Nov
7
Nikkor-H 50mm f2.0
Photography, Jazz, Typography, Arts, Yoyo, Comics, Knots, Chess ...
Random Posts / Imageview / Tumview / Archive / Soup / Streem / RSS
Nov
6
Nov
5
Nov
4
Nov
3
Nov
3
“Tradizione inoffensiva. A volte il buonsenso è vittima del diritto”
Bersani ( Crocifissi a scuola, no europeo)
Nov
3
“La presenza del crocifisso in classe non significa adesione al cattolicesimo ma è un simbolo della nostra tradizione. La storia d’Italia passa anche attraverso simboli, cancellando i quali si cancella una parte di noi stessi. Nel nostro Paese nessuno vuole imporre la religione cattolica attraverso la presenza del crocifisso. Nessuno, nemmeno qualche corte europea ideologizzata, riuscirà a cancellare la nostra identità. La nostra Costituzione riconosce, giustamente, un valore particolare alla religione cattolica. Non vorrei che alcune norme a cui si rifanno i giudici della Corte di Strasburgo fossero in contrasto con il nostro dettato costituzionale. Non è eliminando le tradizioni dei singoli paesi che si costruisce un’Europa unita, bisogna anzi valorizzare la storia delle nazioni che la compongono. Per questi motivi, secondo me il crocifisso rappresenta l’Italia e difenderne la presenza nelle scuole significa difendere la nostra tradizione.”
Mariastella Gelmini
Nov
3
Nov
3
Press release issued by the Registrar
Chamber judgment1
Lautsi v. Italy (application no. 30814/06)
CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:
CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Decision of the Court
The presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.
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 Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.
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.
Oct
31
Gotan Project - Santa Maria (Del Buen Ayre)
Oct
30
Page 1 of 153
Next
