LAUTSI v ITALY - A VITAL CASE
A highly significant case for secularism in Europe was decided by the European Court of Human Rights in November 2009. The case is still subject to appeal by Italy to the Grand Chamber of the Court, and huge protests are being orchestrated in an attempt to secure a reversal of the judgement. The EHF asked for the right to make a submission in the case - our covering letter and the submission may be seen here - but we were refused. Some other third parties were allowed to intervene - see the Court's letter listing those accepted and those refused. The MEPs intervening on Italy's side are listed below.
The Grand Chamber heard submissions on 30 June 2010Â but a judgement is not expected for several months.The caseÂ
In Lautsi v. Italy, a parent (Mrs Soile Lautsi) successfully claimed that Italy’s administrative law requiring display of the crucifix in every State school classroom violated the right of parents to "to ensure [their children’s education] in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" (Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, which the Court read in conjunction with Article 9).
Mrs Soile Lautsi argued that the presence of crucifixes in the rooms used as polling stations for voting in political elections had already been found to violate the principle of a secular state, that their display in classrooms was a "breach of the principle of secularism" and a "violation of the principle of impartiality of public administration".
Italy argued that "the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civilian life". "The democratic values of today are rooted in . . . the Gospel message. The message of the cross would be a humanist message, which could be read independently of its religious dimension, consisting of a set of principles and values that form the basis of our democracies." Therefore "the display of the cross does not undermine the secular state", and since "there is no European consensus on how in practice to interpret the concept of secularism . . . states should have a wider discretion in the matter".
The Court’s judgement is in French but we have made our own English translation.It makes clear that this ruling against Italy is in conformity with Italy’s own constitution, which has been secular since 1985 when "the confessional character of the state had been explicitly abandoned". For details see here.
The judgement makes a number of points of huge general significance:
Respect for parents' convictions should be possible through an education capable of providing a school environment that is open and inclusive rather than exclusive, regardless of students' backgrounds, religious beliefs or ethnicity. The school should not be the scene of proselytizing or preaching, it should be a meeting place of different religions and philosophical convictions, where students can acquire an understanding of their respective thoughts and traditions. . .
[T]he State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in education and training, should ensure that the information or knowledge included in syllabuses is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. It is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting the religious and philosophical convictions of parents. That is the boundary that must not be crossed. . .
The duty of neutrality and impartiality of the state is incompatible with any judgement on its part of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or ways of expressing them. In the context of education, neutrality should ensure pluralism. . .
The schooling of children is a particularly sensitive because in this case, the binding power of the state is imposed on minds that still lack (depending on the level of maturity of the child) the critical capacity to allow them to distance themselves from the message implied by a preferential choice expressed by the State in religious matters. . .
The display of . . . religious symbols cannot be justified either by the request of other parents who want religious education consistent with their beliefs, nor . . . by . . . a necessary compromise with political parties of Christian inspiration. Respect for beliefs of parents in education must take into account compliance with the beliefs of other parents. The state is obliged to religious neutrality in public education where attendance is required irrespective of religion and must seek to instill in students critical thinking.
The reaction
The judgement was met with hysteria and vituperation in Italy and elsewhere. For example, the Italian minister of defence ranted non-stop on television for four minutes. This led Soile Lautsi and her husband Massimo Albertin to issue this statement.
In the European Parliament a group of Italian MEPs proposed a Declaration deploring the judgement, which was countered by an alternative Declaration proposed by Sophie in’t Veld MEP that welcomed it.
Party groups have also tabled draft resolutions. Among these, extraordinarily and worryingly, the Socialist Group joined the right-wing parties in condemning the judgement. They tabled an appalling draft resolution that put subsidiarity above human rights and supported "the freedom of Member States to exhibit any religious symbol in public".　
The EHF sent an email of strong protest to all the officers of the Group. We urged them to support instead an alternative resolution from the Greens ("Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance ") and the GUE/NGL ("Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left"). Other draft resolutions also were hostile to the judgement (see item 30 on link).In part our email said:
There has been much talk of subsidiarity, not least in your resolution. 　But subsidiarity has no place when human rights are at stake! 　Otherwise we should have states claiming that (for example) limiting the human rights of Roma or other categories of citizen is a matter of subsidiarity!　How is it a matter of subsidiarity that Italy can deny Mrs Lautsi her human rights?
There has been much talk also of clashes of rights – again, your resolution mentions this.　Presumably you have an idea of the rights of the Italian majority?　But majorities have no right to remove the human rights of even one individual contrary to the law and the Convention.　 Otherwise we shall have majorities demanding that those accused of terrorism be subject to summary justice, from which it is a quick descent into mob rule.
Your resolution ventures dangerously near suggesting that groups have human rights.　Not so!　 Group rights are an automatic denial of the human rights of individuals within the groups – especially those who think for themselves and those in generally oppressed groups, such as women.　 Giving rights to religious groups is a most dangerous step – it is (for example) the demand of the Islamist states at the UN who wish to suppress free thought and criticism of religion.
No reply was received from any of the Group officers, but in the event all the resolutions were withdrawn.
Italian secularist support for the judgement: On 2 February an impressive list of well over 100 Italian organisations sent a joint open letter to the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council and the Court of Human Rights supporting the Court's finding and deploring the "vicious and violent" reaction of many in Italy. They denounced the Vatican's domination of Italian politics despite its secular constitution and declining numbers of believers: "The fewer people follow their directives the more they demand, call for privilege and taxpayers’ money, raise their voice in order to impose their will on non-Catholics’ lives and behaviour."Â
The letter was widely copied to politicians throughout Europe. You can see the letter here (in English and Italian) and the long list of addressees here.
Analysis
A valuable analysis of the case is provided in a paper in the Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies [9,26 (Summer 2010): 47-74], reproduced here by permission, one of whose authors, Gabriel Andreescu, is active in the Center for Inquiry, Romania.Â
FURTHER DETAILS
 ITALY'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S OWN RULINGS ON SECULARISM
The European Court jusdgement quotes past rulings by Italy’s Constitutional Court (which was not involved in this case because of a legal technicality). The Constitutional Court in 2000 asserted that "the fundamental principles of equality of all citizens irrespective of religion (Article 3 of the Constitution) and equal freedom of all religions before the law (Article 8) entail that the attitude of the State must be marked by impartiality and equidistance". What it called "social reactions" were unimportant. "Such a position of impartiality and equidistance reflects the principle of secularism which the Constitutional Court has drawn from the standards of the Constitution and which has the nature of a ‘supreme principle’, which characterizes the state in the sense of pluralism. Beliefs, cultures and different traditions must live together in equality and freedom."
THE EHF EMAIL TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SOCIALIST GROUP
Dear Officers of the Group of the European Parliament Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
I write on behalf of the European Humanist Federation, which unites over forty secularist and humanist organisations in about twenty European countries and has contacts in many more.
We are amazed and seriously concerned at the draft resolution that your Group has tabled on the European Court of Human Rights case Lautsi v. Italy. The Socialist and Democrat group has an honourable history of endorsing secularism and separation of religion and politics. Secularism in this sense is the only reliable guarantor of freedom of religion and belief – which of course includes atheism and non-religious beliefs.Â
Yet in this resolution the Group allies itself with the most reactionary elements in European politics.
The case was straightforward. The court’s judgement – available in French here and in our own English translation, attached – is clear and unambiguous. Italy is a secular state: in its judgement the European Court quoted the Italian Constitutional Court at length and stressed that the case had not gone to that domestic court because of a legal loophole:
"In its Decision No. 203 of 1989, the Constitutional Court . . . stated that the Constitution included the principle of secularism (Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20) and the confessional character of the state had been explicitly abandoned in 1985, under the Additional Protocol to the new Accord with the Holy See."
"The Italian Constitutional Court in Case No. 508 of November 20, 2000 summed up its jurisprudence by stating the fundamental principles of equality of all citizens irrespective of religion (Article 3 of the Constitution) and equal freedom of all religions before the law (Article 8) entails that the attitude of the State must be marked by impartiality and equidistance, without attaching importance to the number of adherents of one religion or another (see Case no. 925/88, 440/95, 329/97) or the extent of social reactions to the violation of rights of one or the other (see Case no. 329/97). The equal protection of the conscience of every person who subscribes to a religion is independent of the religion chosen (see Case no. 440/95), which is not in contradiction with the possibility of a different regulation of the relationship between the state and different religions within the meaning of Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution. Such a position of impartiality and equidistance reflects the principle of secularism which the Constitutional Court has drawn from the standards of the Constitution and which has the nature of a "supreme principle" (see Case nos. 203/89, 259/90, 195/93, 329/97), which characterizes the state in the sense of pluralism. Beliefs, cultures and different traditions must live together in equality and freedom (see no 440/95)."
The judgement was therefore in line with domestic Italian law. Moreover, Italy adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires (Article 2 of Protocol 1) that
the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.
The court found that the Italian state, by its order that crucifixes be displayed in every state school classroom, was obviously interfering with the rights of parents to bring their children up other than as Catholics or in other forms of Christianity. The display of the crucifixes plainly suggested that the school and thereby the state endorsed Christianity. This is not a proper role for a secular state.
There has been much talk of subsidiarity, not least in your resolution. But subsidiarity has no place when human rights are at stake! Otherwise we should have states claiming that (for example) limiting the human rights of Roma or other categories of citizen is a matter of subsidiarity! How is it a matter of subsidiarity that Italy can deny Mrs Lautsi her human rights?
There has been much talk also of clashes of rights – again, your resolution mentions this. Presumably you have an idea of the rights of the Italian majority? But majorities have no right to remove the human rights of even one individual contrary to the law and the Convention. Otherwise we shall have majorities demanding that those accused of terrorism be subject to summary justice, from which it is a quick descent into mob rule.Â
Your resolution ventures dangerously near suggesting that groups have human rights. Not so! Group rights are an automatic denial of the human rights of individuals within the groups – especially those who think for themselves and those in generally oppressed groups, such as women. Giving rights to religious groups is a most dangerous step – it is (for example) the demand of the Islamist states at the UN who wish to suppress free thought and criticism of religion.
The reaction to the Court’s judgement has in parts been hysterical, with (for example) the Italian minister of defence ranting non-stop on television for four minutes. It is desperately worrying that Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats seems to have been caught up in this hysteria and to have failed to think rationally about this serious matter.
We urgently invite you to withdraw your resolution and instead to endorse joint resolution RC-B7-0275/2009 from the Verts/ALE and GUE/NGL groups.
David Pollock
President, European Humanist Federation
 MEPs intervening in support of Italy
1. Carlo Casini (Italy)
2. Miroslav Mikolasik (Slovak Republic)
3. Giovanni La Vie (Italy)
4. Christians Muscardini (Italy)
5. Antonio Cancian (Italy)
6. Marek Jozef Grobarczyk (Poland)
7. Jacek Wlosowicz (Poland)
8. Boguslaw Sonik (Poland)
9. Jacek Protasiewicz (Poland)
10. Konrad Szymanski (Poland)
11. Eleni Theocharous (Cyprus)
12. Ermina Mazzoni (Italy)
13. Jose Ignacio Salafranca Sanchez-Neyre (Spain)
14. Antonello Antinoro (Italy)
15. Aldo Patriciello (Italy)
16. Bernd Posselt (Germany)
17. Othmar Karas (Austria)
18. Eija-Riitta Korhola (Finland)
19. Lara Comi (Italy)
20. Mario Borghezio (Italy)
21. Mario Mauro (Italy)
22. Jan Ulbrycht(Poland)
23. Tadeusz Cymanski (Poland)
24. Janusz Wojciechowski (Poland)
25. ValdemarTomasevski (Lithuania)
26. Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (Italy)
27. Laszlo Tokes (Romania)
28. Oreste Rossi (Italy)
29. Agnes Hankiss (Hungary)
30. Jozsef Szajer (Hungary)
31. Kings Gal (Hungary)
32. Livia Jaroka (Hungary)
Human Rights and Non-Discrimination
The European Convention on Human Rights