
Thursday, 5th November 2009
European Court's crucifix ruling
A new form of censorship - Archbishop
Archbishop Paul Cremona yesterday denounced the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms as a "new form of censorship".
The Nationalist Party and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat also disagreed with the court decision.
But experts in European law warned against judging the decision rashly and said the reasons and consequences behind it needed to be studied properly before commenting in detail.
Lawyers Ian Refalo and Peter Xuereb said the court's decision naturally had certain implications on Malta too because the island was a signed member of the European Convention of Human Rights. But the extent of this still had to be analysed.They stressed that Italy was appealing the court's decision, so the ban would only come into force if the final decision was confirmed by the appeals court.
Prof. Refalo said that if someone were to make a similar case against Malta it would be likely that the same decision would be made since a precedent had now been set.
But he was unable to say whether he agreed or not with the decision because he first had to study the judgment in detail.
"From what I've read, I can see the reasoning behind it and it's clear that a lot of thought has been put into it. It's not a decision that can easily be arrived at."
Prof. Xuereb felt the decision showed a movement towards a "particular brand of secularism", which will come as a shock to countries like Italy and Malta, although it was the one chosen in a country like France.
"At first glance, this is a rather bold position to take and it is bound to cause some difficulties in its application," Prof. Xuereb added, without saying whether he agreed or not with the decision.
In fact, people who expressed their views on timesofmalta.com feel this case paves the way for similar but more extreme decisions to be taken Europe-wide.
Speaking on PBS programme Bonġu, Mgr Cremona said everyone should enjoy the right to show their faith through images. "What freedom is it to ban everything?" Mgr Cremona asked.
He said the issue was not one between religions but the consequence of a European ideology that wanted to remove all expression of religion, whatever that religion was.
The controversial case was raised by a Finnish-born woman who wanted to raise her two children as non-Catholics in an Italian school. After taking her case to the Strasbourg court she won €5,000 damages as the court argued that the crucifixes violated religious and educational freedoms.
Mgr Cremona said the Church had long declared that all faiths should be free to express themselves. He never felt irritated when he saw women wearing the Burka. What was offensive was that some people wanted to ban all expressions of faith and, in this case, also an expression of a nation's culture. "What if one did not like għana (folk singing)?" he asked.
The majority should have a right to express their beliefs and the minority too should not be denied their rights. Mgr Cremona said that, should such a ban ever be imposed on Malta and he needed to go to hospital, he would be the first one to take a crucifix with him.
The PN said the court should never have got itself involved on this issue and should have left it up to individual states. The PN said it would continue to defend Christian values, even in the way they were displayed in public spaces as expressed in the crucifix.
In Parliament last night, Dr Muscat said that believing in a secular society did not mean doing away with religion. Meanwhile, Italian politicians are also fuming.
"This is an abhorrent ruling," said Rocco Buttiglione, a former Culture Minister who helped write papal encyclicals. "It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.
The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians. Italy has been in the throes of national debate on how to deal with a growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims, and the court sentence is likely to become another battle cry for the centre-right government's policy to restrict newcomers.







RSS
Comments
Alex, neither IQ nor "learning abilities" have anything to do with "thinking". Two persons may both have a very high IQ measure because both have learning skills, but then we find that they think in totally different ways.
I am like you. Throughout my primary education at a public school on Malta I was surrounded by religious symbols. That's how you and I ended up thinking in the same way. As children, we should have been allowed to develop in a neutral environment and allowed to make choices on how we think as our knowledge -- thanks to our learning abilities -- kept increasing. As it is, unfortunately, we have been homogenized to please the will of the State. It is, in my view, a form of national insecurity, which is totally unnecessary. What is worse is that it puts an unwarranted stress on the developing child at school.
Parents on Malta now have the opportunity not to allow this form of imposition on their child by the State.
In the last paragraph, the above letter says:
"The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians". end quote.
I believe that what is truly disturbing for children is abortion and NOT the Crucifix on school
walls. Therefore, if the european court of human rights truthfully does not want children to
be disturbed, it must rule to abolish abortion.
I, as a Roman Catholic am disturbed, offended and disgusted by the mass murder of
innocent children by abortion, therefore the European Court of Human Rights must rule
against this violation of human rights.
Ladies and gentlemen, please wave goodbye to our culture and traditions, and say hello to the Secular Progressive movement. What a FANTASTIC sight.
Why can't Joseph Muscat show honesty on this issue? This issue is not about "doing away with religion" as he is claiming. This issue is about doing away with a symbol which does not belong in the classroom. It does not belong in the classroom because it does not contribute in any way whatsoever to learning and education. It's sole intent is to bias the vulnerable child on how to think, and clearly this violates a basic human right of the child.
Some time ago they were filming where my brother works and my brother noticed that they removed the cross from his desk. You can imagine how angry he became and made it clear that he was deeply offended. He even risked being sacked from his job.
Welcome to Globalization
I believe that legally, atheism should be declared as another form of religion and treated as any other religion. This case proves the intolerance of atheists towards other peoples' beliefs, which in my opinion goes against the rules of modern society. Intolerance should be the only thing that must not be tolerated, otherwise we will be back to another form of apartheid.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/captive+audience
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=103006&dict=CALD
Tears.