In a much-awaited judgment, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights last Friday confirmed that the presence of the crucifix in a classroom does not breach the human rights of those who prefer it not to be there.

So, after almost 10 years of litigation, the final word has now been said. The crucifix can stay.

The case goes back to 2002 when Soile Lautsi, an Italian national of Finnish origin, objected with her children’s school to the presence of the crucifix in the classroom. After the school rejected her protests, Ms Lautsi took the matter to the Italian courts, losing two cases, until she went to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

To general surprise, the Strasbourg Court decided in November 2009 that the display of the crucifix amounts to a violation of human rights because it is incompatible with the state’s duty to respect neutrality in public education. The judgment triggered a widespread reaction, mostly negative, all over Europe. Never mind in Malta.

In this column back in December 2009, I disagreed with that judgment saying that, whereas there was no doubt that the crucifix expressed a preference to one particular religion, the Court should not have looked just at the religious symbolism of the cross because for many countries in Europe the cross transcends religion into a wider secular context of culture and tradition. In other words, the crucifix is not just about religion but also about identity.

For this reason, I argued that issues such as these, which touch upon the very essence of a country’s identity, culture and traditions, should not be easily disturbed but should be left to the individual country to determine.

Italy appealed and was supported by a number of other governments, including Malta. Thirty-three MEPs also intervened in the case in support of Italy. I was one of them.

Now, last Friday, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered the final judgment. Happily, it overruled the November 2009 judgment and dismissed Ms Lautsi’s claims. In essence the Court made two determining points.

Firstly, it said there was no evidence that the display of a religious symbol on classroom walls may have an influence on pupils and so it cannot reasonably be asserted that it does or does not have an effect on young persons whose convictions are still in the process of being formed.

Secondly, and more importantly, it said that whether crucifixes should be present in state-school classrooms is a matter that falls with the margin of appreciation of the individual state. It added that, whereas it is true the crucifix gives the majority religion more visibility in the school environment, this was not, in itself, sufficient to denote a process of indoctrination and establish a breach of human rights.

The case was therefore dismissed.

Among the judges in the Grand Chamber there was Malta’s very own Giovanni Bonello who also delivered a separate opinion supporting the judgment.

Judge Bonello’s opinion is an exquisite piece of passionate, yet perfectly logical, reasoning that is a must-read for all.

Basing himself on the identity argument, Judge Bonello thundered that “a court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer’s”.

He cautioned that a European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. “No court,” he said, “certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.”

Drawing the line between what amounts to a fundamental right and what does not, he said that, even if it could be argued that the crucifix could upset a country’s secular status, this did not amount to a breach of one’s freedom of religion and “bluntly, that ought to be none of this Court’s business”.

“Seen in the light of the historical roots of the presence of the crucifix in Italian schools” he said removing the crucifix would be “anything but neutral”.

“Keeping a symbol where it has always been is no act of intolerance by believers or cultural traditionalist. Dislodging it would be an act of intolerance by agnostics and secularists,” Judge Bonello said.

And to conclude, Judge Bonello recalled a recent judgment of the same court in which it ruled that the distribution of Guillaume Apollinaire’s 1907 “pornographic novel” Les Onze Mille Verges could not be banned in Turkey because it formed part of “European cultural heritage”. To which he quipped sardonically it would have been “quite bizarre... for this Court to protect and redeem... (a novel)... of nauseous obscenity on the ground of its distinctly faint ‘European heritage’ merit and, in the same breath, deny European heritage value to an emblem recognised over the centuries by millions of Europeans as a timeless symbol of redemption through universal love”.

Brilliant as always, Judge Bonello is right and, thankfully, the Court rolled back the Lautsi judgment.

The case was dismissed by 15 votes to two.

The crucifix wins the day.

www.simonbusuttil.eu

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.