CROSS THAT scary
"Without crucified
Italy would not be the same"
After nearly three hours, ended the hearing of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the crucifix. The judges have retired to deliberate, but the decision will be communicated only between different months. The one this morning was a lively debate that saw the presence of the magistrate Nicholas Lettieri who, on behalf of the Italian government had appealed the sentence after the Nov. 3 draft, when the European Court had declared the "receiving" the use of Solie Lautsi who asked to remove the crucifix by the institution attended by the children. The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights Italy condemned to pay five thousand euro to Lautsi for moral damage.
The appeal of Italy was supported by ten other governments. "Italy without the crucifix is no longer Italy, like France with the crucifix would no longer be France," said Joseph Weiler, who represented eight of the ten governments in the Strasbourg Court has made it possible to intervene in defense of Italian government's position in the case of the crucifix.
"I do not think that all those who sing God save the queen believe in God, but I think it would be silly if we said that this sentence should be changed or removed because it offends someone," Weiler argued. Weiler's argument is very similar to that contained in memory of the Italian government: if you lever the crucifix, then he must intervene in many other circumstances in order to remove crosses from the flags, national anthems by the words, photographs of heads of state from the classrooms. "Maybe one day Britain may decide to change or remove this phrase Weiler said-but this is not a decision that can be taken by the Court."
The ten European countries who support Italy in the defense of the crucifixes in the classrooms of public schools (including Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Russia, San Marino) argue that it is "a national symbol ' as well as religious. "The crucifix - added Weiler - is respected by lay population. "
Weiler, wearing a Jewish skullcap, he wondered whether it is possible to pick up an image of the Queen of England by the British classrooms, it is the head of the Anglican Church. And his answer was "no," and added that the Strasbourg court can not say one day if I remove the word "God" from the innate English, because it will be "the people to decide." Then he pointed out that Soile Lautsi "wants to impose on Italy to be a secular state." In this sense, the two representatives of the Italian government claimed that Lautsi is a "militant atheist" that "the school tries to impose his personal concept of secularism."
Nicola and Giuseppe Lettieri Albenzio were opposed to the suppression of religious symbols, as this would benefit "in favor of atheists and agnostics and rationalists." But religion, they said the two lawyers of the state, has "a social, public and community." After recalling that in Italy you can go to school with headscarves, and that the curriculum is "pluralistic and alien from proselytizing and indoctrination," Lettieri has agreed with the Weiler noted that the crucifix represents "a popular sentiment Italian "and added that the case Lautsi is" not legal but political and ideological. "
Even the Catholic Church and Orthodox Serbia have expressed their support for Italy, which challenges the ban on display crucifixes in public schools. "We respect the views and thoughts of every citizen of a multiethnic and multicultural, but we think the same way, Christians have a right to their opinions and the open expression of their religious affiliation," says a statement by the Catholic Church Serbian. In it adds that the cross is the sign of a cultural-religious tradition, which has played a decisive role in the formation of European culture. "The majority of Europe's population is made up of Christians, and to prohibit the display of symbols of Christian faith would offend the feelings of the majority", the statement adds.
The Serbian Orthodox Church has expressed its support Italy in its application to the European Court in Strasbourg on the issue of the crucifix. "We hope that this initiative are positive answer within the European Court of Human Rights', the Orthodox Synod has said in a statement.
"I think we have all the necessary requirements for a successful outcome," said the foreign minister, Franco Frattini, commenting on the hearing of the Grande Chambre of the Court of Human Rights. "Today's hearing showed an extraordinary intervention by the Italian representative - said Frattini - and action as important representatives of ten countries, a number of MEPs that are associated with our action. " This, concluded the head of Italian diplomacy, "a great battle for freedom and identity of our Christian values."
Crucifix, Europe may be to test
lawyer Nicholas Paoletti in support of the appeal of the Italian town of origin Finn, Soile Lautsi, the first intervention trial in the Grande Chambre of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to review its decision of November 3 against the display of the crucifix in classrooms. The risame is imposed after an appeal from Italy on January 28 last year.
Then Nicola Lettieri in defense of our government. And in support of written submissions from ten members of the Council of Europe (American jurist Joseph Weiler's intervention, an observant jew, known for his writings in favor of the inclusion of "Judeo-Christian roots" in the European constitution. Then in support a document of thirty-three members of the European Parliament, including Carlo Casini, president of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of "Room" of the EU, we will issue an office of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an organization of Christian legal U.S. with subsidiaries in other countries very active in the battles for human rights, religious freedom and the defense of life.
The other parties, nongovernmental organizations that intervened in the debate with the submission of documents such as the ACLI and the European Centre for Law and Justice Zentralkomitee des deutschen Katholiken, Semaines sociales de France and Italian Christian Workers Association, in support of numerous Italian position, and some like the National Association of free thought in accord with the theses of Lautsi.
During these harangues the judges of the Grand Chambre could ask for clarification to the various speakers. In conclusion, there will be ten minutes of Lautsi replica of the lawyer and the agent of the Italian government.
However, the hearing will not end with a verdict. The Court has already announced that it will take between six to twelve months before a decision is made public. In a recent German case has been more than 14 months between the hearing in the Great Room and the publication of the final sentence. As we know the Court is a body which is part of the Council of Europe (CoE) to which 47 countries participate, and is based on the Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome in 1950. The Coe should not be confused with the European Union, whose members are 27. In fact, and strongly recommended to the court after the collapse of communism in 1990 have joined many Eastern countries, including Russia. And it is the memory for the position of the Italian Federation Russia, a country predominantly predominantly Orthodox religion, with the contribution of American lawyers Protestant, Jew and what Weiler to deny one of the theses of the Judgement of November 3, that the crucifix is a symbol that they relate only to the Catholics.
In particular, the ADF is a foundation created in 1994 in Phoenix nell'Arizona by a group of religious leaders from various professions, religious Jews as well as Catholics and Protestants. The aim of the initiative is to coordinate and provide funds to lawyers who are willing to deal with cases involving religious freedom, defending life and defending marriage as designed by the Italian Constitution. Pier Luigi
Fornari
Battle of civilization
Ten countries with Italy "That symbol is untouchable"
representation is very substantial and diversified presence in the parade today that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in defense of the crucifix. In addition to the two parties directly involved - Soile Lautsi and the Italian government - there is also a large group of third parties involved in the trial to the Grand Chambre, and in this respect the plate weighs strongly in favor of Italy.
There are ten countries that have submitted statements in defense of the crucifix. And then there are 33 MPs who have submitted a document prepared by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization of lawyers born in the U.S., very active all over the world in defense of human rights, life and family. Intervened with a document even their Catholic non-governmental organizations, the ACLI, the Social Weeks of France, the Central Committee of German Catholics. In support of the Italian position has also filed a statement of the European Centre for Law and Justice. In support of
Lautsi, however, is the national association of free thought. To defend eight of the ten countries that have been created in favor of the position will be the Italian jurist Joseph Weiler, an observant jew who has already fought for the recognition of the Judeo Christian roots of Europe. According to the Russian Federation, the ruling has restricted the discretion of the Member States in matters of freedom of religion to a narrow formula, not taking into account the historical and cultural differences of European countries, the legitimate diversity of approaches and "unpredictable consequences to which the decision may lead. " The memory
Russian claims that exposing the crucifixes in the classrooms had to respond to the Court, namely Italy, in the fulfillment of his duties with respect to education and teaching, has not failed to ensure that education and learning is conducted in an objective, critical and pluralistic, also respecting the religious and philosophical convictions of parents in accordance with the Convention as amended in the various protocols. Even the Bulgarians remember the Court reaffirmed the subsidiarity by the Council of Europe in 1995, was also a great inconsistency between the decision of the previous reviews, and November 3 in Strasbourg on the articles of the Convention cited.
similar to the fundamental principle underlying the reasoning employed by Lithuania, which makes it clear how the religious symbol can not be interpreted in a \u0026lt;+ italic> vacuum \u0026lt;+ round>, and the guarantees of the Convention should not be understood without taking account the specificities of the Member, particularly in a sphere where there is no consensus in Europe. Romania does not see the recommendation to remove the crucifix could serve to reconcile the religions of the people, actually removing the opportunity of being heard. The Principality of Monaco, pointing out that religious symbols appear on the flags of many countries, notes that are not in themselves a threat to the freedoms of the Convention. Armenia is also convinced that the display of the crucifix does not deprive parents of their right to educate their children in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions. San Marino spoke in defense of Italy because worried despite the rulings affect only the case, the Court has repeatedly called on states to amend legislation to prevent similar cases.
For Malta the elimination of a symbol of national identity from the public, because that also has a religious significance for the majority of that community, it seems incongruous and disproportionate. The greek government identifies contradictions in the ruling with the previous case, noting that if democracy can not always be reduced to the constant dominance of mainstream, all the more reason not to reserve the majority of unfair treatment. Cyprus Finally, recalling that the Court has no jurisdiction on the organization and scheduling of schools, refers to the degree of discretion should be reserved for individual states. Pierluigi
Fornari
ANALYSIS
Culture and history only compass States
On 28 January, was presented by Italy to an appeal ruling on November 3. The document, inter alia, stressed that "require a State to remove the religious symbol that already exists and which is not justified by the traditions of the country (not that this symbol of faith for membership requirements), implies a negative value against what is this symbol and violates religious freedom. " In addition, the use of the government asks "whether the mere presence of" inert ", as the Crucified Lord, not disturb the conscience of the believer, or whether, instead, do not use this anxiety to show a true intolerance of the religious dimension. "
Moreover, the appeal argues, "the absolute neutrality of the State in religious matters is a chimera." Indeed, any legislation "may be a way, a position that may offend the sensibilities of a number of people, as is inevitable and recognized by the Court. Thus, in this case, people of faith would be offended for not being able to see their religious symbol on the wall. " In this regard, the appeal cites the jew lawyer Joseph Weiler, who noted that "the waiver by of a State to all forms of religious symbolism is not a more neutral stance than that of those who adhere to a particular form of religious symbolism. " In the context of historical reality and the Italian culture, remove the crucifix from the walls of the schools has nothing to do with the behavior of a truly secular state, but, again citing Weiler, "simply means that focus in the symbolism of the state, a world view over another, passing through all the neutrality. " The application mentions
Finally, the principle of subsidiarity: "Furthermore, as acknowledged by the Court, the national authorities have considerable discretion in matter so complex and delicate, closely linked to culture and history. " Since "the confessional neutrality is opposed to the state that openly promotes a particular religion, but also to the state based on a militant secularism that promotes atheism agnosticism, it follows that the jurisdiction of the state to answer questions on transcendence can not also lead to the promotion of atheism or agnosticism with the removal of religious symbols from public life. "
memory of Italy submitted March 30 the Court reiterates that the error is this: "opt for neutrality, and realized, in fact, only one position advantage in favor of an attitude-religious or anti-religious, and the proof is that in this case, the applicant, who is a partner of Uaar (Union of ates and agnostics, rationalists) acts as a militant atheist. Its purpose is simply to get on the pretext of the secular state, that his ideology-religious or even anti-religious prevails: in this case the religion professed by the majority of the population, and, as we shall see, against the will of the overwhelming majority of other parents. The reference to the secular state made by the applicant (which secularism has no basis in the Convention) is not a plea to impose a ideology-religious or anti-religious to any religion and to delete the tradition of the host country. "
According to the memory, the Court also relies on "a strictly individualistic conception of religion," which does not fit to Italy and other European countries. The document cites research done by Professor Carlo Cardia, which argues that the concept of neutrality in Italy is very different from the French secularism, it is more kind to any kind of religion, yet also consistent with the Convention. On the basis of the pronouncements in the past then it is noted that under the principle of subsidiarity, "the Court recognized that the authorities national are in a better position than before the European courts to assess the local situation and the implementation of the Convention to these specific situations. To that end, the Court gives Member States a "margin of national discretion, which is closely related to the degree of" consensus "between the European countries".
noteworthy as finally decided in January 2006, the sixth section of the State Council put an end to the affair in Italy. The exposure of the crucified also for non-believers "is capable of expressing, in a symbolic but just as appropriate, the source of the religious values of tolerance, mutual respect, enhancement of the person, the affirmation of his rights, concerning his freedom, autonomy of the moral conscience of authority, of human solidarity, rejection of discrimination, which characterize the Italian civilization. "
Pier Luigi Fornari
Crucifix: THE STAGES
July 23, 2002 Solie Lautsi holding the Tar Veneto the decision of the board of the institution attended by the children to keep crucifixes in classrooms. The Tar Look to the problem.
December 2004 The Look declared inadmissible because the question related regulatory standards. The Tar
March 2005 rejected the appeal.
February 13, 2006 The Council of State confirms the sentence Tar crucified in identifying a secular constitutional value. July 2006 Lautsi recourse to the Strasbourg Court.
November 3, 2009, the Court declared admissible the application and order Italy to pay five thousand euro to Lautsi for moral damage.
January 28, 2010 Proceedings of the Italian government which asks that the matter be referred back to the Grande Chambre
March 2, 2010 A panel of the Court states "receiving" the use of Italian
April 30, 2010 Italy has a memory to further
about June 30, 2010 The use of Italian is discussed before the Grand Chambre. Ten members of the Council of Europe have submitted statements in support of Italy.
BE
0 comments:
Post a Comment