The crucifix ruling (3 November 2009)

The wider implications

This is about more than hanging crucifixes: it is about revising human rights in Europe. It the second recent intervention in a Vatican campaign which uses the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ).

The appeal against the crucifix ban has been joined as third parties by 20 states: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Poland, San-Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine. With Italy, this means that now almost half the Member States of the Council of Europe (21 out of 47) are publically opposing the ruling. This group of predominantly Catholic and Orthodox countries demonstrates what the Moscow Patriarch calls a “strategic alliance between Catholics and Orthodox”. [1] According to the director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, Gregor Puppinck, this is “an important precedent in the practice of the court, because usually member States abstain from intervening, or intervene only when the case affects a national of their State.” [2] This is because this Court was established to protect individuals from human rights violations.

The appeal is an attempt to scrap two key principles in the European Convention on Human Rights:

• “No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground....” (Article 2, Protocol 1)
• “...Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary ...  in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (Article 9) 

The Italian background

It has been argued (as in the box on the right), that supporing “Christian heritage” has become a code word for opposing (Muslim) imigration. (Until the expansion of the EU in 2004 North Africa was indeed the source of the largest group of immigrants to Italy. [3]) The Church appears to have sought to make this connection, perhaps as part of a larger strategy of keeping Turkey out of the European Union.

In September 2000, Bologna Cardinal Giacomo Biffi issued a pastoral letter, in which he called for an immigration policy favoring Catholics over those who are Muslim “in order to safeguard our nation's identity.” Biffi's letter provoked protests but also drew support. One prominent priest, Gianni Bagget Bozzo, who often writes for press publication, affirmed “the need to erect a Christian dike against the Muslim invasion of Italy.” [4]
 

Official summary of the ruling in English
Crucifix in classrooms: Contrary to parents’ right to educate their children in line with their convictions and to children’s right to freedom of religion.
 

Full court ruling in French

L'affaire Lautsi c. Italie.

The legal background (No. 16-26) shows that the current obligation to display the crucifx in classrooms derives from fascist directives with no legal validity. Some highlights:

• The obligation to display the crucifx stems from a royal decree of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia in 1860 before the unification of Italy.
• This was reinforced in the 1920s: “At the time of the beginning of fascism the state issued a series of directives with a view to having the obligation to display the crucifix in the classroom respected.”
• In 1929 under Mussolini the Lateran Treaty was concluded with the Vatican, which stated in its first article that “the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion is the only religion of the State”, but with the 1984 concordat (protocol) this was no longer in force.
• A 2004 challenge to the legality of crucifixes in classrooms of state schools was dismissed by the Constitutional Court, as they were there only due to “regulatory arrangements without any legal force”.

Religion Law Blog: Comment by Barrister Neil Addison  
Below is a sample: see the blog itself for much more.

If the Judgment is not overturned on Appeal then Italy has to report to the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe what it is doing to implement the judgment, it cannot simply ignore it unless it withdraws from the Council of Europe and the Convention itself, in addition since the Charter of Rights in the new EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty in effect incorporates European Convention on Human Rights into EU Law, Italy would have to withdraw from the EU if it wanted to ignore the ruling [...]

Italy's appeal against this ruling

On 1 July 2010 Professor Joseph Weiler testified on behalf of the nations in favour of retaining crucifixes in state institutions. (The text is available online, including in PDF format.)

Law Professor Joseph Weiler argues on behalf of the states which support Italy's appeal against the crucifix ruling. These are the predominantly Roman Catholic and Orthodox states which oppose the 2009 crucifix ruling: Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, The Russian Federation and San Marino. 

He makes two arguments. First he wants to limit individual rights by appealing to “group rights”. Thus he argues that for some states to display crucifxes represents their “collective liberty to define the State and Nation using religious symbols”. And second, he wants to define state “neutrality”, evenhandedness between sectarian and nonsectarian institutions, in other words, as giving sectarian institutions the same funding and other rights as state institutions.

News stories

European court: No crucifixes in Italian schools, AP, 3 November 2009. 

Italy's crucifixes violate rights: court, AFP, 4 November 2009. 

Myths and misconceptions about the Italy ruling  Malta Today, 8 November 2009.

Poland, Spain and Slovakia come to different conclusions on “crucifix ban” decision, National Secular Society Newsline, 11 December 2009.

An Italian Cardinal comments

Head of the Italian Bishops Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco makes brief statements on the crucifix ruling and Islam in Religious Education classes. He's against both. Excerpts translated from La Repubblica, 9 November 2009.

“No such law exists”

Michele Ainis, professor of public law at the University of Rome comments on the false assertion that this ruling strikes down an Italian law. This has been used to claim that the crucifix ruling constitutes European interference in Italian heritage, whereas what it really  does is sweep away a lingering vestige of fascism. Translated from La Stampa, 4 November 2009.

Reaction from other EU countries

• Bavaria (Germany): On 4 November 2009 represetnatives of both of the governing coalition parties, CDU and FDP, confirmed that crucifixes will remain in the classrooms of state schools unless a parent objects. [5] How this can work in practice is shown in the case of  a parent who had complained for many years with no result ― until she finally sued the school for doing nothing. [6]
   
• Poland: On Poland's National Day, 11 November, President Lech Kaczyński said “No one in Poland thinks crucifixes should't be hung in schools. No way. Maybe somewhere else. But not in Poland”. [7] Then on 3 December a resolution passed by Poland's lower house of parliament “expressed worry over decisions which infringe upon freedom of religion, disregard laws and the feelings of believers and upset social calm.” [8]
   
• Spain: On 2 December 2009 a Spanish parliamentary commission approved by 20 votes to 16 a motion calling on Madrid to implement November’s ruling by the Strasbourg court. [9]
   
• Slovakia: On 10 December 2009 the Slovak Parliament issued a declaration  that the placing of religious symbols in schools and public institutions is in line with the historical traditions of Slovakia. “Respecting this tradition cannot be perceived as a restriction on the freedom of religion”. [10]
   

---

Notes

The quote in the box on the left is from http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/italy-asks-for-referral-to-grand.html

1. Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Department of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate quoted in “Why 20 Nations Are Defending the Crucifix”, Zenit, 21 July 2010. http://www.zenit.org/article-29956?l=english See also “Ecumenical allies? Orthodox, Catholics take aim at European secularism”, Catholic News Service, 11 December 2009. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0905462.htm  

2. “ECHR Crucifix Case: Ten Member States Join Italy in Support of the Crucifix”, European Centre for Law and Justice, June 01, 2010. http://www.eclj.org/Releases/Read.aspx?GUID=a77d9063-0475-408f-84a6-8a608be0077e&s=eur 

3. “Demographics of Italy”, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy

4. “International Religious Freedom Report: Italy”, [US] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2001. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5698.htm

5. “Kruzifixe in Bayerns Schulen sollen bleiben”, Augsburger Allgemeine, 4 November 2009. http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/Home/Nachrichten/Bayern/Artikel,-Mutter-kaempft-jahrelang-gegen-Kreuz-in-Nuernberger-Grundschule-_arid,2048755_regid,2_puid,2_pageid,4289.html

6. “Jahrelanger Kampf gegen Kreuz im Klassenzimmer”, Augsburger Allgemeine, 19 January 2010. http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/Home/Nachrichten/Bayern/Artikel,-Mutter-kaempft-jahrelang-gegen-Kreuz-in-Nuernberger-Grundschule-_arid,2048755_regid,2_puid,2_pageid,4289.html

7.  “Prezydent: Polacy nigdy nie zrezygnowali” (“President: The Poles never gave up”), Gazeta Wiadomosci, 11 November 2009. http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80708,7243287,Prezydent__Polacy_nigdy_nie_zrezygnowali.html 

8. “Poland 'worried' by Court school crucifix ban”, Javno, 3 December 2009.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/poland-worried-by-court-school-crucifix-ban_284698

9. “Spain Moves To Ban Crucifixes In Schools”, Lez Get Real, 2 December 2009. http://lezgetreal.com/?p=23537

10. “Slovak parliament objects to European court ruling on religious symbols”, Slovak Spectator, 11 December 2009.