Emergency Synod debates ECHR crucifix ruling

The news that the Greek Orthodox Church is holding an emergency Synod to debate their response to the European Court of Human Rights decision in Lautsi v Italy involving the display of a crucifix in Italian schools signals a recognition of the enormity of a decision whose implications extend far beyond Italy.

The judgment in the case has not yet been translated into English.

However the ECHR has issued an English press release stating that Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman married to an Italian, has two children at the local state school where, in accordance with Italian law, each classroom has a crucifix on the wall.

Commentators have pointed out that this law dates from the time of Mussolini and the Lateran Treaty.  Italian schools were obliged to hang pictures of the fascist dictator alongside a crucifix, not as a clerical endorsement of Il Duce, but as a permanent reminder of the limits of the State.

The law requiring a crucifix in each classroom was confirmed by the Italian government as recently as 1984 and the validity of the Lateran Treaties was specifically referred to in Article 7 of the 1947 Italian Constitution.

The Constitution’s Articles 8 and 19 also guarantee freedom of religious belief and religious practice, and the right not to have a religion.

Mrs Lautsi and her children were not required to attend Catholic religious ceremonies and could withdraw from religious education classes. The sole requirement was being taught in classrooms with a crucifix on the wall.

According to the ECHR, Mrs Lautsi considered the crucifix was ‘contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children’.

When her application to have the crucifix removed was rejected by the school, she went to the Italian courts, which decided that the crucifix was not merely a symbol of Christianity but was also a ‘symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity’.

Mrs Lautsi then went to the ECHR claiming that the presence of the crucifix contravened Article 9 and Article 2 of the first protocol of the convention which protects freedom of religion and the right of parents to have their children educated ‘in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’.

The ECHR agreed with her and decided that the presence of the crucifix constituted the ‘imposition’ of a religious belief by the Italian state.

Compulsory secularism

Neil Addison, a UK barrister specialising in religion and the law writes:  ‘The ECHR decision is astonishing.  It goes against a basic principle of European human rights law known as the “margin of appreciation”, which is the element of discretion given to different countries on how to organise their educational systems.

‘In its decision the ECHR said the state “was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education”. In doing this it ignored the 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.

‘Nowhere in the Convention does it say that public education has to observe “confessional neutrality” in education.

‘In addition, the ECHR has ignored its own previous case law regarding the “margin of appreciation" which it has used in the past to defend secularist policies pursued by governments.

‘In the cases of Sahin vs Turkey and Dogru vs France, the ECHR upheld national laws which banned Muslim girls from wearing headscarves, Jews wearing yarmulkes, or Christians wearing crosses in school, even though the ECHR accepted that many European countries did allow these to be worn; it supported the right of each country to make its own decision.

‘The more worrying aspect is whether the ECHR decison has implications beyond the classroom because from the press release it is impossible to tell whether the ECHR judgment applies only to schools.

As several press articles on the case have pointed out, 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 orders: what the ECHR does do is find a violation of the Convention and then the Italian government has to report back to the Council of Europe on exactly what it proposes to do in order to implement the ruling.

‘The Italian government plans to appeal, but if the appeal is not successful Italy will have to remove crucifixes from all schools and possibly from all other public buildings and so a distinctive part of Italian culture will have been brought to an end.

Worrying

‘One of the many worrying aspects of the case is the complete religious and cultural illiteracy shown by the judges who completely failed even to try to understand the points made about the importance of Christianity and Christian symbols in Italian history.

‘They also failed to grasp the precise meaning and significance of the cross in Catholic worship and culture. They accepted the secularist argument that a room without a crucifix was a ‘neutral’ space and failed to understand that it was in fact a godless space.

‘Commentators have pointed out that this law dates from the time of Mussolini and the Lateran Treaty but what they have failed to note is the fact that because Mussolinis' picture in each classroom had to share the wall with a crucifix this acted as a permanent reminder of the limits of the State.

‘In Britain, because of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act, the ruling has immediate effect as a binding precedent in UK law and judgments such as this tend to have a large degree of ‘mission creep’ as they are implemented by public authorities.

‘Catholic and Anglican schools will probably be unaffected since the judgment refers to secular state schools, but I suspect we will hear about Christmas decorations in schools being removed and nativity plays being banned by local authorities who will say they are acting in accordance with this ECHR ruling.

‘Whatever individuals may feel about the display of crucifixes, or indeed any other religious symbol, the decision to remove them or keep them should be made by democratic discussion and debate rather than by legal dictat.

‘The ECHR decision in the Lautsi case is a complete perversion of the concept of human rights and subjects an entire country – and possibly continent - to the tyranny of the minority.’