In a dramatic reversal of its original unanimous decision, the European Court of Human Rights has decided to allow Italy to retain its law requiring crucifixes to be displayed in every classroom in all public (non-religious) schools.
It bases its dubious finding on a view that this pervasive display of crucifixes falls short of indoctrination and is therefore within the ‘margin of appreciation’ allowing states some flexibility in how they implement human rights
This ruling means that States retain a much larger ‘margin of appreciation’ than expected: in effect, not only over how but even whether they protect some human rights. Laws in different states can now be directly incompatible with each other. Thus Italy can require display of crucifixes in its schools while Belgium and France prohibit them. The ruling marks a retreat from universal human rights, especially for matters relating to sensitive topics – such as wearing religious symbols or (as in the recent Irish abortion case) the right to reproductive health – on which individual states stand out against the broad consensus in Europe.
The Court accepted that the cross is “above all a religious symbol”, contrary to Italy’s contention it is instead a symbol of Italian identity. Italy had made the ludicrous claim that the crucifix has “an ethical meaning [that] evoked . . . non-violence, . . . the primacy of the individual over the group and the importance of freedom of choice, the separation of politics from religion. . . [carrying] a humanist message which could be read independently of its religious dimension . . . it was perfectly compatible with secularism and . . . could be perceived as devoid of religious significance” (quoted from the original judgement’s summary of Italy’s case, para 35).
David Pollock, President of the European Humanist Federation, said: “This highly regrettable judgement retreats from the clarity of the initial ruling that the State and its institutions must be impartial, not favouring one religion or belief over another. This principle is particularly important when the State is addressing school pupils, since they are not only immature and impressionable but also a captive audience.
“The idea that the crucifix is a harmless cultural item flies in the face of common sense. It is a portrayal of the execution of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion. It is a very powerful image and potentially a highly disturbing one to put before children. It is the image of a man being tortured to death. And the explanation for this horrific event is scarcely less disturbing: it is that he is being tortured because they, the children, are wicked and sinful. This is itself, of course, a religious doctrine, not a fact.
“However, the ruling runs so contrary to the established direction of educational policy in the Council of Europe and the OSCE and to the proclaimed secularism of the EU that it is unlikely to have a lasting effect. Europeans are voting with their feet, leaving the churches and giving little value to religion.” (See note.)
“Our sympathy goes to Soile Lautse and her family who for ten years have fought this case with dedication and principle.”
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, added: “It is to be hoped that the [majority group of] judges were not yielding to the huge political pressure put on them by Italy and what looked like a “Holy Alliance” of Catholic and Orthodox states that backed its appeal and by the Vatican, the Greek Orthodox Church and other reactionary religious interests whose fears of losing influence in an increasingly secular Europe will have been abated by this judgement.”
The Court’s ruling is doubly regrettable since it is clear from its past findings that the Italian Constitutional Court would have decided the case differently: in a case in 2000 it said that the Italian constitution requires the State to maintain “equidistance and impartiality” in matters of religion or belief, “without attaching importance to the number of adherents of this or that religion or the scale of social reactions to infringement of the rights of one or the other.”
ENQUIRIES TO:
David Pollock, president: +44 (0) 20 8800 3542 or +44 (0) 7866 806932