The remark by Dr Therese Comodini Cachia that the Italian Crucifix case has only limited implications is, with respect, rather disingenuous.
True, the ECHR did not expressly order the school to remove its crucifix but this is because it does not have the power to make such order. What the ECHR does do is find a violation of the Convention, urging Italian government to report back to the Council of Europe exactly what it proposes to do in order to implement the ruling. If it ignores the ruling then it can ultimately be excluded from the Council of Europe and that would imperil its status as a member of the EU, so ignoring the ruling is simply not an option.
Since the ECHR has ruled that the mere presence of a crucifix in a classroom offends the European Convention, it is difficult to see what alternative the Italian government will have other than to order their removal from every classroom and from all public buildings; which means that a distinctive part of Italian life and culture will have been brought to an end in order to satisfy the personal prejudices of a single Finnish woman who seems to want the right to live in Italy but that has no respect for the country’s history and its traditions.
It is important to remember that Mrs Lautsi and her children were not required to attend Catholic religious ceremonies and could withdraw from religious education classes. The sole thing they had to put up with was being taught in classrooms with a crucifix on the wall and that, apparently, was unacceptable to Mrs Latusi.
In its decision the ECHR said that the State “was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education” and in doing this it ignored the very different historical and legal frameworks for education in different European Countries and has in effect imposed on the whole of Europe the French concept of compulsory state secularism in education.
Whatever individuals may feel about the display of crucifixes, or indeed any other religious symbol in schools and other public places, surely the decision to remove them or keep them should be a decision made by Italians following democratic discussion and debate, rather than by legal dictat imposed from Strasbourg. The ECHR decision in the Latusi case is a complete perversion of the concept of Human Rights and subjects an entire country to the tyranny of the minority.
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.
