Joe Zammit, Paola
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) 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.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
31 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 24th 2010, 21:21
@ Raymond Sammut/ Kenneth Cassar / all comers
Of one thing i am sure; even though i am not a priest, the Crucifix will not be removed from the classrooms in which i teach; and the reason is because if that had to be the case i will wear one and carry it in every class i go; and they will remove it over MY DEAD BODY.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 25th 2010, 10:34
No need for dead bodies, Mr Farrugia. You can wear whatever you like. That's exactly what everyone does because it's a right guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights. What one wears is their own responsibility.
Just one point, however. During training that I received in the past on how to teach, I was always told not to display items in my clothing that could distract students. Items such as, for example, a flashy fountain pen or a large highlighter protruding out of my shirt pocket. Teaching theory states that the appearance of the teacher should be of the plainest form so it may not bias or detract from the subject being thought.
Furthermore, as an employee, one's obligation is to the mission of the organization. For example, if one is paid to teach history, then one should teach only history. No one can expect to get paid for what they believe in, or for teaching something they were not requested to teach.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 25th 2010, 10:50
Andrew, you have every right to wear a crucifix, and if it ever comes to that (I don't think it will), I personally would write in support of your right to wear it.
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 21:36
Christ to Constantine: With this sign (THE CROSS) you will win! And he won!
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 8th 2010, 07:04
@ Joe Zammit:
Actually, he won with the sword, not the cross. It also amazes me how you still believe God is a warmonger.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 23rd 2010, 10:09
@ Kenneth Cassar
It- tahwid qieghed f'mohhok; tippruvax iddahhak. Skola hija post pubbliku bhal kull post iehor.
L-atejizmu tieghek jista jimpressjona lil xi ftit izda mhux lili; jien gurdien xih wisq ghal min hu bhalek.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 24th 2010, 06:03
That's why you support the Crucifix in the classroom, instead of taking the Crucifix back to the church or the chapel where the Crucifix belongs. There is clearly a big divide between what you claim to be and what the Crucifix stands for, Mr Farrugia. The Malta Catholic Church should be ashamed of people like you.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 24th 2010, 08:01
Ha nirrepeti ruhi, ghax forsi il-passjoni ghamja tieghek ma hallietekx tifhem l-ewwel darba.
Il-kaz hu fuq skola pubblika, u mhux fuq kull post pubbliku li jezisti (inkluz pjazez u kampanja etc.).
Jekk trid tinsisti li xi hadd qed jipprova jnehhi l-kurcifissi mill-pjazez, skejjel tal-knisja, knejjes etc, jekk jghogbok ipprovdi l-evidenza.
U dan qed nghidu bis-serjeta kollha. Fl-ebda punt ma pprovajt indahhaq. U bilhaq, l-atejizmu ma jimpressjona lil-hadd. Ma uzajt l-ebda argument "ateju". Uzajt biss ir-raguni ibbazata fuq l-evidenza. Naf li din tista timpressjona lil min ghandu fidi ghamja li tobghod ir-raguni, imma min hu hekk, problema tieghu.
Joe Zammit
Jul 2nd 2010, 05:37
Kenneth, perhaps you are green about decisions taken by courts: if the court issues orders for the removal of crucifix in schools, in turn this will bring about removal of crucifixes from all public places. Court sentences are like rolling balls! Thank God, one thing is for sure: the decision by the European Court of Human Rights is not enforceable!
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 8th 2010, 07:07
@ Joe Zammit:
"...if the court issues orders for the removal of crucifix in schools, in turn this will bring about removal of crucifixes from all public places".
Oh sure, and if divorce is introduced, we will next start eating babies! Don't mistake private fears for facts.
Joe Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 21:50
Italy’s education minister condemned the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the Christian cross was a symbol of the country’s Roman Catholic religion and cultural identity.
Mariastella Gelmini argued that “no one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity,”
Other ministers said they were appalled by the ruling, calling it “absurd,” “shameful” and “offensive.”
Italians being practical people are going to do the practical thing concerning the ruling:
Ignore it:
Italy will ignore an “unreal” European court ruling that bans crucifixes from state-run schools as it appeals the decision, the Italian Prime Minister said.
“It’s not binding. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, there’s no obligatory force to the decision.”
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 24th 2010, 08:26
Yes, we read the news.
Joe Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 20:58
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.
The CROSS shall remain in our schools!
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2010, 07:47
" who are now ordering the display of crucifixes in schools, and levelling fines for non-compliance".
Interesting. Hitler would have been proud.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 20:13
@ Rudy Sollars
It would be much appreciated if you had to be less patronising in positing your Eurocentrism; fortunately for me as a Maltese citizen the Constitution of Malta and what was negotiated prior to accession is beyond the reach,control and diktat of any ECHR (without responsibilities).
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 19:41
Issa nnehhu s-salib li hemm fuq is-Salib tal-Gholja u kull salib li hemm fuq kull monument li qieghed f'post pubbliku. U hallina, ddahqux ghax qed taghqu ghar-redikolu.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 23rd 2010, 07:46
Qed thawwad. Il-kaz kien fuq skola pubblika, u mhux fuq kull post pubbliku li jezisti (inkluz pjazez u kampanja etc.).
Sfortunatament il-limitazzjonijiet tal-lingwa ma jghinux biex issir id-distinzjoni relevanti.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 24th 2010, 01:57
"Is-Salib tal-Gholja" is located on a religious site, just a few steps away from a chapel. The debate here is in regard to the Crucifix in the classroom of public schools. These schools are funded by tax-payers' money. The Maltese government has failed in the past -- and continues presently -- to meet its obligation toward tax-payers by taking a neutral stance and remove the Crucifix from the classroom of public schools. The placing, by the Maltese government, of the Crucifix in the classroom is both a violation of the Crucifix (which belongs in God's house) and a violation of one of the fundamental rights of tax-payers in Malta. One would hope that the European Court of Human Rights would be in a position to give recognition to this violation (a violation both to Catholics and non-Catholics alike) and inform the Maltese government accordingly.
Rudy Sollars
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:51
Mr. Caruana,
Although I sympathise with your emotion and likeminded people, it appears from your premise that you tend to forget that you are now a European citizen.
At this point I think it is worth mentioning a detail, which local Politicians may be choosing to deny: that accession to the ECHR was a precondition for membership of the EU, as laid down by the Copenhagen criteria. Also, the Treaty of Lisbon lays down that 'the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms', thereby ensuring that the EU, in its area of competences, does not violate the ECHR,
Furthermore, the EU bases its international dialogue on human rights on the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights which safeguards individual EU citizens, and not on popular consensus, local customs or traditions.
As it is not in my compitence to enter into this kind of discussion I suggest that you direct further queries to your MEP's considering that this heated debate has already been discussed in the European Parliament. However, seek not be misled, bearing in mind that the ECHR is independent of the EU. Wishing you Good luck...
Rudy Sollars
Jun 22nd 2010, 14:38
Although I do sympathise with your anxiety as well as others, pertaining to a future possibility of the removal of the Cross from public institutions, one should also appraise the fact that this is not suggestive that Roman Catholics will be banned from practicing their religion, or that Crosses will have to be removed from Churches or Private Church Schools, as the popular commotion is suggesting. I think that from the outset this fact should be made very clear especially by those who are stirring this agenda.
Considering that Public Institutions are frequented not only by European citizens who identify themselves as Catholics, but also by citizens who either identify themselves with other religions or with no religion at all, one may also want to consider that the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in reference, may be after all fair, non-discriminatory, all inclusive and appealing to reason.
Taking an objective position - in my opinion - the strict religious neutrality of institutions and the secularity of schools are - more than ever - the only possible guarantor of equal social dignity of ALL CITIZENS, and therefore the best possible means for social integration!
Paul Caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:08
Rudy Sollars and the rest, considering most objections come from foreigners as in the Italian case and decided by a foreign court, foreigners should accept all our customs and the Italian customs in the case of Italy and if not they should leave. This is our country, those are our customs. As others have said at other times, no one sent for them.
Ramon Casha
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:41
@Paul Caruana: So you're saying that, if the objection had come from a "true" Italian (that is, born in Italy to Italian parents), you'd accept this court decision?
Paul Caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:13
Ramon Casha NO.
S. Vella
Jun 22nd 2010, 18:37
@P. Caruana
So as long as everyone agrees with you, all is fine and dandy. Well I'm Maltese and I have no objection to separate state from religion.
Does my opinion count Mr Caruana or is yours more relevant? On what basis - faith?
Do I get a choice or do I have to live by your dictats?
Joe Zammit
Jun 22nd 2010, 19:58
Rudy, the CROSS is part and parcel of our history, culture and life. All foreigners are welcome, but on condition that they respect our religious culture as well. Otherwise, let them go somewhere else.
Many tourists come over here because of our identity which has been Catholic for the past 2000 years. This is our tradition and heritage and this is what we want to maintain for ever.
The European Court's decision is ILLOGICAL and contradicts the very reason for which the Council of Europe has been set up.
The Cross shall remain in our schools.
Paul Caruana
Jun 22nd 2010, 22:35
S. Vella what is the majority Vella? Where and when does a majority have to submit to the will of a minority?
Rudy Sollars Whatever the EU and the ECHR says, that is our tradition and that is how it is going to stay. Neither the EU nor the ECHR are going to order us around. Let them try and they and those who like you want to take away the crucifix will see our answer. DEFIANCE to all of them. This is not a question of human rights. Integration means accepting everything in the country you go to, whether in your opinion you feel that it is right or wrong. as the saying goes, when in Rome do as the Romans do. Foreigners who do not like our traditions can go back to their own countries and those who interfere with our way of life and traditions should know that they are unwelcome. We do not want integration with such people who do not respect our culture, tradition and way of life.
Dawn Cummings
Jun 22nd 2010, 13:24
How come I never see a priest wearing the cross but you expect us to display the cross in classrooms?
Franco Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2010, 12:21
The Cross should be in our hearts and in our daily lives - all the rest, is empty air!
Charles Sammut
Jun 22nd 2010, 11:19
The Catholic Church in the throes of decadence, clutching to straws. Religion, any religion is fast becoming an anachronism. You do what is right and honest because it benefits you and society and not because some black frocked man threatens you with hellfire.
Ramon Casha
Jun 22nd 2010, 10:55
"The court did not order crucifixes to be removed..."
That's not how this court works. It's a bit like our constitutional court, which can declare that a law is anticonstitutional, but does not take it on itself to offer remedies.
The court's decision is entirely logical in the light of the fact that one person's RIGHTS cannot be denied simply because the majority would like to.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 22nd 2010, 10:53
"...the cross, as a basic Christian symbol, is at the same time a symbol of the common European heritage".
Wishful thinking.