-
By Michael Withers
-
Thursday 1 July - 19 Tammuz 5770
-
"A Jewish professor defends crucifix in Court Strasbourg. This is the title of a report by news agency Zenit. Indeed, Joseph Weiler, a law professor at the University School of Law in New York and London University professor defended the crucifix, last Wednesday, June 30, 2010, before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The defense of Professor Joseph Weiler has been heard by 17 judges, including Jean-Paul Costa, President of the Court at a hearing on the matter Lautsi v. Italy , called "case of the crucifix" on the right or Italy not to place crucifixes in classrooms in public schools. Joseph Weiler, University Professor in London and New York, represented at the hearing the governments of Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, Russian Federation and San Marino, ten countries who presented themselves as others stakeholders.
-
Lautsi The case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights after the Italian government's decision to appeal, January 28, 2010, after the publication of a decision of the Second Section of the Court, November 3, 2009, vindicating a Finnish naturalized Italian, Soile Lautsi who asked that crucifixes be removed from classrooms in the school her children attended in Abano Terme, province of Padua ( ndmg: So you do not remove kids from the Finnish School of Abano Terme, and we want to remove crucifixes from all Italian schools, of which they mingle, the Court of Strasbourg? Do they realize that by doing so, they will awaken the worst nationalism? And then, a crucifix from a few centimeters, it is less visible than a minaret ...).
-
The Court ruling stated: "The Court finds that the compulsory display of a symbol of a particular faith in the exercise of the public in relation to specific situations under government control, especially in classrooms, restricts the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs and the right of schoolchildren to believe or disbelieve. The Court considers that this constitutes a violation of these rights because the restrictions are inconsistent with the duty of the State to respect the neutrality in the exercise of public service, particularly in the field of education. "
-
Professor Weiler said that in Europe there is no single model of church-state relations. Just look at the differences between secularism secularism in France and in Britain where the Queen is head of the Anglican Church. Sweden, Denmark and Greece are other cases. He noted that "in many of these states, significant portions of the population, or even most people, no longer see themselves religious." Yet the use of "religious symbols in public space and the state, is accepted by the secular population as belonging to national identity and as an act of tolerance towards other citizens."
-
"It is possible that one day the people of Great Britain, in exercising their constitutional sovereignty, become detached from the Church of England, as did the Swedes," said Professor Weiler adding that for them to do and not to the Court, the European Convention on Human Rights had also never been designed to force them to do so. "The message of tolerance for the Other must not result in a message of intolerance toward his own identity," added Professor Weiler.
-
Nicola Lettieri, who represented the Italian government has said that if "a State has a special relationship with religion, religious symbols if they marry, this is in no way contrary to the European Convention on Human man. The only limit to take is not indoctrination or proselytizing. " "If this is the crucifix in classrooms is not indoctrination for a reason but it is an expression of popular sentiment that is the basis of national identity," said Nicola Lettieri.
-
The European Centre for Law and Justice ( ECLJ ) was also third speaker at Wednesday's hearing, along with 79 members of European parliaments. The Director of ECLJ told the news agency Zenit that he was confident and convinced that the Court would understand that "the right of non-believers do not believe can not trump the rights of believers (the "Secularism" is not required by the Convention). "The ECLJ also hopes that the Court understood that it can not and should not require a State to waive its core identity in the name of tolerance and philosophy of human rights. True pluralism begins with the respect between the countries, "he said.
-
In addition to the ten countries represented by Joseph Weiler, who formally asked to intervene, other states have given their official support to Italy, including Ukraine, Moldova, Albania and Serbia. The scale of these operations is unprecedented and it demonstrates the importance of this case for Europe. The decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court will probably not be released until the fall, perhaps even at the end of the year.
-
Source:
http://www.zenit.org/article-24874?l=french
-
Adapting Michael Withers
2010 -
-
-
By Michael Withers
-
Thursday 1 July - 19 Tammuz 5770
-
"A Jewish professor defends crucifix in Court Strasbourg. This is the title of a report by news agency Zenit. Indeed, Joseph Weiler, a law professor at the University School of Law in New York and London University professor defended the crucifix, last Wednesday, June 30, 2010, before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The defense of Professor Joseph Weiler has been heard by 17 judges, including Jean-Paul Costa, President of the Court at a hearing on the matter Lautsi v. Italy , called "case of the crucifix" on the right or Italy not to place crucifixes in classrooms in public schools. Joseph Weiler, University Professor in London and New York, represented at the hearing the governments of Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, Russian Federation and San Marino, ten countries who presented themselves as others stakeholders.
-
Lautsi The case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights after the Italian government's decision to appeal, January 28, 2010, after the publication of a decision of the Second Section of the Court, November 3, 2009, vindicating a Finnish naturalized Italian, Soile Lautsi who asked that crucifixes be removed from classrooms in the school her children attended in Abano Terme, province of Padua ( ndmg: So you do not remove kids from the Finnish School of Abano Terme, and we want to remove crucifixes from all Italian schools, of which they mingle, the Court of Strasbourg? Do they realize that by doing so, they will awaken the worst nationalism? And then, a crucifix from a few centimeters, it is less visible than a minaret ...).
-
The Court ruling stated: "The Court finds that the compulsory display of a symbol of a particular faith in the exercise of the public in relation to specific situations under government control, especially in classrooms, restricts the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs and the right of schoolchildren to believe or disbelieve. The Court considers that this constitutes a violation of these rights because the restrictions are inconsistent with the duty of the State to respect the neutrality in the exercise of public service, particularly in the field of education. "
-
Professor Weiler said that in Europe there is no single model of church-state relations. Just look at the differences between secularism secularism in France and in Britain where the Queen is head of the Anglican Church. Sweden, Denmark and Greece are other cases. He noted that "in many of these states, significant portions of the population, or even most people, no longer see themselves religious." Yet the use of "religious symbols in public space and the state, is accepted by the secular population as belonging to national identity and as an act of tolerance towards other citizens."
-
"It is possible that one day the people of Great Britain, in exercising their constitutional sovereignty, become detached from the Church of England, as did the Swedes," said Professor Weiler adding that for them to do and not to the Court, the European Convention on Human Rights had also never been designed to force them to do so. "The message of tolerance for the Other must not result in a message of intolerance toward his own identity," added Professor Weiler.
-
Nicola Lettieri, who represented the Italian government has said that if "a State has a special relationship with religion, religious symbols if they marry, this is in no way contrary to the European Convention on Human man. The only limit to take is not indoctrination or proselytizing. " "If this is the crucifix in classrooms is not indoctrination for a reason but it is an expression of popular sentiment that is the basis of national identity," said Nicola Lettieri.
-
The European Centre for Law and Justice ( ECLJ ) was also third speaker at Wednesday's hearing, along with 79 members of European parliaments. The Director of ECLJ told the news agency Zenit that he was confident and convinced that the Court would understand that "the right of non-believers do not believe can not trump the rights of believers (the "Secularism" is not required by the Convention). "The ECLJ also hopes that the Court understood that it can not and should not require a State to waive its core identity in the name of tolerance and philosophy of human rights. True pluralism begins with the respect between the countries, "he said.
-
In addition to the ten countries represented by Joseph Weiler, who formally asked to intervene, other states have given their official support to Italy, including Ukraine, Moldova, Albania and Serbia. The scale of these operations is unprecedented and it demonstrates the importance of this case for Europe. The decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court will probably not be released until the fall, perhaps even at the end of the year.
-
Source:
http://www.zenit.org/article-24874?l=french
-
Adapting Michael Withers
2010 -
-
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment