Malta supports Italy in 'Crucifix case' - Malta Independent Online

Francesca Vella - Independent.com.mt

Malta is one of 10 Catholic and Orthodox countries supporting the famous ‘Crucifix case’, which will go before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 30 June.

The ‘Crucifix case’, also known as the Lautsi case, stems from an appeal that a Finnish woman, Soile Tuulikki Lautsi, filed in the ECHR.

In its decision last November the ECHR ruled that the presence of crucifixes in Italian state schools is “contrary to parents’ right to educate their children in line with their convictions and to children’s right to freedom of religion” because the Italian pupils would feel “educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion”.

The Italian government filed an appeal to the controversial decision and for the first time in the record of the ECHR, 10 member states are simultaneously intervening as “third party” in a single case.

The countries supporting Italy’s case are: Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Romania and the Russian Federation.

In a statement, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – an international law firm focusing on the protection of human rights and religious freedom in Europe and worldwide – said this particular alliance of member states is also of tremendous importance since it is an unprecedented alliance between Catholic and Orthodox countries in the face of the liberal and secularist ideology.

Those countries are uniting their forces to protect their religious heritage and freedom, and to reaffirm that the Christian symbols have a natural right to be displayed in public within Christian countries.

The Orthodox countries do not want to be forced to adopt everything from Western modern culture. They also refuse to return, in the name of human rights, to the extreme secularism of the former communist era.

The 10 countries, out of the 47 of the Council of Europe, have formally asked the ECHR to be admitted as “third party” into the procedure before the Grand Chamber of the Court.

The “third party” status, also known as “Amicus Curiae”, permits the states to become an official party to a case and to submit to the Court their written and oral observations.

They are all intervening in support of Italy, which is seeking to overturn last November’s decision. No state, nor any Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), has intervened in support of the court ruling banning the crucifix.

In addition to the 10 member states, several other states took positions against last November’s decision, even publicly, such as Austria and Poland, which both made political statements. 12 NGOs, including the ECLJ, have also been admitted as “third party”. ECLJ director Gregor Puppinck said: “This is culturally and religiously very important. The Lautsi case is unique and unprecedented.”

By intervening, the countries are explaining that the ECHR has superseded itself in the creation of rights.

The states explained that nowhere does the European Convention on Human Rights say that there are any duties to secularise education in Europe.

In fact, the convention says nothing on the nature of the relationship between the State and the church. A large proportion of the member states were confessional when they drafted and signed the convention, and they still are.

According to the “traditional” case law of the ECHR, each state is free to organise its relationships with the religions of its county and even to grant privileges to the religion of the majority of its population. No obligation to secularise public schools, even implicit, can be found in the convention.

Until now, rules regarding religious freedom have mainly been elaborated from the ‘western liberal thought’ and this is the model that lead to the November decision.

It is now being challenged. The ECLJ contends that it is imperative to develop rules that can acknowledge European cultural and religious diversity.

Those rules may not only grant respect to the rights of non-believers and religious minorities, as they do today, but shall also be able to recognise the rights of the majority religion and to respect the cultural sovereignty of the member states.

In its amicus brief submitted on Tuesday, the ECLJ made the argument that the religious freedom of the applicant’s children have not been violated by the simple presence of the crucifix in the classroom.

In addition the ECLJ’s amicus brief demonstrates that the crucifix cannot be interpreted as indoctrination. It also demonstrates that the court could not create ex nihilo a duty of secularisation of the educational system.