cultural issue, both in Malta and in Italy.
Would you agree that in Malta we stop Folk Singing, Band Marches, Bocci games, Fireworks, etc., all Maltese will protest, as these are part of our culture, so is the Crucifics in our Schools.
You are also wrong when saying the Prime Minister, - who ever he may, - represents half the population. A Prime Minister is the head of Government of the whole country and not of those who voted for his party only.
When Winstion Churchil was Leader of the Oposition and was attending a conference in a foreign country, there was critiaism of how the British PM was governing the country. Churchill intervined and stated that no foreigner had the right to critisise his Prime Minister, and added that as Opposition Leader in UK, he critisises the PM, but it is his duty to defend his Prime Minister as he is the head of the British Government outside UK. .
Michael Seychell
Galea. L
Nov 4th 2009, 15:34
J Farrugia
That's what should be done by any decent government worth its salt.
David Seychell, J Xerri
The Court option will not be imposed on the majority. Any decent government would tell the Court where to shove its decision.
lgalea
Nov 4th 2009, 15:30
Charles Sammut
Perfect analysis.
Galea. L
Nov 4th 2009, 15:27
Peter Vella
There is no Alfred Sant mentioned on the link.
Even if he is an atheist, what is wrong with an atheist questioning an ECHR judgment and what the Government is going to do about it?
Isn't he a peoples representative?
Its amazing to what lengths pn apologists go the attack Dr Sant and the PL.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 4th 2009, 15:14
How very sad!!! And demoralising!!!
What next?????? Churches ransacked??? An iconoclasm?????
wally vella-zarb
Nov 4th 2009, 15:09
@ Peter Vella
"Labour MP Alfred Sant yesterday asked whether the government had any reaction to a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights"
Which part of the above statement do you not understand? Many persons, not just Dr Sant, would like to know what the Maltese Government's reaction will be, the reason being that, sooner or later, we will be faced by a similar situation.
BTW, I hold no brief from Mr Sammut, an exceedingly erudite author who I have never had the pleasure of meeting but for whom I have great admiration, especially for his works dealing with the French period in Malta.
Frans Sammut
Nov 4th 2009, 14:44
@Peter Vella
I still think you do not know what you are talking about when you quote deists talking about the subject. Deists believe in God, not vice-versa. Look who's talking about comprehension of languages!
George Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 14:36
A very interesting issue by Dr. Sant's question in Parliment, is this part of his come-back?
I remind Dr. Sant that when we joined the E.U. they had accepted us face value with our amended constiution, so it should remain like that no matter what any European Court decides. Joining the E.U. was the choise of majority of the Maltese, and internal affairs are the sole right of our Courts and not a simple minority or forifgn decisions. This is quite understanable, and if not the Maltese would have an option but to withdraw from any European attachments.
This is our sacred culture and those who do not agree with it may please go and live in some other European state, now it is easy. I am sure that the Maltese would not yield to such nonsense. Here I appeal to the Maltese to upkeep their little state and sacred traditions. George Vella - Not the MP.
Peter Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 13:52
@Frans Sammut
I thought a famous author such as yourself with such a good grasp of language and nuance would be the last person to fail to undertand what I was saying! So let me spell it out for you. Am I the only one that finds it srange and yet amusing that an atheist anti-EU MP should be the one to raise the issue of the ban on crucifixes in Malta? I was just wondering what his intentions could be and reached some comclusions of my own which you, being such a big fan would probably disagree with. No problem, this is why this is a free country unlike what it was like in the 70s and 80s when in my innocent yourh I was studying your gregarious work. Do you understand now Mr. Sammut or shall I write it out in Maltese?
J Xerri
Nov 4th 2009, 13:34
The big question is: if somebody living in Malta object to crucifixes fin Maltese classrooms and wins his case in the European Court of Human Rights, what would be our position then?
David Seychell
Nov 4th 2009, 12:54
@U. DAmico
"Everyone still has the option to pack and leave, just as they came in"
Evidently they have a better option than that.
Frans Sammut
Nov 4th 2009, 11:16
@Peter Vella
What are you talking about? I hope you know yourself!
Manuel Micallef
Nov 4th 2009, 11:11
With such ideas, if I were a non-believer and walked in the streets of Malta, I could complain that many street names, house names, statues, niches, chapels and churches, since they are seen in public, offend my rights. Should these be abolished as well? Christ Jesus gave his life to give us freedom! Now some of us want to erase his memory in the name of freedom!
Galea. L
Nov 4th 2009, 11:09
David Seychell
The parents did not adopt another child. The child went there. And should your parents change their house and furniture because their adopted child demands them to do so? No way David.
As for changing our culture to accomodate foreigners and other religions again NO WAY. They are guests and as guests they must act as guests. If they don't like it they are free to go back.
Jeremy J Camilleri
Nov 4th 2009, 11:01
Mike Farrugia...why do you claim untruths to state a point?
Have you ever been to Turkey?
Have you ever talked to a Turk?
The majority of Turks DO NOT wear a Burka, and Turkey is a secular state.
wally vella-zarb
Nov 4th 2009, 10:54
As usual, many people are shooting from the hip, emotionally and not rationally.
"The case was brought by an Italian national, Soile Lautsi, who complained that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy that had crucifixes in every room."
Ms Lautsi is an Italian national. There is no mention of her being a Muslim; in fact she has said that she wants her children to have a secular education. Nowhere does it say that she wants a christian symbol to be replaced by one from another religion.
State schools and hospitals belong to the state, not to a particular family or group. These latter are free to exhibit whatever they want. The state cannot because it represents ALL of the citizens. This is why, in public places, it is correct to only put up, say, a photo of the Head of State - in our case that of the President - but incorrect to put up a photo of a Prime Minister, who at the end of the day still represents only one section of the nation.
The same principle holds true for religious symbols. Not all Maltese citizens are christian.
e.cortis
Nov 4th 2009, 10:49
What will be the reaction of the authorities concerned, Government, the Church etc., if some were to insist on itroducing images of Buddah, Mohammad or some other "sacred" image of theirs, in public places ?. Do these people have rights to express their beliefs in such fashion?. Or are we as much fundamentalists as we accuse others of being ?. Or has this got nothing to do with Democracy and the Liberties we Europeans profess to hold so dear to our hearts ?. And what if these individuals take their case to the European Courts ?. What then ?. And what if the court decides in their favour ? !! But the possibilities are there, and once we are supposed to be equal to other Europeans we cannot say that such and such decisions do not apply here !!. Just asking....
J Farrugia
Nov 4th 2009, 10:39
If I were the Italian Government:
I would declare that the judgement of the Council of Europe Court for HUMAN RIGHTS does not effect my country and therefore is not to be adhered to in the whole of Italy.
I would immediately throw out that woman and her whole family out of the country and declare them 'personae non gratae' in the whole Italian territory;
Following all that I will opt out of the Council of Europe and cancel my country's membership.
But this is only day dreaming, since I am sure governments dont have the guts or what it takes to show the world who really is in command in our own countries.
Gavin Attard
Nov 4th 2009, 10:37
@ U DAmico
"Its not a matter of being inflexible, but rather “coming in MY house and changing MY furniture”!!!
This issue has nothing to do with immigration, or people coming over and imposing rules. It has to do with a common set of rules that all countries agreed to in the interest of fostering peace and equality among all peoples.
I am as Maltese as you are.
What makes the country, and the state run schools in particular your house? i'm curious...
Peter Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 10:31
@J Darmanin
What is your point exactly - eye for an eye and so on? Should we become as intolerant as those Muslim states we so much like to criticise and point our fingers at? How will that solve any problems? Incidentally the person who protested against the crucifixes in Italy was not a muslim but an atheist.
Raymond Camilleri
Nov 4th 2009, 10:31
SOme comments below just go to show that some people do not even bother reading a story before shooting off all over about muslim countries, immigrants (muslim that is!) and what not. The case was brought before the European COurt of Human Rights (which is NOT an EU court!) by an ITALIAN CITIZEN of FInnish origin (ie originally from FINLAND) who said that she is SECULAR...so before yapping away reoeating their silly orejudices some should have the decency to get their facts right first.
In my opinion this is all a non-issue and a diversion from real problems... it is a present to the conservative right who have been given something to waste everyone's time on... cross or no corss I don't care...if it were not a long tradition we would not have considered introducing the cross into public buildings today, that's for sure..I work in the private industry and there is no cross to be seen anywhere in the offices and nobody whines and complains
U. D'Amico
Nov 4th 2009, 10:27
@ David Seychell
Yes if they do adopt the child s/he has to live by the house rules ;)
Everyone still has the option to pack and leave, just as they came in ;)
Its already bad enough that schools have to teach in English (sometimes even Maltese lessons)!
E. Inglott
Nov 4th 2009, 10:16
State schools should be religion-neutral and should not decorate their walls with religious symbols. Pupils in public schools can come from all kinds of backgrounds and the school should not show any preference to a particular religion.
If a school is a church-school, or a school based on jewish/buddhist/muslim philosophies, then it is another story completely. Pupils go to these schools precisely because of their "matching" backgrounds and in those schools religious expressions should not be a problem. In fact, the ruling deals with expressions of religion in PUBLIC schools, and NOT in Church schools.
Charles Sammut
Nov 4th 2009, 10:14
National identities, cultures and religions must be expunged from Europe if the EU is to rule supreme. A people without identity is far easier to oppress and dictate to. The EU's reluctance to seriously tackle immigration is the most glaring example of this policy. Promoting diversity and multiculturalism harnesses misplaced political correctness to further this cause.
I wonder what is the state of conscience of the super Catholic politicans (and clerics) who worked tirelessly to persuade the Maltese to join the EU club or be left out. Aren't they afraid of eternal damnation?
Mike Farrugia
Nov 4th 2009, 10:14
The "Italian" girl who created all the fuss should have her desk moved to a place in class where she cannot see the "offending" cross. Problem solved. Otherwise she can go to a country where children are not offended by crosses in classrooms. At this rate, there will come a time when European women will be forced to wear the burka. Wait until Turkey joins the EU.
Isobel Mcgonigle
Nov 4th 2009, 10:07
The people of Malta must fight this all the way,this is how it all started in the U.K.Crucifixes banned from schools,places of work etc,this is the 1st step on the ladder,for the followers of Islam to start stamping their authority on your country,your way of life,nip it in the bud,before Malta turns into another U.K , a rose in full bloom
They stated,in Britain,they wanted children,to stop calling their parents,Mother Father,instead,the word Guardian was to be used,Why you may ask? because they felt that Gay couples, who for obvious reasons,could not have children of their own,to hear the words Mother Father,would offend their human rights.
You must fight these Human Rights people, every inch of the way,your identity,your culture,your way of life will be taken away from you.
Dont let Malta turn into another U.K.
A Britain,where the Lunatics are running the Asylum
David Seychell
Nov 4th 2009, 10:06
@U. DAmico
"Its not a matter of being inflexible, but rather “coming in MY house and changing MY furniture”!!!"
If your parents adopt a new child, then your furniture becomes also HIS furniture. The newly adopted child have the same rights that you have not only on that furniture but also on all your family inheritance.
J. Darmanin
Nov 4th 2009, 09:55
whilst being a non religious person, and i don't really care if a cross is in the class room or not. i think it's unfair that these have to be removed.
When a catholic person travels to an Arab country, most probably he's expected to respect their religion and change his behaviour accordingly. i would expect the same from foreigners to do the same since they are the "Visitors"
Peter Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 09:55
Isn't it ironic that it is an MP who is a declared atheist (it is not me saying this see here - http://templeofreason.org/cyclopedia/atheist%20list.htm) is making this question?
Do I not detect a sense of "see what you got yourself into by joining the EU!"?
Incidentally, and I am not the first one to point this out here, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, it is connected to the Council of Europe.
As a libera-democrat I believe that Malta should be a secular state and that religious symbols have no place in public (state) places.
Miguel Micallef
Nov 4th 2009, 09:53
Paul Micallef... its' people like you that are the problem, sorry to say so, but really.
Do you realize how contradictory you sound?
"we ar divided on everytihng, politics, football, familiy, women,men, but as christians this is one battle that we must unite to form one front"
So, now you want us to get divided not only on those, but on religion as well.
So you want to further divide people, to solve the problems of division?
Then you finish off with "I am ready to fight for my religion, as all other faiths do. "
Thats why we want to eleminiate all religion, Paul. We are sick of people 'fighting for religion'.
We want PEACE not religion.
U. D'Amico
Nov 4th 2009, 09:28
@David Seychell
Malta have passed trough 500 years of invasions, immigration, take over’s and wars, and yet religion always survived and prevailed as one of our cultural and sociological pillars.
Having a bunch of illegal immigrants, some refugees and a small number of legitimate Muslim residents in Malta should not change this.
Its not a matter of being inflexible, but rather “coming in MY house and changing MY furniture”!!!
We are living in a “Minocracy” in Malta and Europe! The smaller the group you are in, the more changes you request!
Paul Micallef
Nov 4th 2009, 09:18
To all those who said that i was making mountains out of mole hills, the time will come that we christians will have to unite, we ar divided on everytihng, politics, football, familiy, women,men, but as christians this is one battle that we must unite to form one front,and if any goverment in power thinks that any law can come down from europe and be implimentid on us by force is very wrong. I am ready to fight for my religion, as all other faiths do.
Paul Micallef
David Seychell
Nov 4th 2009, 09:15
"He said Italy had its culture, its traditions and its history. "Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said"
Culture is like a living thing, it changes continuously. Culture reflects the people of that nation. If there is a change in the population, due to immigration for example, culture will inevitably and automatically change. The same thing will happen in Malta because of the substantial immigration of people with a different culture. Our culture, our identity and the way in which we perceive ourselvs, especially ourselvs as a nation will change/evolve. Whether it's going to be for the better or for the worse is debatable.
Paul Micallef
Nov 4th 2009, 09:14
The court decision is a suicide for Europe. Not just for the catholic states. In a few years time we will have to submit ourselves to the teachings of Mawmettu.