Itook note of the European Court of Human Rights' ruling regarding the issue of the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools. To my dismay, this court ruled that such a practice violates religious and education freedoms under the human rights convention. It has yet to be seen whether the implications of this judgment would affect other European states or otherwise.
This judicial precedent reminds me of another issue: the constitutional Treaty of the European Union. It had been keenly discussed whether the new European Constitution should have any reference to God. Here again the argument was brought up that, due to the secularisation principle within the concept of statehood, any reference to God, especially within the framework of Europe's Christian heritage, should be omitted. This line of thought prevailed in the final draft. As far as I recall, the numbers of the Maltese delegation were not unanimous in this regard and, interestingly, the Maltese government's representative, a cleric, Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, concurred with the above-mentioned view.
The debate enveloped around the issue of tolerance due to minorities and to the fact that such references could violate the secular principles that underline the EU. It is, however, interesting to note that, contrary to general perception, in practically all written constitutions, including that of the United States of America, the contrary is to be found.
I will argue, however, that the European Court's judgment this time round has stretched such arguments to the limit. I would even go so far as to state that this landmark judgement in essence goes contrary to what our Constitution has to say A reference to the relative article of the Maltese3 Constitution is worth quoting. Article 2 states:
(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all state schools as part of compulsory education.
Therefore, it is evident that the Constitution makes it clear that our country's official religion is the Roman Catholic one and that, therefore, like it or not, it enjoys a privileged status. This does not mean that our Constitution does not provide for religious freedom. Far from it. Our Constitution, in fact, safeguards the right of individuals to practise the religion of their choice and not to suffer any consequential discrimination on account of this.
On the other hand, it is fitting and right for our Constitution to uphold the Catholic Religion as the official state religion because the vast majority of Maltese adhere to it. Also, this religion is ingrained in our identity even from a cultural perspective. To order the removal of crucifixes from our public schools or other public institutions is nothing less than an insult to the Maltese identity and such a move would not be welcomed in Malta.
Undoubtedly, especially in recent times, Malta has seen the influx of numerous immigrants who do not necessarily share our religious beliefs and culture. This notwithstanding, Malta remains in essence a homogenous state and is far from cosmopolitan. Our country has always been tolerant to immigrants and, as a rule, throughout the ages has given a warm and friendly welcome to all foreigners. These individuals have never been subjected to any form of intolerance or discrimination due to their religious beliefs or otherwise.
However, tolerance should always be two sided. Foreigners opting to live in our country should make an effort themselves and, without necessarily fully integrating in the Maltese way of life, they ought to, at least, adapt themselves to our cultural and religious practices if not embrace them. Surely, the Maltese should not be forced to bend their ways and change their identity due to the imposition of foreigners. I am all for total inclusivity but opposed to succumbing to the dictates of others. In other states, especially those not European, governments fully insist on their countries' cultural and religious identity and, in fact, at times take it to the extreme and show themselves prejudiced to people with different views. This is wrong but it is even worse for countries such as Malta to compromise their own cultural heritage purportedly so as not to offend the views of minorities.
The implications of the judgment could be far reaching and disturbing. For example, all senior public officials, including the President, the Prime-Minister, Cabinet Ministers, members of Parliament and members of the Judiciary, all take an oath before God and not merely to uphold the Constitution. The point is, are we now to relinquish the way our senior officials take their oath of office so as not too annoy certain minorities? Furthermore, are we now being expected to remove the crucifix from the walls of our highest institution, which is Parliament, or from the halls in the court building?
Taken to the utmost, the implications of the said judgment are even more far reaching. The time could come when our parliamentary practices would have to be changed whereby we would have to omit the practice of saying a prayer before every sitting.
It must also be emphasised that the Catholic religion is even more ingrained in Maltese society than what is apparent.
Take our feats, for example, which are celebrated almost on a daily basis throughout all our summer months. These are in essence religious feasts dedicated to Catholic saints.
They are definitely not secular in character. To my mind, even these feasts could be compromised because they could be interpreted as offending the beliefs of others.
In analysing the spirit of this judgment we could conclude that a time will surely come when even this aspect of our heritage would have to go. In the UK, for example, they have taken matters to the extreme so as not to offend people of other religious denominations.
Christmas, for example, is no longer celebrated within a Christian context, so much so that even the display of cribs in public is prohibited. Even in Malta, such practice could one day no longer be tolerated. It is also the custom in Malta to have a Catholic chapel in our state hospital and that priests are free to do the rounds of the wards. Who knows for how much longer such practice could be allowed?
In the light of all this and, especially, as a Catholic member of Parliament I formally express my disagreement with this decision and feel it should in no way be implemented in our country. I state this even for the mere fact that it runs contrary to the spirit of our supreme law.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.