Will Europe set an example?

Fresh light was shed on the question of the display of the crucifix in Italian public schools during the audience held at the Grande Chambre of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 30 June. The protagonists of the heated debate were the lawyers defending either side in the dispute: on the one side, Soile Lautsi and her family, who are asking for the removal of the Christian symbol since it is, they argue, “contrary to freedom of education and of religion”; and on the other, the Italian Government, supported by ten or so other countries, which defends the legitimacy of the display of a symbol that forms an “integral part of national culture and identity”. The written memoranda presented by some “third parties” (a group of MEPs, some associations and international organizations) were also added to the documents relating to the case. Now the panel of 17 judges of the highest Court in Strasbourg – which bases its jurisprudence on the Convention for the Defence of Human Rights signed by the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe, including Italy – will examine the whole “dossier”, with its wider European implications, before reaching its final verdict, which might not be announced for several months; a delay of between six and twelve months is anticipated.The debate that took place in the courthouse at Strasbourg did not reserve any “coups de théâtre”: the arguments proposed on the secular nature of the State, on the need for pluralism in education, of the necessary tolerance to ensure the peaceful co-existence of the various religious and philosophic expressions that “cohabit” in Europe, were fairly familiar. But the having made certain expressions and convictions heard in that august judicial seat assumed a quite particular solemnity. The Court deals, in the main, with flagrant cases of violations of human rights, explicit or covert forms of mortification of human dignity or fundamental civil liberties, questions relating to the rights of women and children, or the protection of minorities… But in the case in question, argued Nicola Lettieri on behalf of the Italian Government, “no violation of human rights has been ascertained”, because “the children of the appellant have suffered no imposition” of religious faith, “still less have they been subjected to any form of indoctrination”. In his view, “it seems, instead, there’s a wish to impose the extraneousness of religion” in national life “on all European countries”. One problem remains to be clarified, and on this the judges of the Court interrogated Lettieri himself. The presence of the crucifix in Italian schoolrooms is owing to some administrative provisions dating to the Fascist period: the Grande Chambre is therefore asking the government in Rome whether this made it “obligatory” or not to display the Christian symbol in all school classrooms. On this point the Court could bring pressure to bear on Italy.The analysis of the lawyer Nicolò Paoletti, on behalf of the appellant, insisted for its part on one particular point: the need to judge the specific case – the presence, that is, of the cross in the classrooms of public schools -, without extending the question to the presence of the symbol in the wider public sphere, i.e. “in streets, squares, or on the flags of European nations”. This effort to restrict the case is perhaps aimed at minimizing the issue so as to obtain the indulgent consideration of the Court itself. Lastly, the observations made by Joseph Weiler, the well-known American jurist, made an interesting contribution to the court proceedings. Weiler intervened to support the memorandum presented by a group of member states of the Council of Europe. In his address, he asserted in substance that Europe has a long tradition of pluralism and tolerance, in which religion, indeed, religions, form an inseparable part of the culture and identity of the various states, without this in any way undermining the shared non-confessional, or secular, nature of the political institutions. Weiler stressed that “each country interprets in its own way the relation between the political and the religious sphere” and “hitherto these differences have been respected”. Weiler exemplified the point: “A France with a crucifix on the walls of school classrooms would no longer be France. In the same way Italy, without the crucifix in schools, would no longer be Italy”. The US Professor of Law underlined the point: “We need to avoid americanizing Europe” and explained: “In the USA a rule applies to all States of the Union” and “there’s a rigid separation” between political institutions and religious faiths, relegated to the private sphere. “Europe – he concluded – must set an example” of laicity and tolerance; it must “respect freedom of religion and hence also the freedom of some States to make reference, in public spaces”, to a prevalent religious sentiment or one that belongs to their own culture and identity.