The rawest nerve

The Guardian is considered to be the newspaper of choice for lefty liberals, eco-warriors, Labour-voting, God-denying people. With this in mind, you'd expect the comments board underneath the news report of the 'crucifix' judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, to be mostly approving. The so-called 'godless' lefties (a stereotype, but there it is) should have been crowing in delight over the ruling in the Lautsi judgement which stated that crucifixes hanging in classrooms violate religious and educational freedoms.

However, the reactions posted were not all positive. Some considered Soile Lautsi - the woman who started it all off - to be unreasonable in wanting to change a long-standing tradition, to which she objected to. They accuse her of not being appreciative of Italian history and of the tolerance afforded to different belief systems. After all - the reasoning goes - if Catholics are supposed to tolerate photographs of crucifixes submerged in urine in the name of freedom of artistic expression, why should an agnostic object to a cross to which she attaches no meaning?

Others scoffed at the idea that exposure to a small wooden crucifix could be an unbearable imposition. After all, it is highly unlikely that children with no prior knowledge of what the crucifix symbolises will find it to be a conditioning or imposing object. They are more likely to ignore it or regard it in much the same way as a non-Buddhist would view a Buddha statue. Divorced from the doctrine they represent, religious symbols are just objects with no particular meaning.

Some other Guardian readers thought that banning crucifixes in the current climate in Italy is the most stupid move ever because it would be seized upon by extremists as an excuse to forward their xenophobic agenda. This has turned out to be the case, as there have been loud mutterings about African immigrants wanting to come over and forcibly convert us to Islam. The fact that it was an Italian non-believer who initiated legal action, seems to have escaped notice.

It's not the first time that the presence of crucifixes in schools has been challenged. A few years ago, also in Italy, Adel Smith, an Islamic father who wanted the crucifix removed from his six-year-old son's elementary school, brought the case to court which eventually decided in his favour. Then - as now - there was great resistance to the decision and the crucifix was retained in the school.

Eventually, in 2006, the Italian Council of State upheld the display of the crucifix in government-sponsored spaces. The Muslim community did not support Smith's stance. The Union of Islamic Communities distanced itself from him and Omar Camlets, an Italian Muslim and representative of the World Muslim League in Italy, had said, "Christianity and its symbols are part of Italy's history, culture and art".

This argument is remarkably similar to that being made by Italian politicians who object to the Lautsi decision. It also echoes the criticism to a (widely-ignored) decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1995. The court had ruled against a Bavarian law requiring the display of crucifixes in public school classrooms.

The decision enraged a large part of the population - because, as noted by a Bavarian MP, "The cross is a raw nerve". Many people pointed out that Catholic art and paraphernalia has a folkloric connotation in Bavaria and that crucifixes are also considered to be decorative items. It is ironic to see that believers have to resort to describing the crucifix as a cultural (not a religious) artefact to defend its retention in the public realm.

Besides the division which it has fostered, the ECHR judgment in Lautsi is worrying because of its far-reaching ramifications. A strict interpretation of the concept of confessional neutrality might require the removal of all religious symbols and statues from public spaces. It may also mean doing away with Christmas pageants and cribs which may cause offence to people who do not agree with religious manifestations.

This is not some far-fetched reading of the situation. Neil Addison, an English barrister and author of a book about the law regulating religious discrimination and hatred, thinks this is a possibility. He finds it surprising that in the Lautsi case, the ECHR did not apply its own concept of 'margin of appreciation', which recognises that this type of issue should be left to individual countries to decide. Instead, the ECHR chose to adopt the French concept of strict separation between religious and state schools and to ignore the different educational traditions and systems of countries across Europe.

Addison notes that there may be further ramifications of the Lautsi judgment. Although the ECHR is not an EU body, the Lisbon Treaty contains a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, Articles 10 and 14 of which conform to the provisions considered by the ECHR in the Lautsi case. Addison observes that "Article 52.3 of the Lisbon Treaty Charter of Rights says that where the charter is equivalent to the ECHR it shall be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR decisions, so this decision on the crucifix is, in effect, now part of EU law, which is binding on the 27 members of the EU".

If this interpretation is correct, and the judgment confirmed on appeal, it will undoubtedly give rise to even more division and discussions as to how the rights of believers and non-believers may be balanced with those of the right to freedom of expression.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt