Friday, July 2, 2010
Joseph Weiler's submission in the Italian crucifix case
Here is (the eminent) Prof. Joseph Weiler's argument before the European Court of Human Rights in the Italian crucifix case. Here is a taste:
16. In today’s Europe countries have opened their gates to many new residents and citizens. We owe them all the guarantees of the Convention. We owe the decency and welcome and non discrimination. But the message of tolerance towards the Other should not be translated into a message of intolerance towards one’s own identity, and the legal imperative of the Convention should not extend the justified requirement that the State guarantee negative and positive religious freedom, to the unjustified and startling proposition that the State divest itself of part of its cultural identity simply because the artefacts of such identity may be religious or of religious origin.
17. The position adopted by the Chamber is not an expression of the pluralism manifest by the Convention system, but an expression of the values of the laique State. To extend it to the entire Convention system would represent, with great respect, the Americanization of Europe. Americanization in two respects: First a single and unique rule for everyone, and second, a rigid, American style, separation of Church and State, as if the people of those Members whose State identity is not laique, cannot be trusted to live by the principles of tolerance and pluralism. That again, is not Europe. . . .
Comments are open.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/07/joseph-weilers-submission-in-the-italian-crucifix-case.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Rick -- interesting comments. I am not sure about Professor Weiler's characterization of what is going on with the E. Ct. of H.R. as an "Americanization." It seems to me that there is a stronger version of secularism as cultural ethos at work in that decision (and, for example, in some of the debates in France) than is the case in this country. Also, strong versions of separation of church and state have never been the rule in this country (I know some academics wish that were the rule, but that's different), and certainly not now. What the European Court seems to be moving toward is something different, and more ideologically potent, than what we've got here. Still, this may have been an effective rhetorical move by Professor Weiler. Telling Europeans that they are becoming American in any way surely was calculated to get their dander up.