In recent years Italy has become used to criticism about the displaying of crucifixes in state schools but it would not have expected such objections to come from its own citizens. The country is reeling today after the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] ruled in favour of an appeal by a naturalised Italian of Finnish origin to have the crucifixes removed.
The case was filed with the ECHR by Mrs Soile Lautsi Albertin in 2006 after the school which her two children attended in Padua refused to remove the crosses from classroom walls. Mrs Lautsi Albertin saw the presence of the crosses as contrary to the declared secularism of the State.
The ECHR yesterday ruled that displaying crucifixes in schools “violates the right of parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs” and “violates students’ religious freedom”, adding that their presence could upset non-Catholic and atheist students. The Court ordered Italy to pay 5,000 euros in damages to Mrs Lautsi Albertin but did not order the State to remove the crosses.
In a country where it is normal to display crucifixes in public and private buildings alike, this ruling is not going down well: The Italian government sees the crucifix as a symbol of the country’s traditions, history, culture and pluralism but the Court took particular issue with this last, saying that its judges could not understand how a religious symbol could be a symbol of pluralism.
The Vatican reacted cautiously at first but later expressed shock and regret at the “short-sighted” ruling. Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini stated that the Italian government will appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
This means that a group of judges from the Chamber will decide whether to hear the appeal. If the appeal is not heard, the ruling will come into force in three months’ time and the ECHR’s Committee of Ministers will have to decide, within six months, what action Italy must take to avoid further human rights violations in this regard. If upheld the ruling could impact upon other Council of Europe states.
Do you think the Court’s ruling is justified?
