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

Nickbat wrote on 21. Dec 2009 at 22:39:


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

Kevin M wrote on 21. Dec 2009 at 23:11:


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_...

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=... 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 wrote on 22. Dec 2009 at 00:08:



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

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

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!

BTW, I'm Hindu!