Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion: Lautsi v Italy
Introduction
On 13 January 2010, the European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics (EPPSP) heard a presentation of Mr. Albertin, husband of Mrs Lautsi, who presented the Lautsi v Italy case.
Mrs Lautsi objected to the compulsory presence of crucifixes in each classroom in the Italian public school attended by her children of 11 and 13 years. She contended that this was contrary to secularist principles by which she wanted to raise her children. Italian laws and regulations, partly dating from the Mussolini era, obliged public schools to display the crucifix in classrooms.
Before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg Italy had argued that that the crucifix was not only a religious symbol, but also a symbol of Italian state and culture and therefore even could represent secularism. The Court disagreed and found – unanimously – a violation of the freedom of religion (Art. 9 ECHR) jointly with the right to education (Art. 2 of Protocol 1). The Court, amongst others, took into account the nature of the religious symbol concerned (amongst the plurality of meanings, the Court held that the religious connotation of the crucifix was dominant) and its impact on young children. In two of the key paragraphs (para. 55-56) the Court held that the demands of pluralism in public schools called for a change in the Italian situation: The compulsory presence of crucifixes in classrooms goes back to a law adopted in the Mussolini era.
The European Court of Human Rights on 3 November 2009 thus ruled in favour of Mrs Lautsi, outlawing the display of crucifixes in Italian state school rooms.
Read the press release and the Court’s judgement.
What is at stake is the question of freedom of religion, as well as recognition of the authority of the European Court of Human Rights as the guardian of the European Convention on Human Rights.
European Court of Human Rights Judgement of 3 November 2010
It is clear that the judgement is in fact entirely in line with Italian domestic law (Italy has been a secular state since 1985) and that the Italian Constitutional Court was prevented from ruling on this case for obscure procedural reasons (the display of crucifixes is the result not of statute law but administrative regulation). In particular below extracts are important:
“In its Decision No. 203 of 1989, the Constitutional Court considered the issue of the non-compulsory nature of teaching of Catholic religion in public schools. On this occasion, it stated that the Constitution included the principle of secularism (Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20) and the confessional character of the state had been explicitly abandoned in 1985, under the Additional Protocol to the new Accord with the Holy See.”
“The Italian Constitutional Court in Case No. 508 of November 20, 2000 summed up its jurisprudence by stating the fundamental principles of equality of all citizens irrespective of religion (Article 3 of the Constitution) and equal freedom of all religions before the law (Article 8 ) entails that the attitude of the State must be marked by impartiality and equidistance, without attaching importance to the number of adherents of one religion or another (see Case no. 925/88, 440/95, 329/97) or the extent of social reactions to the violation of rights of one or the other (see Case no. 329/97). The equal protection of the conscience of every person who subscribes to a religion is independent of the religion chosen (see Case no. 440/95), which is not in contradiction with the possibility of a different regulation of the relationship between the state and different religions within the meaning of Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution. Such a position of impartiality and equidistance reflects the principle of secularism which the Constitutional Court has drawn from the standards of the Constitution and which has the nature of a “supreme principle” (see Case nos. 203/89, 259/90, 195/93, 329/97), which characterizes the state in the sense of pluralism. Beliefs, cultures and different traditions must live together in equality and freedom (see no 440/95).”
Referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
The Italian government didn’t accept the ECHR ruling, and it subsequently filed an appeal at the Grand Chamber of the Court. The appeal was accepted and a Hearing before the Grand Chamber took place on 30 June 2010. The Hearing can be viewed here.
After the hearing, the Court began its deliberations, in private. Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage and is expected for end of 2010.
Third Party Interventions were filed and accepted for the following parties:
- • ·Governments of Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, the Russian Federation and San-Marino
- • · Jointly 33 members of the European Parliament (all conservative MEP’s)
- • ·Greek Helsinki Monitor
- • ·Associazone nazionale de libero Pensiero
- • ·European Centre for Law and Justice
- • ·Eurojuris
- • ·Jointly : International Commission of Jurists, Interights, Human Rights Watch
- • ·Jointly: Zentralkomitee des deutschen Katholiken, Semaines sociales de France, Associazioni critiane lavoratori italiani
European Court of Human Rights Judgement of 18 March 2011
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights did not confirm the 2009 ruling, which condemned the compulsory presence of crucifixes in classrooms of public schools. According to the Court, the presence of the crucifix is not incompatible with the right of parents to have their children educated secularly. A crucifix as such does not amount to indoctrination and is therefore permissable.
The Court´s judgment is available in English and French.
“This ruling is effectively scrapping the separation of church and state. The Grand Chamber apparently accepts that governments may impose a particular religion on its citizens. It is shocking that such a medieval practice gets the backing of the Grand Chamber. After centuries of enlightenment, we still have to fight against theocracy ”. says Dutch Liberal Sophie in ‘t Veld, Chair of the cross party European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics. “Europe is a community of shard values and fundamental rights for all. Not a religious club”.
“This ruling is a slap in the face for those who are striving to curb the sometimes excessive power of the church over public institutions. Public institutions belong to us all, not to a religious majority”, says Polish Socialist Vice Chair Joanna Senyszyn.
French Christian Democrat Vice Chair Jean-Marie Cavada adds: “the ruling of the Grand Chamber completely ignores the separation of church and state and fundamental rights. True freedom of religion cannot exist if the state favours one dominant religion”.
You can find an extensive analyse by the European Humanist Federation here.
Reactions following the November 2010 ECHR ruling
In Italy, declarations from various sources were made against the judgment.
- • The Radical Party was the only party supporting the ruling; their headquarters were attacked by neo-nazis and crucifixes were thrown and fixed on the walls;
- • The Lautsi-Albertin family was threatened: after the judgment the children were beaten up in school, and crosses were painted on their house;
- • The Northern League MP and mayor of Cittadella (a town close to Albano, where the Lautsi-Albertin family lives) put up posters with the faces of the family with “wanted” written on it
- • The Italian minister of defence, Ignazio La Russa, said on TV: “Anyway, we won’t take away the crucifix! They can die! The crucifix will remain in all school’s rooms, in all public rooms! They can die! They can die! Them and those fake international organization that count for nothing!” (information from Italian Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists) – seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goWDmbvNGr0
Sophie in ‘t Veld together with Italian MEP Giovanni La Via (EPP) and Hungarian MEP Pal Schmitt (EPP) discussed the ECHR ruling on Polish television.
A selection of Members of the National Parliamentary Assembly of the European Court of Human Rights (PACE) issued a written declaration against the ruling, stating that ” … (they) believe the this ruling to be political thus going beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.”
Members from the EPPSP Advisory Board, European Humanist Federation (EHF) in particular, campaigned in favor of the ECHR ruling.
European Parliament
Various motions for resolutions in favour and against the ruling have been tabled in the European Parliament.
A resolution on human rights, religious symbols and subsidiarity, tabled by Sophie in ‘t Veld and Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert on behalf of the ALDE group,
“(…)considers that Member States have an active duty to ensure freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for all citizens, and to ensure that state and public institutions at all levels of government represent all citizens, regardless of belief, religion or philosophy, and without discrimination; points out that a high level of protection of rights and freedoms will reduce the need for judicial intervention; believes that Member States must ensure and protect freedom of religion and freedom of conscience for minorities, whether or not they are organised, also by encouraging citizens to find consensual solutions, in mutual respect, within their communities;
Believes that freedom of religion includes the use, wearing or display of religious
symbols, but that the compulsory display of religious symbols on premises used by public authorities, e.g. state schools or court rooms, favouring one religion or life stance over another or banning symbols of any particular religion or life stance in a discriminatory way, needlessly constrains freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.”
The ALDE resolution, the oral question to the Commission on the Display of religious and cultural symbols in public places and the oral question to the Commission on the Defence of the principle of subsidiarity were debated on 15 December 2010 in the European Parliament.
A Written Declaration on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to education and the prohibition of discrimination in relation to religious symbols was tabled by Sophie in ‘t Veld, Gianni Vattimo, Miguel Ángel Martínez Martínez, Stanimir Ilchev and Jean-Marie Cavada;
Another Written Declaration on the freedom to display religious symbols representative of a people’s culture, and identity on public premises, opposing above Written Declaration, was tabled by Italian conservative MEP’s.
A religious news site reported:
“The cross is the symbol of the Christian faith as well as of such universal values as peace, tolerance, the respect of all mankind”: Gianni Pittella, deputy president of the European Parliament, reflects on the recent ruling of Strasbourg’s European Court for Human Rights and invites the MEPs to sign the written statement submitted yesterday by some Italian MEPs from all political groups. For it to become the official position of the Assembly, it must be signed by the majority of the MEPs. . . Mario Mauro (Ppe) states: “The ruling disavows the role of the Christian religion in the building of the public space and promotes a religious indifferentism that clashes with the history of Italy”.
The Greek Orthodox Church “is urging Christians across Europe to unite in an appeal against” the ban. The BBC reported that “It has called an emergency Holy Synod meeting for next week to devise an action plan. Although the Greek Orthodox Church has been at odds with Roman Catholicism for 1,000 years, the judicial threat to Christian symbols has acted as a unifying force.” And of course there are other reports of protests from across Europe.
Similar cases
Throughout Europe, there are several other cases that have raised similar legal questions. For example, there is the case of the Italian judge Tosti, who is aiming to lodge an appeal at the ECHR in 2011. You can read more on his case here.
A decision of Romania’sNational Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) regarding the display of religious symbols in public schools has similarities with abovementioned cases. The decision was brought to the CNCD by Emil Moise, a teacher and parent from Buzău County, who stated that the public display of Orthodox icons in classrooms constitutes an infringement of Romania’s separation of church and state and discriminates against atheist, agnostic and non-religious people. On November 21, 2006, the CNCD upheld Moise’s complaint, ruling that the Ministry of Education, who operates public schools, must “respect the secular character of the state and the autonomy of religion” and that “religious symbols must only be shown during religion lessons or in areas dedicated exclusively to religious education.” On June 11, 2008, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the presence of icons in schools is legal, in effect overturning the CNCD’s decision.