The European Court's illogical decision
On November 3, 2009, in Lautsi vs Italy, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that, in displaying crucifixes in classrooms, there had been a violation of article 2 (Right to Education) and article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion)...
On November 3, 2009, in Lautsi vs Italy, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that, in displaying crucifixes in classrooms, there had been a violation of article 2 (Right to Education) and article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The reasons that the Court gave for this decision were that this compulsory display of crucifixes by the public authorities 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 did not order crucifixes to be removed, however, and the Italian government is appealing the decision. Moreover, the Italian court decided that "where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such rulings lack legitimacy".
We read in the Council of Europe's statute that this council's objective should be to "achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress".
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights has in fact contradicted the Council's objective because the cross, as a basic Christian symbol, is at the same time a symbol of the common European heritage. So, the presence of the crucifix in Italian schools is legitimate and the court's decision is illogical.
Besides, article 9 speaks of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion but its exercise. Article 2 speaks of the right to education. The crucifix in no way interferes in one's right to education.
The court's Grand Chamber will hold a public hearing on June 30, and the final judgment on the case is expected by the end of the year.
Ten States, including Malta, will explain to the court the limit of its jurisdiction and the limit of its ability to create new "rights" against the will of the member states.