Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

...but I can't help agreeing with this lawyers views (published today):

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7839/

The EU have banned crucifixes in Italian Schools. Now, I approach this subject with some trepidation. I really hope I don't get loads of posts about religion in schools, for that is really not the issue. To quote from the article:

"Whatever individuals may feel about the display of crucifixes, or indeed any other religious symbol in schools, surely the decision either to remove or keep them should be made through democratic discussion and debate rather than by legal diktat. The decision by the ECHR demonstrates a dangerous lack of democracy in European institutions, not least because there is no democratic means by which Italians, or other Europeans, can change the ruling."

Of course, you may be tempted to think this does not affect the UK, but think again:

"In the UK, because of section two of the 1998 Human Rights Act, the ruling has immediate effect as a binding precedent in UK law. During the course of their implementation by public authorities, judgements such as these tend to have a large degree of ‘mission creep’. Catholic and Anglican Schools will probably be unaffected since the judgement refers to secular state schools, but I suspect we will hear about Christmas decorations in state schools being removed and school nativity plays being banned by local authorities in the not-too-distant future. To any objections local authorities can respond that they are simply acting in accordance with the ECHR ruling."

In my view, this is a travesty of all that I believe in politically. If there are any Europhiles out there, prove to me that this ruling and others which may follow in its wake are anything but anti-democratic.

 

[Andy B]

haven't the French already banned religous symbols in schools ie Jews skull caps & Islamic headscarves?  :-/

[Nickbat]

haven't the French already banned religous symbols in schools ie Jews skull caps & Islamic headscarves?  :-/

From the same article:

"When France decided to ban the hijab and other religious dress from French schools in 2004 this was following a lengthy national debate where opponents of the proposal could lobby their members of the National Assembly, go on protest marches and so on. This meant that when the final decision was made, even its opponents accepted its legal and democratic legitimacy. This is not the case with the Lautsi ruling: there is no democratic means by which the Italian people can overrule the decision. Neither their MPs nor MEPs can change a decision that will potentially be imposed not just on Italy but on other European countries, too."

That's the point.

[Andy B]

haven't the French already banned religous symbols in schools ie Jews skull caps & Islamic headscarves?  :-/

From the same article:

"When France decided to ban the hijab and other religious dress from French schools in 2004 this was following a lengthy national debate where opponents of the proposal could lobby their members of the National Assembly, go on protest marches and so on. This meant that when the final decision was made, even its opponents accepted its legal and democratic legitimacy. This is not the case with the Lautsi ruling: there is no democratic means by which the Italian people can overrule the decision. Neither their MPs nor MEPs can change a decision that will potentially be imposed not just on Italy but on other European countries, too."

That's the point.

I see! I thought the French had, but didn't know the circumstances. 

[kevinminton]

Sorry to spoil a good story with some facts, but
(1) the European Court of Human Rights is not "the EU"
(2) the Court did not ban crucifixes, but did award the complainant EUR5000 - see http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

[Nickbat]

Sorry to spoil a good story with some facts, but
(1) the European Court of Human Rights is not "the EU"
(2) the Court did not ban crucifixes, but did award the complainant EUR5000 - see http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

Sorry to spoil a riposte with better facts: 

1) The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is separate from the European Court of Human Rights. All EU members are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights. There are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts. Hence the Court of Justice refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system. Even though its members have joined, the EU as a whole has not, as it does not have competence to do so under current treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU treaty to respect human rights under the Convention. Furthermore, when the Treaty of Lisbon takes effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law; this would resolve the issue of conflicting case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#Relationship_to_the_ECJ

2) The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public  authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Your own link!

So, since 1 December, the EU is bound by the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and secondly, the State (Italy) must refrain from hanging crucifixes (i.e. a ban). 

I didn't think a lawyer could be as wrong as you suggested. 

[tigers_gonads]

i think we should look after our own nation and leave others too sort there own out 
there nation ............... there rules 

merry xmas 

[Nickbat]

i think we should look after our own nation and leave others too sort there own out 
there nation ............... there rules 

merry xmas 

Couldn't agree more, Gonads (or may I call you Tigers?) 

[tigers_gonads]

you can call me anything you like dear 

just don't tell the missus   

[kevinminton]

further to some of Nickbat's post above:
(2) I cannot agree that telling a state that they must not impose a rule to display crufixes crucixfies crosses, is the same as banning crosses.

It seems to me that if the State said "You must display religious symbols", then that would be a Bad Thing. Removal of their power to do that would then be a Good Thing. Did I read somewhere that the Italian law was put in place by Mussolini?

(3) [polemic /ON] Adversarial lawyers are by definition wrong half the time. One of them will say "the accused is guitly" or "the respondent owes the plaintiff money" or whatever. The other will say "no they're not" or "no they don't". They can't both be right - so half of them are wrong. And whatever they write should be read in that context. [polemic /OFF]

(4) on the basis that law is crystallised politics, then the quote from Mencken (at foot of Nickbat's posts) applies equally to statements from lawyers. Wasn't Mencken against imposition of religious beliefs anyway?

K

[Nickbat]

further to some of Nickbat's post above:
(2) I cannot agree that telling a state that they must not impose a rule to display crufixes crucixfies crosses, is the same as banning crosses.

It seems to me that if the State said "You must display religious symbols", then that would be a Bad Thing. Removal of their power to do that would then be a Good Thing. Did I read somewhere that the Italian law was put in place by Mussolini?

(3) [polemic /ON] Adversarial lawyers are by definition wrong half the time. One of them will say "the accused is guitly" or "the respondent owes the plaintiff money" or whatever. The other will say "no they're not" or "no they don't". They can't both be right - so half of them are wrong. And whatever they write should be read in that context. [polemic /OFF]

(4) on the basis that law is crystallised politics, then the quote from Mencken (at foot of Nickbat's posts) applies equally to statements from lawyers. Wasn't Mencken against imposition of religious beliefs anyway?

K

2) The rule to place crucifixes was an Italian rule and the crux of the argument is that it should be up the Italian people to decide whether it should be maintained, not a pan-European body. Besides which, the fact that this woman has successfully argued that the crucifixes are an affront to her human rights effectively means that they are banned as anyone risking putting or leaving such crucifixes up opens them to legal action. It is effectively a ban, whether or not you want to argue the legalese. As far as Mussolini is concerned, you will find this point covered in the article thus:

"In British commentary on the case, a lot of people have referred to Mussolini despite the fact that the crucifix ruling stretches back to well before Mussolini’s time."

I have little time for lawyers, whether adversarial or not. However, the point I was making in my second post was that I doubt any lawyer would publish fundamental factual errors. And, indeed, he did not. 

As far as Mencken is concerned, I merely use his quote as I think it is apposite to the times in which we live. Whether or not the man was against religious imposition is entirely irrelevant.

 

[kevinminton]

Mencken - I think he was being sarcastic. I don't think it was an instruction.

Italian democracy Italy signed up to the declaration of human rights [insert date] - some time ago. Their latest election was [insert date] - quite recently, anyway. Sounds like democracy to me.

Hobgoblins! In my view, the idea that "the EU has banned crosses" is just such a hobgoblin. What gives it life is mistaken assertion, misappropriation, exaggeration, speculation. We cannot accuse others of misinterpreting and over-applying the law if we fuel the fear of hobgoblins by repeating the mistaken assertion etc.

There are no hobgoblins. They don't exist. Unlike Father Christmas, of course! Hooray! Merry Christmas to you and to all!

[goonv6]

Next you'll be saying I can't have my swastika tattoo....

[goonv6]

BTW, I'm Hindu!

[tigers_gonads]

what is it with the people of this country ?
why are we so obsesed with everybody elses ways ?