The voice of the two sides

A solemn and composed atmosphere, the panel of judges aligned behind a long hemispherical desk; facing them the lawyers of the two sides in the dispute and a restricted number of seats in the courtroom for the public and for journalists. So a new stage of the legal battle on the display of the crucifix in Italian public schools was opened at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 30 June. It is an issue that, due to its legal, but also political and cultural implications, has aroused keen interest in various countries of the Council of Europe (47 member states), on which the Court depends, in international institutions and in religious communities. Guarantees of the non-confessional nature of the state and of pluralism. The Court, presided over by the French jurist Jean-Paul Costa, first gave the floor to the lawyers of the appellant, Soile Lautsi, an Italian citizen of Finnish origin, who in 2002 had asked for the removal of the crucifix from the classroom used by her children in a public school at Abano Terme. Having exhausted the possibilities of getting satisfaction in her suit from the Italian system of justice, the family appealed to the Court in Strasbourg in 2006: this led to a sentence favourable to the Lautsi family being issued by a chamber of the Court (3 November 2009), an appeal against the sentence by the Italian government (28 January 2010), a ruling of its admissibility, and the final examination by the highest court in Strasbourg, which, after the present audience and the study of the written depositions of some “third parties”, is expected to give its ruling within six to twelve months. “Is the presence of the crucifix in Italian public schools legitimate? Is the Italian State non-confessional or not?”, asked Nicolò Paoletti, defence counsel of the appellant, setting forth the position of the Lautsi family, according to whom the presence of the crucifix in school classrooms would limit the education of children. In his intervention Paoletti observed: “Even the Italian Constitutional Court has removed the crucifix from the courtroom in which it meets”. Natalia Paoletti, she too speaking on behalf of the appellant, further pointed out: “We don’t take a position against religious symbols or in favour of atheism. We ask only for guarantees of the non-confessional nature of the state and of pluralism in the field of education”.“There are no violations of rights”. Nicola Lettieri, legal counsel acting for the Italian government, then addressed the court: “This is not an essentially juridical case. This is a political and ideological case”. Lettieri then presented the recourse of the Italian State against the sentence of 3 November. “In this case – he said – the defence of freedom of religion by repudiating religious freedom itself is scandalous”. And he added: “If the Italian State were to remove religious symbols, it would itself become a partisan of one side and not the defender of tolerance and pluralism”. “School lessons in Italy are interrupted during the Christmas and Easter holidays: should this too – he asked – be considered a problem?”. Lettieri focused his legal argument especially on the fact that “no violation of human rights has been ascertained in this specific case. The children of the appellant have suffered no imposition” in terms of any religion being forced on them against their will, “still less any form of indoctrination”. “In this particular instance it seems, instead, there is a wish to impose extraneousness to religion in the national life of all European states”. “The crucifix – he added – is a passive and mute symbol and has no influence of the education that students receive at school. It is present in public schools not to convert anybody, but as a feature of Italian culture and tradition”.A symbol of national identity. Lastly, the court heard the deposition of an expert witness, Joseph Weiler, Professor of Law at the University of New York, who supported the view taken by some Council of Europe member states (Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Russia and San Marino) in support of the position of the Italian Government. Weiler affirmed: “The States I represent agree on the fact that the Convention on Human Rights ought to protect freedom of religion and freedom from religion”, in other words the free choice not to have any religious faith. “I am also convinced that education in public schools should tend to tolerance and pluralism”. But what was expressed in the sentence of the Chamber “was a form of secularism or neutrality which they cannot share. No distinction, that is, was drawn between private rights and public identity”. Weiler continued: “The symbols of a State are important for democracy. Many of these symbols are a legacy of the history of Europe and frequently they consist of the cross”. Weiler then cited various European cases, including Great Britain, in which the cross appears in the national flag. In the Constitutions of Ireland and Germany, on the other hand, express reference is made to God: “Ought we to prohibit children from reading the Constitution at school?”, asked Weiler, who appeared before the 17 judges of the Court wearing the kippah, traditional Jewish headgear. “The cross – he concluded – is undoubtedly a religious symbol and sometimes it’s a national symbol, even in those countries in which the majority of people no longer have any religious life. We cannot ask a country to abandon its history and its identity”.