Kevin Dingli
The crucifix in state schools
Many have asked what the implications of Lautsi v Italy, perhaps better known as the Crucifix In State Schools case, determined by the European Court of Human Rights, might possibly be on the same practice adopted in all state schools in this country. I would, therefore, like to tackle the issue from a strictly local viewpoint.
In Lautsi, the ECHR held that there was a violation of article 2 of the First Protocol (right to education), taken jointly with article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).
From the outset, a number of important points need to be borne in mind.
Firstly, Lautsi cannot be invoked either with respect to the display of crucifixes in Church or private schools or, generally, in any other public places.
Secondly, Lautsi is, in any event, not directly enforceable in Malta.
Thirdly, when signing the convention and protocol on December 12, 1966, Malta made an express reservation in regard to article 2 of the protocol, having regard to the fact that the population of Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.
Malta is indeed not as secular a state as some might tend or even wish to think. Those who refer to the distinction between Church and state clearly overlook the fact that article 2 of the Constitution of Malta unwaveringly proclaims that "The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church". This is only as it should be because, in making this solemn declaration, the state is doing none other than recognising factual reality. Not only that, but the supreme law of the land goes on to provide that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach what principles are right and wrong and that religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith shall be provided in all state schools as part of compulsory education.
Lest someone cry foul at the perceived forced teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith in all state schools as part of compulsory education, let me immediately rush to point out that this is, of course, to be read in conjunction with the exemptive provisions of article 40(2) of the same Constitution, dealing with protection of freedom of conscience and worship. In full respect of that very freedom, this article provides that persons who have not yet attained the age of 16 shall not be required to receive instruction in religion should objection thereto be made by the person who, according to law, has authority over him and neither shall any other person be so required in the event that he were to object thereto.
It is interesting, and I believe of importance, to realise that article 2 of the Constitution is framed within Chapter I, titled The Republic Of Malta, which embraces all the defining attributes of the Maltese state, including such matters as the republic and its territories, the national flag, the national anthem, the national language and the supremacy of the Constitution over any other law. The Roman Catholic Apostolic faith is therefore one of the essential components of the Republic of Malta.
With the context of this fundamental background, in the display of crucifixes in classrooms of Maltese state schools (and, for that matter, in all other public buildings including the Courts of Justice, no less), the state only affirms the cardinal constitutional principle to the effect that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith and, with particular reference to classrooms in state schools, only reinforces the mandatory constitutional requirement for religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith to be provided in all state schools as part of compulsory education, within the limits as I have described.
In Lautsi, the actual violation found by the ECHR referred to article 2 of the First Protocol. This is made up of two sentences. The first provides that no person shall be denied the right to education. The second provides that, in the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
The government of Malta, way back in 1966 but even now still holding good, declared that the principle affirmed in the second sentence was being accepted by Malta only insofar as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, having regard to the fact that the population of Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.
I doubt that the government of Malta, or, for that matter, any other contracting state at the time, could possibly have had in mind the display of crucifixes in state schools, and rightly so, because one clearly fails to see how the right to education in a Catholic country, where the crucifix is so evident in every sphere of public and private life, could possibly be compromised by such manifestation. Nevertheless, the reservation clearly affords a strong line of argument to the effect that the removal of crucifixes from Maltese state schools as Lautsi would seek to achieve would not be compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training of children in this country, having regard to the fact that Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. This is further reinforced by reference to the constitutional principles discussed above.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph Meli
Dec 17th 2009, 12:22
William P. Flynn: I will repeat as you failed to read it:::>I saw the full list of the Flynn descendents which is available on the internet for all to see...So the Flynn Origin is Irish, and not MALTESE...your surname is shortened Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Floinn ‘descendant of Flann’, a byname meaning ‘red(dish)’, ‘ruddy’....
Lets face it you might be the son or even yourself to have once worked in Malta for some time with a bank [Barcleys Bank H.Q] in Malta and obtained Maltese passport, but and again I do repeat you are not original a Maltese, your surname is coming from the Irish. Many Maltese do remember this bank person [General Manager] called "Flynn" Correct???
So if you keep on attach our religion I have more surprises in store for you to make you face RED-DISH.
William P Flynn
Dec 17th 2009, 03:29
This is ridiculous, Mr.Meli. I don't have to confirm or deny anything to you and I couldn't care less what you're interested in and what amazes you. YOU want to tell ME what nationality I am, what my connection with Maltese families is and what the name Flynn means?
Joseph Meli
Dec 16th 2009, 19:21
@Mr. William P. Flynn: If I am correct you must be Flynn and not Lynn and from your mode of writing against our religion. Well, I am amazed as to what interest you have to always attachjing religion. If I am correct it seems that you actually in fact you just have NO Maltese relatives or ancestors as you stated, otherwise you would be listed with the ancestors of the Flynn family and no Maltese exist on this list. To prove this give us proof to verify this? No you do not have or had any connection with original Maltese families !!
The Flynn Origin is Irish, shortened Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Floinn ‘descendant of Flann’, a byname meaning ‘red(dish)’, ‘ruddy’.
Lets face it you might be the son or even yourself to have once worked in Malta for some time with a bank [Barcleys Bank H.Q] in Malta, but not original Maltese, your surname is Irish. Many Maltese do remember this bank person Flynn, but ........confirm or deny this?
william P Flynn
Dec 16th 2009, 08:42
Joseph Meli you are a fool taking the first bait that you see on the internet about my genealogy.
My roots in Malta go back 150 years on my father's side and uncountable centuries on my mother's.
But anyway you show me where it says Maltese citizens are graded by how long they've been in Malta.
I see you have taken the debate to another lower dimension than usual involving the breeding of kangaroos seeing as you've run out of solid and intelligent arguments; assuming you had any.
Do you think you are fooling the Maltese people with your unproven assumptive comments? Keep it up; I need people like you on the other side.
Your scientific poll re MrCowie would be just as scientific and intelligent as your other comments-none at all. Now get on your bike.
Joseph Meli
Dec 15th 2009, 14:49
Mr. William P. Flynn:You stated..."Hands up those who give a continental what he says? Hands up those who believe he is ever going to have a vote in Malta's affairs?
Well I made this question to quite a big number of Maltese reply that they are 52.5% would vote in favor of Gerry Cowie and (not you) was Gerry was confirmed the winner?
Sorry, that does not make you Maltese more than Gerry Cowie, because though he is not Maltese, he can speak Maltese, while I bet you cannot write one Maltese word.
It's better to take up a kangaroo breeding so as to teach them more about secularism in Australia, cause the Australians have better views than yours on Christian-Catholic faith? Otherwise, try to tell this to the Australian marines!!
Joseph Meli
Dec 15th 2009, 14:28
I quite agree..100%..and..do..support what Mr. J. Farrugia and Mr. Gerry Cowie stated in reply to Mr. William P. Flynn. Some time ago I asked this gentleman, if an illegal immigrant women gives birth to her child in Malta could this person be..classified as..Maltese? No, for I am..sure, that this gentleman Mr.W.P.Flynn has NO..Maltese..relatives or ancestors that were Maltese!! He might have been the son or himself to have worked in Malta for some time with a bank[Barcleys Bank H.Q], and if one was born in Malta he could have obtained a Maltese..passport..but not original..Maltese!!. But the fact remains that originally his..ancestors had no roots coming from..any..Maltese families.
Regarding his false conjectures practice to attach our..Christian religion is leading him no where and if he tries to come to..participate in an election, he would not collect more than a few dozens of votes. Just remember that Christianity in Malta is still strong and gaining further strength as we cannot stay any longer..backwards..as you want us to..be, but we are ready to defend our rights and principles. Don't take it that we fight, No Sir, but with..arguments and paper..we stand united and have the shield of Christ to protect us.
William P Flynn
Dec 15th 2009, 09:14
There are 1.1 million people in Surrey, not to mention the whole UK.
So why doesn't Mr Cowie preach anti-secularism there, where he is a citizen, and where secularism reigns supreme? Will the British papers publish his same comment over and over and over, like The Times of Malta does?
Why does he want to interfere in Maltese affairs?
Oh yes. I forgot. He comes as a tourist to Malta. That entitles him to stick his bib in Maltese political affairs.
Hands up those who give a continental what he says? Hands up those who believe he is ever going to have a vote in Malta's affairs?
Gerry Cowie
Dec 14th 2009, 20:42
As a fellow EU citizen and, indeed, shamelessly, a Catholic, this article is concrete evidence to those outside the EU who wish to change Malta into what it shall never become, that those within Malta do not want sweeping secularist changes!
The only way anybody can attempt to get the sort of change they want is to be in Malta and put themselves up for election on a secularist apologist ticket and see whether they get voted for.
A poll, of course, would have to be mandatory upon everybody to be of any worth. And of course a mandatory poll would fly in the face even of secularists who believe wholly in democracy.
And as with an election campaign one would really need to conduct it within Malta rather than yelling thousands of miles across the world for change.
Funny how history is often quoted but does not necessarily make a good argument!
Malta is not going to change, so you had better get used to it! I think the blogs below in favour of the writer put the pro secularist argument firmly in the shade!
J Farrugia
Dec 14th 2009, 15:33
Flynn no one asked for your advice. Your congectures are all truly false. You know absolutely nothing about Malta and its people. So if I were you I will keep some distance, a big distance from the Maltese people, otherwise all those catholic christians who were in Xarabanc defending our festas will give you a telling off with their spirit. Hands off our catholic religion. You will never succeed in your devilish plans.
Christian Sciberras
Dec 14th 2009, 12:42
One question remains; is the crucifix in state schools a "constitutional principle"?
renald williams
Dec 14th 2009, 12:11
May our religious principles; of what is right or wrong, be according to the Christian Appostolic faith teaching – examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so - Acts 17:11 New Testament. Without ever imposing anything on any one. Peace and health.
William P Flynn
Dec 14th 2009, 11:48
The inclusion of the religion article in the constitution involved three "contracting parties” - the PN, the British Foreign Office, the Vatican.
The British rejected it and suggested Dr Borg Olivier remove the article, saying it was wrong to include it and they knew of no other ex-colony which had included such an article. So they referred it to the Vatican; who came out also against it.
So, the Maltese Curia had to obey the Vatican. But cleverly to the point of being Machiavellian, Dr Borg Olivier sent his Dr Ragonesi to not ask, but tell the Vatican to mind their business. This took both Maltese Curia and the Vatican off the hook and the British relented.
This admirable stratagem gave the Curia what it had been nagging the PN to give it and disarmed the British.
This clever machination has made a farce of the Maltese constitution; someone might have just as well drawn a clown's face on it.
The religion article reflects the anachronistic state of Malta not today's.
I believe that any properly conducted poll(not newspaper-poll)would show that the majority of Maltese don’t want the government to transfer to the church, power that belongs to the people.