The European Court of Human Rights gave judgement recently in a case brought by an irritatingly strident atheist against Italy.

Let's start by making something clear, since many people were quick to blame the EU for what they perceive to be an attack on their religion and their ancient way of life, soon to be followed by the making of divorce compulsory and abortion a natural consequence of intercourse. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

Is that clear? Nothing, nada, zilch, rien, niente and, just to be clear, ma ghandux x'jaqsam.

Let's get something else out of the way, because I really have to mention it: is it only me who finds the Archbishop's characterisation of the judgement as a form of censorship just a bit ironic?

I truly have great respect for the gentleman, but the leader of the Catholic Church in Malta really can't call something censorship, as if it was a bad thing, when the Church itself has been identified, for better or for worse, as a prime mover behind recent censoring (a.k.a. banning) of theatrical and written works.

In other words, you can't have it both ways.

The judgement, predictably, let loose a storm of protest, much of it, unfortunately, thinly-disguised xenophobia. Finally, a reason to shout and scream about how our "European Identity" was being destroyed and how "alien practises, shock horror" were taking over has appeared, to give people an excuse to give vent to their distaste for other cultures without seeming to be overtly racist.

If you don't think I'm right about this, take a look at the tone of many comments about the story. The same level of quasi-fundamentalism was unleashed against the ECHR and against anyone who tried to take a mildly liberal view of it as was unleashed against anyone who thinks that banning of plays and newspapers is repressive and repulsive.

Personally, I find the whole thing something I can take or leave: I prefer to believe that Christianity, or any other faith or belief system, for that matter, should concentrate more on actions than on symbols. I also tend towards mild distaste (actually, strong revulsion) towards people trying to ram their beliefs down my throat.

I think the woman who started the case against Italy is as annoying and obnoxious as, say, the assorted happy-clappies and the Islamic fundamentalists who litter the scene, with the added irritation that some of the latter tend towards killing people who don't agree with them, much on the lines of the Christian zealots of old, but at the end of the day, it has to be admitted that she has a point, annoying though she may be.

If a State proclaims itself to be secular, it should be secular and there's an end to it: traditions are all very well but at some point, they have to be circumscribed by respect for everyone, even for a single pain in the ass. It's a question of where to draw the line and, frankly, I think the line was drawn a bit too far on the wrong side of reasonable, but it's only a matter of degree, nothing more, and in this regard, my opinion, and yours, and Berlusconi's (now there's an excellent role model) is as good or as bad as that woman's or the Court's.

Of course, most people who suddenly found themselves to be such fervent adherents to the Catholic Faith haven't actually read the judgement. It's only available in French, so I haven't read the whole thing either, but for the convenience of all, here's a pretty comprehensive summary.

The Court held unanimously that the presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This 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 freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.

The State, the Court continued, was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a "democratic society" as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe.

And that, people, was all that the Court said. Within the context of the Italian Constitution, that recognises that Italy is a secular state, the State should not be seen to "favour" one religion over any other or over no religion at all.

You may, though I don't think you should, believe that the Catholic faith is the be-all and end-all of belief systems and should therefore be imposed on everyone, whether they like it or not. If you do believe this, might I humbly suggest that you consider practising the tenets of that faith in their completeness, beginning with "the House of My Father has many rooms" and "do unto others as you would wish done unto you"?

But it's up to you, though I think you should bear in mind that otherwise, what you see as a perfectly reasonable response to what many, including me to a degree, see as an unreasonable judgement will be latched on to by the racist xenophobes thugs as a way to call you to arms.

And that way lie the Inquisition and the Crusades, to say nothing of the Jihad and ethnic cleansing, a road down which I don't want to travel.