A leading Jewish scholar has defended the right of countries to display Christian symbols in public places such as 
state-run schools.
Professor Joseph Weiler was giving evidence at a public hearing yesterday before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on behalf on the 10 governments which are appealing against the court’s Lautsi ruling of last year. This decision ruled that the placing of crucifixes in Italian state-schools breached the right to freedom of conscience and the right to education under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The hearing took place yesterday morning in front of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasbourg.
In his submission, Professor Weiler of the New York University School of Law said that the “message of tolerance towards the other should not be translated into a message of intolerance towards one’s own identity”.
He added that Europe’s growing multiculturalism meant that “the democratic cohesion of society is dependent on the ability to uphold national symbols around which all society can coalesce”.
Professor Weiler, who has previously condemned European ‘Christo-phobia’, said that it would be strange if a State’s tolerance meant that it “had to abandon national symbols, and strip from its cultural identity, any symbol which also had a religious significance, even in circumstances where the majority of its population, which may be secular, accept such because of its historical significance”.
He also insisted that tolerance toward one view should not lead to intolerance against others. He explained that part of what makes Europe so rich and unique is its ability to have on the one hand respect for religious freedom of all, and on the other, a cultivation of its diverse identities.
Ms Lautsi, who took the case against Italy in the first instance wants the Court to affirm that “laicite” (legally required secularism in the public sphere) is required in order to respect religious freedom.
Ms Lautsi’s legal counsel delivered a strong defence of “secularism”, whereas the Italian Government argued in defense of religious freedom and its right to express its unique heritage and identity through the display of crucifixes in state funded schools.
The vast majority of Italians, including most parties of the left, are opposed to the ECHR ruling.
The Italian Government made the point that the mere presence of a symbol could in no way be construed as proselytism or indoctrination, and thus did not infringe the children’s right to freedom of conscience, much less that of the children’s parents.
The Italian counsel, Mr. Latteri, stated: “The only common ground in Europe regarding relationship between state and Church is the distinction and autonomy in temporal and spiritual maters”.
In a statement, the European Centre for Law and Justice, a group which defends religious freedom at a Europe-wide level, expressed “great hope and confidence that the Court understood that the right of nonbelievers not to believe cannot eclipse the rights of believers”.
The Director of the ECLJ, Gregor Puppinck, said “Real pluralism would start with respect between the countries.” Contrary to the view expressed by counsel for Ms Lautsi, “’Laicite’ is not a requirement from the Convention,” he added.