Decision due in crucifix ban case
Religious symbols in classrooms could be banned across Europe if a human rights ruling is upheld on appeal tomorrow.
The Italian government is trying to overturn a verdict that displaying crucifixes in state schools breaches religious freedoms enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
The decision by the European Court of Human Rights in 2009 was a victory for Soile Lautsi, a non-Catholic mother who complained that her children, aged 11 and 13, were exposed to crucifixes in classrooms at their school in Northern Italy.
The Strasbourg judges agreed the presence of religious symbols violated the children's "right to education" and their "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion", safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention.
The judges rejected Italian government arguments that the crucifix was a national symbol of culture, history and identity, tolerance and secularism, saying the crucifix in the classroom was against the principle of secularism by which Ms Lautsi wished to raise her children.
The judgment said: "The presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion."
It went on: "This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities."
The judges said the freedom not to believe in any religion - enshrined in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention - was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education. It extended to practices and symbols which expressed "a belief, a religion or atheism".
The ruling concluded: "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus 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."
Italy was ordered to pay the mother £4,500 in damages, but Rome decided to appeal to the Court's 17-judge Grand Chamber in a bid to overturn the verdict.
Today's final decision, if it upholds the original verdict, would only directly affect Italian schools where religious icons are in all classrooms.
But a breach of the Human Rights Convention identified in one of the Council of Europe member states - 47 including the 27 EU countries - applies in all.
One human rights expert commented: "Another parent who feels similarly affected by similar circumstances in a state school in another Council of Europe country could launch a similar case, but all the governments would already be aware of the state of play if the judges do uphold the original verdict in the case of Italy."
Malta had joined Italy in the appeal.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
22 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Mar 20th 2011, 01:44
2) Britishness is not so much being diluted; more like, the British identity is being fragmented, demographically if nothing else. And its Institutions.* Many 'britishers' who feel disaffected or marginalised for whatever reason join religions that feel more welcoming (this happens in Malta too, I note). Some have been known to conceal explosives in the heel of their shoe - Reid, I think his name was - with the intention of blowing up an airline in mid-Atlantic. Get my drift?!
And you know somethin'?! I have no reason to believe that Italy is faring any better.
And freedom of worship, admirable as it is in principle, is a double-edged sword. Some bend over backward in order to appear honouring the Constitution. I hope for their sake their spouting does not come back to haunt.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
*And you, Mr/Ms Two-dimentional-cardboard-cutout, before you start gloating because you have it in for Britain and its people2, think again. A weakened Britain will have repercussions for you too. Yes, even here in dear old Malta.
Joe Xuereb
Mar 20th 2011, 01:18
1) I 've said it in my previous comment but obviously, it needs repetition. It is not possible to ban alien religious symbols unless you take down your own. If I say to someone, remove your burqa, turban, etc. They'd say, you're being discriminatory. I'd respond, No I'm not, I took down the crucifix so as not to 'offend' you. Now if you cannot play by the rules of 2011 and do as the Romans do when you're in Rome, I suggest you go back where you came from if you prefer to live in the year 1011 - and counting backwards.
I hope this makes my position clearer; but I'm not holding my breath. RELIGION IS A PRIVATE MATTER. WEARING IT 'ON YOUR SLEEVE' IS ANACHRONISTIC. IT CREATES TOO MUCH DIVISION BETWEEN PEOPLE, MAKING INTEGRATION IMPOSSIBLE (some bloody hope!). GET IT?!
Here in UK most wear their religion on their sleeves, a veritable array of styles. The crucifix here is not an issue because the British don't do public crucifixes much. But the hundreds of thousands wearing 'a veritable array of religious styles', do you think they are integrated into British society? Not on your nelly!
continued
Ramon Casha
Mar 18th 2011, 06:45
This case could have very easily been solved privately if the authorities in question had shown a smidgen of sensitivity towards this woman and her children and tried to find a reasonable compromise. Instead they decided to become combative and it turned into a matter of pique.
Unlike Malta, Italy has no official religion. Therefore Lautsi is right in pointing out that the MANDATORY display of the symbol of one religion goes against the constitution of Italy.
More to the point, Italy's defense was absurd at best. How is the crucifix a symbol of secularism?? Last I heard, the Catholic authorities are in a verbal war against secularism. Nor is the crucifix an Italian symbol - it is used all over the world. It is certainly not a symbol of tolerance since historically, the crucifix has been behind many atrocities committed against minorities.
The Italian authorities could easily have made an exception in that class and replaced the classroom crucifix with personal religious symbols carried by any student who wishes to. Then it would have remained a local matter. Instead they turned it into a national or even Europe-wide issue.
Joseph Tonna
Mar 18th 2011, 06:34
Jekk se nibqaw sejrin hekk ser nispiccaw hazin f Malta.
Issa bhalma barra xtutna hemm id-divorzju erbat ijiet ohra jekk ser nibqaw sejrin hekk jibda jidhol kollox l-abort, zwieg bejn l-omosessali etc ...
Dak li huwa tajjeb ghal haddiehor ma ifissirx li huwa tajjeb ghalina wkoll, nahseb...!
J. Abela
Mar 18th 2011, 02:01
Then she should sue FInland for having a Nordic cross on its flag, a symbol of Christianity.
S. Calleja
Mar 18th 2011, 14:16
A cross and a crucifix represent very different things.
Joe Xuereb
Mar 18th 2011, 01:34
To be fair to the Finnish woman, she would have done the same had she been in Finland. Choice of school in Italy may not have been so easy and if she's an atheist with an atheist child (nothing wrong with that) and clamouring for absence of crucifixes, it could be said this might be beneficial. Christians/Catholics clamouring within reason for the continuation of the status quo is one thing. Levelling the playing field (ie ban all symbols) would mean the more vociferous alien voices which not only undermind European culture but apparently are out to replace it.......European birthrate is down (in Italy in particular) whereas the newcomers are very fertile indeed. Selective banning of religious symbols would attract accusations of discrimination. Better to ban all. Otherwise, come back in twentythirty years' time and we can talk then. Alarmist?! Maybe. I hope so.
A TRULY BONA FIDE RELIGIOUS PERSON CAN WORSHIP PRIVATELY WITH NO NEED FOR PUBLIC DISPLAYS AND WEARING THEIR RELIGION 'ON THEIR SLEEVES'. We are living in 2011 not two thousand years ago when symbols to denote which tribe one belonged to were necessary.
Some lateral thinking never went amiss as Edward de Bono would say.
joe micallef
Mar 18th 2011, 00:44
This is the beging now the Crucifix next will be schools want be allowed to celebrate Christmas the display of baby Jesus or plays after will be not allowed in the swiming pool as they get offended with the bathing coustume ,so our churches have to take down any Crucifix outside because they get offended when they see it,no wonder these things happen because we put down our head for everything so what about the people that are going to be offended about this decision .
James De Giorgio
Mar 17th 2011, 23:54
Disgusting, a Finnish atheist goes to Italy and imposes her Scandinavian non-principles on all the people of Italy.
Tania Walters
Mar 17th 2011, 23:35
Ahh another case of one very loud voice. Never mind the thousands who disagree. Just be careful you don't lose your freedom like we did here in Melbourne where we can't even go to the swimming pool during ramadan as it offends some people. Very sad indeed. Why can't we just live together and respect each other's views and beliefs? I'm a practicing catholic married to a non catholic. I don't impose fish on him on Good Friday and he doesn't stop me from going to church or doing my duty as a catholic. Are we becoming so narrow minded or are we getting too scared of a few loud voices?
S. Calleja (Melbourne)
Mar 18th 2011, 00:44
I think that not imposing is exactly what this is all about. As you said, we must learn to respect each other's customs and beliefs. Thus to keep things fair and respectful in class, we should also put images of Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna and Vishnu and of any other religion that happens to be professed by the pupils in that class. Also I don't agree about losing any freedoms in Australia because of Ramadan or otherwise. Have your ever worked and lived in Europe, say UK, France, Belgium or Germany? If you did, you wouldn't talk like that. Here in Australia, people come and integrate, at least up to a certain point, because they are forced to. Over there, they don't integrate. They form ghettos which get larger and larger with time and you end up having cities within cities. Why? Because they don't need to integrate. Immigration laws are much more lax.
Richard Galea
Mar 17th 2011, 23:34
Children need to be encouraged to face reality rather than being demoralized........One of the few instances where I appreciate being part of Europe.
Andrew Gatt
Mar 17th 2011, 23:00
Well. What to say. I must admit to not being the most religious of persons but hell, isn't this bloody ridiculous?
Gut reaction was: Hey, you chose to live in a country, a Roman Catholic country as it happens. Where the crucufix, a symbol of said religion, is displayed in classrooms. Of STATE schools which your children attend for FREE. And that bothers you. Fine. Take 'em out and pay for their education at a school of your choice where they display the Tooth Fairy. Or whatever.
Second thoughts reaction was: Get lost and move to another country whose customs suit you.
David Caruana
Mar 17th 2011, 22:54
So if the appeal does not go through and a Maltese citizen takes the Maltese Govt to court, all crucifixes will be removed from public places?
Interesting
Aex Ellul
Mar 17th 2011, 22:43
Please remember that Europe's first schools, universities, hospitals, books, modern agriculture were all originally founded by Christian organisations...............
S. Vella
Mar 18th 2011, 03:24
Fair enough and yet they taught nonsense such as the world is flat and the plague was a curse from God etc
Europe was not educated by Christian thought - it was and is still educated in spite of the Christian schools and beliefs. Religion and education do not mix well.
As for the topic at hand, my personal opinion is that catholic schools should be able to have crucifixes in the classroom. State schools, on the other hand, should be absolutely neutral - no crucifixes or any icons pertaining to any and all religions are to be displayed.
Ramon Casha
Mar 18th 2011, 07:03
Actually schools and hospitals were pre-Christian Greek creations, adopted by the Romans throughout their empire.
In fact the words "academy", "lyceum" and "gymnasium" are all Greek (pre-Christian) words. Lyceum is named after Aristotle's open-air school which was held in the Lyceum grove. The Academy was Plato's school, in which Aristotle himself was a student. Although today the word gymnasium is strictly linked with physical activities, in ancient Greece they also served as venues for intellectual pursuit.
Similarly, the first dedicated healing centres in Europe were temples dedicated to Asclepius, which provided herbal cures, surgery and other forms of medicine. Again, this tradition was adopted by the Romans under the name of Aesculapius.
Since the Roman Catholic church spread throughout the Roman Empire (hence the name) and supplanted earlier religions and philosophies, it ended up inheriting these educational and medical traditions, but it did not start them.
Books were not remotely a Christian idea. Maybe you meant the first printing press, which was.
Agriculture has been developing throughout the world, and ideas were borrowed and spread irrespective of religion.
Joe Xuereb
Mar 17th 2011, 22:28
I have nothing against religion as long as it is practised privately. I would not call any religious symbol offensive in every instance but I see them as unnecessary in public offices and hospitals and police stations. Not all pupis in a class would be Christian but banning the crucifix would also need the banning of clothing denoting some religion or other. This is a move towards equality and would help prevent some undermining the local way of life by unreasonable demands that serve only to create division and conflict. The world of the future is about more equality among people and belief-systems being kept strictly private if they have to be practised at all.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 18th 2011, 06:47
Forcing the religious to practice their religion in private only, means allowing the atheists to practice their creed in public.
Joseph Vassallo
Mar 17th 2011, 22:06
This goes to prove that ECHR can and does reach dumb conclusions.
If Ms Lautsi didn't want her children to be exposed to the sight of a crucifix, she should not have chosen to send them to a catholic school.
She chose the school not the other way round.
S. Calleja
Mar 18th 2011, 00:29
It's a state school not a Catholic school...
Joseph Vassallo
Mar 18th 2011, 17:54
S Calleja, the state is catholic. You are confusing it with a church school.
Please choose the reason of your report below: