André Camilleri, Naxxar
Ms Lautsi versus Italy
On June 30, the European Court of Human Rights will hold a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of the crucifix in classrooms and begin its deliberations. The court is expected to give a final decision at a later date in the form of a judgment.
A chamber of seven judges decided late last year that the compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, 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.
The court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (Right to Education) of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The court upheld the request of a member of the Italian Union of Atheists and Rationalist Agnostics, but ignored the sentiments of the majority of Italians.
When highlighting the requirement "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" it was emphasised that the presence of the crucifix could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel 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."
How realistic is it to claim that 'critical thinking' in pupils can be fostered only in a clinically sterile environment, free of all symbols, signs, texts and contexts? As remarked in a blog, militant atheism is also religiously coercive.
One hopes that the Grand Chamber will achieve a finer, more reasonable balance between Ms Lautsi's rights and those of others. As a Maltese national and a Christian, I am pleased that Malta is supporting Italy in its appeal against this decision.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jul 12th 2010, 16:37
The Cross is there and there will it remain!
The Cross is the symbol of our Salvation. It reminds us continually that there is a God, that this God has created us. The Cross reminds us of God's love for us who has sent his only Son to deliver us from sin and eternal hell.
We put the Cross everywhere in private and public places. We put it also above all other things, on the top of churches and king's and queen's crowns.
The Cross is there and there will it remain. No hell is going to prevail against it!
William P Flynn
Jun 21st 2010, 03:45
@Joe Zammit
The €150 fine should go into a pension fund for the mistresses of Italian priests who recently got together and wrote to the pope remove priest celibacy.
Ramon Casha
Jun 20th 2010, 18:00
"The court ... ignored the sentiments of the majority of Italians."
That's because where rights are concerned, even the majority cannot deny them to a minority.
"...it was emphasised that the presence of the crucifix could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign"
Why? How else do you think it should be interpreted if not a religious sign?
Joe Zammit
Jun 20th 2010, 20:09
Ramon, if the majority wants the cross in public places, it must have it. The minority cannot deny anything to the majority. That is democracy! As our dear bishops well said, the court sentence is illogical. Italy will surely win the appeal and the cross will remain where it is.
Joe Zammit
Jun 20th 2010, 16:22
A general revolt against the ruling in municipalities all over Italy has been started by public officials, who are now ordering the display of crucifixes in schools, and levelling fines for non-compliance.
Meanwhile, Italian papers are reporting a general revolt across the country against the Strasburg ruling. All schools in the League Monza in the Lombardy region, have been given seven days to ensure that crucifixes are displayed in every classroom. The mayor of Besana in Brianza, Vittorio Gatti, signed an order levelling a €150 fine for non-compliance.
In a statement published on the municipality's website, the mayor referred to the European Court of Human Rights decision, saying, "We believe that the crucifix is a symbolic expression in Italy of the religious origin of such important civic values as tolerance, mutual respect, enhancement of the person, freedom, solidarity and rejection of any discrimination.
William P Flynn
Jun 20th 2010, 12:53
Of course it's child brainwashing; and perhaps that's why the vast majority of adult Maltese, all of whom are baptised as babies, cease to be practising Catholics as their brain matures in adulthood and they can make up their own mind.
So, if Italy loses, and I think and wish it does, does that mean Malta also loses and it has to abide by the decision?
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 21st 2010, 08:57
No Flynn we will never abide by any decision to remove the Cross from our classrooms; in the meantime you can continue to waste time on setting up bogus polls down under where you belong.
Joe Zammit
Jun 20th 2010, 11:48
Ten European countries are uniting their forces to protect their religious heritage and freedom to reaffirm that the Christian symbols have a natural right to be displayed in public within Christian countries.
The role of the European Court of Human Rights is to apply the European Convention on Human Rights, which says NOTHING about "duties to secularize education in Europe" nor about "the nature of the relationship between the State and the Church."
SO THE COURT WILL SURELY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS TO MAINTAIN THE ILLOGICAL SENTENCE IT HAS GIVEN. The court of Second Instance shall repeal the illogical sentence given by the Court of First Instance!
Time will tell.
victor rodenas
Jun 20th 2010, 11:22
i would suggest that picture frames with the symbols involved concerning the different students be fixed on the walls of the classrooms so that nobody complains .If there is an atheist in class, a blank frame should be set up.
lgalea
Jun 20th 2010, 10:57
Just let them try to impose it in Malta. Just let them try.
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Jun 20th 2010, 10:38
It's one thing to teach your children about all the dominant religions and even agnosticism/atheism, it's another to impose one religion on them and expect them to be faithful in that religion. Parents should allow the child to make their own choice and force should NEVER be a part of the equation. Also, I do NOT believe that religion is something you are born into, but rather, a choice you make.
The religion that people have is almost always the same as that of their parents. This is an almost unique feature about people's beliefs. We talk about a child as being a 4-year-old Muslim or a 4-year-old Catholic. You would never dream about talking about a 4-year-old Laburist/Nazzjonalist; or a 4-year-old philosopher/scientist, and yet, you can see the parallel. Children really ought not be spoken of as a Catholic child or a Muslim child. They ought to be allowed to grow until they're old enough to decide for themselves what their beliefs about the cosmos are. Parents seem to be regarded as having a unique right to impose their religious beliefs on their child.
"If you don't believe this, you'll go to hell when you die"—This is Brainwashing!!
Joe Zammit
Jun 20th 2010, 11:46
JOSEPH ZAMMIT, if you don't obey the Ten Commandments as taught to you by the Catholic Church, yes, I assure you, you will go to hell. This is not brainwashing. It is the TRUTH and the truth will make you free!