Raphael Vassallo Moral outrage at this week’s ‘Italian crucifix’ ruling, by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, may be a little premature.
Contrary to widespread popular perception, the ECHR did not actually order the Italian government to remove crucifixes from all State school classrooms; in fact, the same Court lacks the jurisdiction to pass (still less to enforce) such a judgement in the first place.
Dr Therese Comodini Cachia, a university lecturer and lawyer specialising in human rights issues, explained that Italy still has a number of options at its disposal, and can conceivably meet the ECHR’s ruling without actually removing a single cross from a single classroom.
“Without entering the merits of the curt ruling, the fact is that the EHCJ did not issue an order to Italy to have all crucifixes removed. As an institution it does not have that kind of power.”
The case was brought against Italy by Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman married to an Italian man, who claimed that the presence of a crucifix in her child’s classroom denied her the right to bring up the child as an atheist.
To the consternation of Catholics around the world, the ECHR eventually ruled in her favour, and ordered Italy to pay €5,000 in compensation. But it remains up to the Italian government – which is currently appeal against the ruling – to weigh its options and see how best to apply the ECHR’s verdict on its own soil.
Comodini Cachia explains that the ECHR came into being as the result of a mutual commitment made by the 47 member states of the Council of Europe – as distinct form the European Union, which (contrary to another widespread misconception) had nothing whatsoever to do with this ruling. But while all participating countries agreed on the necessity for such a court, not all were willing to relinquish too much of their own national sovereignty in the transaction.
For this reason, the Court can decide whether a person’s human rights have been violated, but cannot order a sovereign State to change its national legislation.
“One example would be the Ghigo versus Malta case, regarding requisition of private property,” Comodini Cachia says. “The ECHR ruled that the plaintiff’s human rights had been violated by the requisition of his property, and ordered the payment of compensation by the State. But the Court stopped short of ordering the government to also return the requisitioned property.”
The Italian crucifix case is entirely analogous. “In this particular case, the Court had to decide whether the presence of crucifixes in classrooms was a violation of the plaintiff’s human rights. One is free to agree or disagree with the court’s decision, but it would be a mistake to assume that the court has the power to force Italy to take those crucifixes of its classroom walls.”
Nonetheless the ruling does have its own peculiar ramifications. The government of Italy can conceivably settle the matter by simply paying out the modest sum of €5,000. But this would only open the floodgates of thousands of future cases brought against Italy by parents who claim they want their children raised in an atheist environment.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
