Crucifixion of the Highest (Legal) Order

This evening, I read with great shock the news that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled against Italy in a case regarding the placement of crucifixes in school classrooms. Without going into the merits of the case and how the final judgement was reached, I found this to be a particularly shocking conclusion from the Court, especially considering that Italy is predominantly a Catholic country with Christian values. Furthermore, it also sets a precedent for other countries that subscribe to the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, i.e. any citizen who should appeal against the presence of the crucifix in a class or, indeed, in a public place, will have such a prior judgement to fall back upon and strengthen his or her argument. However, in what position does this leave us as European citizens?

Almost undoubtedly, the notion of having secular member states of the European Union is the first thing that comes to mind. It is clear that religion no longer has a strong foothold in society as it did in the past; this can be seen through the liberal way how people think and people act in this day and age. Half a century ago, for instance, it would potentially be considered a grave sin to have sex before marriage, while nowadays it's pretty much the opposite - it is a grave sin if you don't have sex before marriage. People have moved with the times and do not want to be 'controlled by the Church', to use the commonly coined phrase. And fair enough - after all, everyone is entitled to live their lives in the way that they wish. However, this judgement seems to imply that not even young students may allow Christianity to form part of their morals and culture now, because otherwise we might offend minority groups in society that don't really give two hoots about the religion that the majority follow. Hence, the judgement automatically implies that although religion, and the crucifix in particular, currently forms an intrinsic part of Italian morals and culture, such a part of the Italian way of life must be eliminated with immediate effect.

The second point that therefore comes to mind is the respect for minority rights. Undoubtedly, society cannot afford to exclude minority groups as that would infringe the basic principles of democracy and, indeed, a basic fundamental Human Right. However, is it fair to say that on the basis of this judgement, the minority is essentially ruling against the majority? After all, in such a case, aren't Muslims the ones who are supposed to integrate into Italian culture, and not make it entirely their own? What in the world happened to the well-known idiom "When in Rome, do what the Romans do"? In defence, it is evident that some Muslims do not really care about the presence of the crucifix in a classroom; it does not perturb them. To quote from the aforementioned article that broke the news about this judgement, "If the crucifix is there and I am a Muslim I will continue to respect my religion. Jesus in the classroom doesn't bother me." This was stated by an Egyptian 14-year-old. Shouldn't that be the approach of the minority groups that the Muslims form within countries such as Italy?

Over and above that, it seems as if the ECHR has admitted, hands up and all, that we live in a Europe so diverse now that all forms of culture must be accepted and not discriminated against at whatever cost. Fair enough, but isn't that contradictory in itself; in the sense that if all forms of culture must be accepted, then the Court is automatically eliminating a form of culture, at least in Italian eyes, by removing the crucifix from classrooms? Although technically the wrong approach to this argument, I would not have been shocked had this judgement been against France, for instance, where it is known that a large amount of the population are practicing Muslims. However, for the judgement to emanate against a member state where 85% of its citizens are practicing Roman Catholics (and hence, Christians) is just absurd. Such a judgement also threatens countries with an even higher percentage of practicing Christians - remember, Malta is hovering around the 96% mark. What will happen if a Muslim citizen living in Malta issues such a complaint against the ECHR? Surely, as mentioned before, the notion of precedent would set in and Malta would have to follow in Italy's suit...

One of the comforting aspects of the judgement, however, is that it has put Italy's politicians on red alert and caused a major outrage throughout the country. Indeed, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has labelled the judgement as "mortal blow to a Europe of values and rights." Italy has already confirmed that it will seek to appeal the judgement via the European Court of Justice (ECJ); whether the ECJ appeal will be successful or not though is another story altogether. On the other hand, however, there is another (potentially final) worrying aspect to the entire judgement - the reaction of the Maltese people. On timesofmalta.com, comments have already started to emerge in praise of the judgement. One such author wrote that "Religion is a private matter and that's how it should be. It has no place in our classrooms", while another argued that it is a "Good decision when considering schools need to encourage high IQ attitudes." Such comments, unfortunately, only reflect the ignorant nature of certain people and, indeed, can only be condemned.

And while it is evident from this post that I am completely against this judgement and the notion on which it was decided; and in particular the country which it was decided against, we can only wait for the ECJ judgement in this regard... and see. Having said that, however, there could really be worrying times ahead in this regard, especially if the ECHR's judgement is confirmed.

God Bless You all!
Matti

N.B. Fortunately, since the time of writing, more comments have appeared on the Times' website, most of which seem to be against the judgement. Definitely a positive step.