Crucifix in state classrooms ‘no breach of human rights’
Malta has welcomed yesterday’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights that overturned the controversial 2009 ruling banning crucifixes from classrooms in Italian state schools.
Accepting an appeal submitted by the Italian government, the ECHR judges in Strasbourg ruled that displaying crucifixes in classrooms did not breach the rights of non-Catholic families.
Malta, Armenia, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece and San Marino had joined Italy in the legal battle and submitted their objections.
A Justice Ministry spokesman said Malta had fully supported the Italian authorities as it deemed the crucifix to be a symbol of European identity and heritage.
Fifteen of the 17 judges of the Court’s Grand Chamber voted in favour of the Italian appeal while two voted against. The verdict is binding on all 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe.
The case was originally brought to the court by an atheist mother, Sole Latusi, an Italian citizen of Finnish origin, whose two sons attend a public school in the Italian city of Abano Terme.
The woman had argued that the refusal to remove the crucifix from classrooms was in violation of the secular principles that must be upheld by public schools.
In a decision which shook the Catholic world, the lower chamber of the court in 2009 ruled in her favour, saying that displaying crucifixes was in breach of freedom of religion.
In deciding to allow crucifixes to be kept in the classrooms the ECHR declared that the authorities “had acted within the limits of the margin of appreciation left to Italy in the context of its obligation to respect, in the exercise of the functions it assumed in relation to education and teaching, the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
The Vatican hailed the decision as “historic” and the Archbishop’s Curia welcomed the ruling in an initial reaction, as did Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Labour Leader Joseph Muscat.
Court ‘cannot suffer from historical Alzheimer’s’– Judge Giovanni Bonello
A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition, according to Judge Giovanni Bonello, who submitted a separate opinion in the case.
“No court, certainly not this court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality,” he said.
“A court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer’s. It has no right to disregard the cultural continuum of a nation’s flow through time, nor to ignore what over the centuries served to mould and define the profile of a people.”
Although retiring towards the end of last year, Judge Bonello still formed part of the Grand Chamber – he will remain active until the pending cases he was assigned to are decided.
“I believe that before joining any crusade to demonise the crucifix, we should start by placing the presence of that emblem in Italian schools in a rightful historical perspective,” he said in his opinion, adding that, for centuries, virtually the only education in Italy was provided and funded by the Church, its religious orders and organisations.
Until relatively recently, the “secular” state had hardly bothered with education.
The millstones of history turned education and Christianity into almost interchangeable notions.
“The presence of the crucifix in Italian schools only testifies to this compelling and millennial historical reality... Now a court in a glass box a thousand kilometres away has been engaged to veto overnight what has survived countless generations. The court has been asked to be an accomplice in a major act of cultural vandalism.”
The ECHR, he said, ought to be ever cautious in taking liberties with other peoples’ liberties, including that of cherishing their own cultural imprinting – nations did not fashion their histories on the spur of the moment.
Making another argument, he said the European Convention of Human Rights gave the ECHR the remit to enforce freedom of religion and of conscience, but it was not empowered to bully states into secularism or to coerce countries into schemes of religious neutrality. Individual countries could choose whether to be secular or not.
But most of the arguments raised by Ms Lautsi called upon the court to ensure the separation of Church and state and to enforce a regime of “aseptic secularism” in Italian schools.
“Bluntly, that ought to be none of this court’s business. This court has to see Ms Lautsi and her children enjoy to the full their fundamental right to freedom of religion and conscience. Period.”
With or without a crucifix on a schoolroom wall, the Lautsis enjoyed the most absolute and untrammelled freedom of conscience and religion as demarcated by the Convention.
“Millions of Italian children have, over the centuries, been exposed to the crucifix in schools. This neither turned Italy into a confessional state nor the Italians into citizens of a theocracy.”
See Judge Bonello’s full contribution in the pdf link below.
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Mar 19th 2011, 15:33
Much praise is expressed for Judge Giovanni Bonello in the comments below. One should point out, however, the irony in Mr Bonello's concern: "A court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer’s."
Mr Bonello, very clearly, finds no "historical Alzheimer’s" in his omission. The reason why the Crucifix hangs on the walls of classrooms of secular schools in Italy has much to do with Italy's history, but not those parts of history Mr Bonello is alluding to. Mr Bonello does not mention the historical fact that the presence of the Crucifix in the classroom is due to Article 119 of the 1928 decree which specifies that each classroom must have a crucifix.
Mr Bonello makes this omission not for "historical Alzheimer’s", surely. It is a most relevant historical fact that Mussolini was 1st Head of Government of the Kingdom of Italy between the 24th of December 1925 and the 25th of July 1943. Mr Bonello would surely not wish to be associated in any way with this historical fact --hence the omission.
Frans Sammut
Mar 19th 2011, 14:11
Judge Bonello's sentence is a masterpiece of legality articulated in a potent literary fashion.
Alex Ellul
Mar 19th 2011, 13:52
And Giovanni Bonello's words should, must remain written in Bronze for ever.... while we Maltese are so proud of being representd by a person of such great intellect, historical knowledge and profound thought.
Alex Ellul
Mar 19th 2011, 13:45
Raymond sammut, are you serious? Can't you even accept the fact that Italy is basically a Christian country, with Christian traditions? If I were to emigrate to a buddhist country I would have to acceot the buddhist symbols, garb, way of life, language etc.
This complaining woman ( the one that took Italy to Court) is not Italian but Scandinavian. She migrated to Italy and now wants Italy to forget it's roots, traditions, religion.. just because she nowlives there.
Maybe, next time, when she's in Rome, she will ask for the demolition of St. Peter's, the rebuilding of the Coliseum to its pristine condition, repopulating it's dungeons with tigers, feed the Christians to the beasts and let the atheists explode in loud cheers of gratification.
Britain has already declared Christianity as illegal... A declared Christian cannot adopt children. This was decided by the British High court a few weeks ago. What will the next attack on Christianity be? Taking away one's children because the parents are Christians? I would not be surprised at all.
Raymond Sammut
Mar 19th 2011, 11:55
Judge Giovanni Bonello is (1) a knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, (2) a Cavaliere della Repubblica Italiana, (3) a holder of the Maltese National Order of Merit, and (4) a holder of the Russian Insignia of Merit. (Journal of the Monastic Military Orders, Oct 2008, Issue 1.)
Given Mr Bonello's credentials, very clearly, the ECHR needed to look elsewhere for a rational, independent and balanced opinion on the issue of the Crucifix hanging on walls of classrooms in secular public schools in Italy. Surely, Mr Frattini had his day in Strasbourg with Mr Bonello on his side.
So much has been said on the issue by Mr Bonello, but with little regard (if at all) to the mind of the child who is entitled to an education free from prescribed doctrines and dogmas.
Immensely disappointing, Mr Bonello, when clearly your duty was towards the child in the classroom, and not to the so-called Italy's "millennial historical reality...".
M.Caruana
Mar 19th 2011, 12:50
Oh come on please!!!!! I was EXPECTING the usual anti- christian brigade to quickly say something of course....but not this!!!
The poor child..the poor poor suffering child..oh what torture it must be for him to see a Crucifix hanging in his class!!!
What are you saying then, that Italy should wipe out her European heritage and identity? Because one atheist woman decided so? The persecution around the world towards the religion of Christ is becoming more and more obvious and frequent, there won't pass a day without listening about it on the news. But nobody comments on that. Oh no of course not! The only rash comments mocking and ridiculing you read are only targeted towards Christianity.
You yourself mentioned the honourable titles this judge holds and that s something one must acknowledge. And finally we had a breath of fresh air!
As to signora Latusi I tell her haven't she ever heard "If you're in Rome do like the Romans!!"
J.Tonna
Mar 19th 2011, 11:15
I wonder why, in the first place, the ECHR ruled in favor of one person (who applied for this ruling) and against the multi millions who disagreed with the applicant.
Anne Farrugia
Mar 19th 2011, 10:56
Why because 1 person is against something, then a whole nation has to change? Common sense tells me that it should be the other way around ie that person changes or modifies according to the country living in! Or not? Now I'm confused! :( Could someone please explain! I'm being sarcastic!!! Good day all!
Stephen Koludrovic
Mar 19th 2011, 09:48
I am not a religious person, but the crucifix is part of my culture,so I most heartily agree with this decision.