The crucifix rage: Supranational constitutionalism bumps against the counter-majoritarian difficulty

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 6-27

  Mancini, Susanna ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bundesverfassungsgericht; Corte Constituzionale; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; Germany; Italian Constitution; Italy; Religious freedom; Secularism

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953570316     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019610100029     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. ECtHR 2 Nov. 2009, Case No. 30814/06, Lautsi v. Italy.
2. Art. 2 - Right to education, Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11: 'No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.'
3. Art. 9 - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'
4. Iris Press, 'Crocifisso in aula: Belusconi, decisione non accettabile non accettabile per noi Italiani', , visited 21 Dec. 2009.
5. Corriere della Sera.it, 'Via il crocefisso dalle scuole, Vaticano: «Sentenza miope»', , visited 8 Jan. 2010.
6. J. Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago-London, The University of Chicago Press 1994).
7. S. Ferrari, 'Individual Religious Freedom and National Security in Europe After September 11', 2 Brigham Young University Law Review (2004) p. 357 at p. 377.
8. This part of my essay draws on my previous works 'The Power of Symbols and Symbols as Power. Secularism and Religion As Guarantors of Cultural Convergence', 6 Cardozo Law Review (2009) p. 2629
9. and 'Talking Secularism (Not Too) Seriously: The Italian Crucifix Case', I-2 Religion and Human Rights (2006) p. 179.
10. Corte Costituzionale, Decision n. 203/1989.
11. It is true that the Catholic Church, whose relationship with the State is regulated by the Lateran pacts, enjoys certain privileges. Nevertheless all religious denominations have the right to organise themselves according to their own creed (Art. 8(2) of the Constitution) and can make specific agreements (intese) with the State, which are regulated by law, and may confer a wide range of collective rights.
12. Corte Costituzionale, Decisions n. 203/1989; n. 259/1990; n. 13/1991; n. 195/1993; n. 421/ 1993; n. 334/1996; n. 329/1997; n. 508/2000; n. 327/2002.
13. G. Zagrebelsky, 'Stato e Chiesa. Cittadini e cattolici', 73 Passato e presente (2008) p. 5 at p. 16.
14. Id. at p. 17.
15. Id. at p. 19.
16. I.e., instead of the state deciding on the religion of its inhabitants (cuius regio, eius religio), the state has adhere to the historical national religion. Id. at p. 18.
17. See Art. 19 of royal decree n. 1297 of 26 April 1928 and Art. 118 of royal decree n. 965 of A30 April 1924.
18. Ministero della Pubblica istruzione, by law n. 2666 of 3 Oct. 2007.
19. Tribunale del'Aquila, 23 Oct. 2003, Court Order Smith v. Scuola Materna ed Elementare statale 'Antonio Silveri' di Ofena.
20. The ECHR has been implemented in Italy by law n. 848 of 4 Aug. 1955.
21. TAR Veneto, 17 March 2005, Decision n. 1110, para. 16.
22. Consiglio di Stato 15 Feb. 2006, Decision Sez. 4575/03-2482/04.
23. Before deciding the case, the Regional Administrative Court proceeded to submit the matter to the Constitutional Court, but, as expected, the latter decided that it did not have jurisdiction as the acts involved were of an administrative nature. See Corte Costituzionale, Court Order n. 389/2004.
24. TAR Veneto, 17 March 2005, Decision n. 1110, para. 11.7.
25. Ibid., para. 11.6.
26. TAR Veneto, 17 March 2005, Decision n. 1110, para. 12.4.
27. C. Martinelli, 'La questione del crocifisso tra esperienza giurisprudenziale e intervento parlamentare', in E. Dieni et al. (eds.), I simboli religiosi tra diritto e culture [Religious Symbols Between Law and Cultures] (Milan, A. Giuffré editore 2006) p . 160 et seq.
28. Martinelli C., La questione del crocifisso tra esperienza giurisprudenziale e intervento parlamentare, I Simboli Religiosi Tra Diritto e Culture [Religious Symbols between Law and Cultures], 2006, 160, Ibid.
29. Corte Costituzionale, Decision n. 189/ 1987, , 5 June 2006.
30. Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof [BayVGH] [Bavarian Higher Administrative Court] 3 June 1991, 122 Bayerische Verwaltungsblatter [BayVBI] 751 (751-54) (F.R.G.).
31. A. Morelli, 'Simboli, religioni e valori negli ordinamenti democratici', in Dieni et al., supra n. 26, at p. 85.
32. S. Mancini, 'The Power of Symbols', supra n. 8, at p. 264-268.
33. N. Fiorita, 'Il crocifisso: da simbolo confessionale a simbolo neo-confessionista', in Dieni et al., supra n. 26, at p. 188.
34. Zagrebelski, supra n. 12.
35. Fiorita, supra n. 32 at p. 182 (quoting Edoardo Dieni, Simboli, religioni, regole e paradossi (unpublished manuscript, presented at the Round Table on 'Crocifisso, velo e turbante. Simboli e comportamenti religiosi nella società plurale, Campobasso', 21 April 2005)).
36. Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] 16 May 1995 (Kruzifix- Urteil), 93 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 1 (F.R.G.).
37. Ibid.
38. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
39. Id. at p. 728
40. Id. at p. 712.
41. Id. at p. 719.
42. The case referred to is Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892).
43. Comune di Cadro v. Bernasconi, Bundesgericht [BGer] [Federal Court] 26 Sept. 1990, 116 Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts [BGE] I 252 (Switz.).
44. Id.
45. Ibid.
46. R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principles (Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press 1985).
47. The 2004 GfK Custom Research survey indicates that over 50% of Western Europeans view Muslims living in Europe today with suspicion. The 2005 Pew Survey presented a varied picture, with the majority of respondents stating that 'Muslims want to remain distinct' and that 'they have an increasing sense of Islamic identity'. Many Europeans are worried about 'Muslim fundamentalism'. One of the key findings of this survey is that, in a number of respects, Muslims are less inclined than Western Europeans to see a clash of civilisations and often associate positive attributes with Westerners - including tolerance, generosity, and respect for women. See 10 European Monitoring CTR. On Racism & Xeniophobia, European Union, Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Xenophobia (2006), visited 9 Jan. 2010.
48. According to a 2006 report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), Muslims experience various levels of discrimination and marginalisation in all European countries - in employment, education and housing - and are also the victims of negative stereotyping by majority populations and the media. See The Annual Report on the Situation regarding Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, EUMC 2006 , visited 8 Dec. 2010. The European Council Committee Against Intolerance and Racism has adopted various Recommendations aimed at combating discrimination against Muslims. One of these refers explicitly to the consequences of the state of stress post 9/11, which has rendered the Muslim minority far more vulnerable to 'negative general attitudes, discriminatory acts, violence and harassment'.
49. See European Comm'n Against Racism & Intolerance, Council of Europe, ECRI General Policy Recommendation No.8 on Combating Racism While Fighting Terrorism 4 (2004), , visited 21 Dec. 2009. In July 2008, Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, pointed out that the number of hate crimes has increased dramatically in Europe in recent years, and that, alongside traditional victims (Jews, Roma, and sexual minorities), such crimes are increasingly directed towards Muslims: 'A mixture of Islamophobia and racism is ... directed against immigrant Muslims or their children. This tendency has increased considerably after 9/11 and government responses to terrorist related crimes. Muslims have been physically attacked and mosques vandalised or burnt in a number of countries.'
50. T. Hammarberg, Hate crimes - the ugly face of racism, anti-Semitism, anti- Gypsyism, Islamophobia and homophobia, lt;www.coe.int/t/commissioner/ Viewpoints/080721- en.asp visited 8 Jan. 2010.
51. A similar belief in the universalistic nature of Christianity, but not of other religions, was recently expressed by US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, during the oral argument in the case of Salazar v. Buono (Ken L. Salazar et al. v. Frank Buono, No. 08-472, 7 Oct. 2009, oral argument, p. 39). The case deals with the constitutionality under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause of the display in the Mojave National Preserve of an eight-foot-high Christian cross, originally erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to soldiers killed in military service. Justice Scalia defined as an 'outrageous conclusion' the observation made by the plaintiff's attorney, that 'the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead'. According to Scalia, 'the cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead'. 'What would you have them erect - Scalia asked the attorney, - A cross - some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star' The attorney's reaction ('I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew') apparently provoked a burst of laughter in the Courtroom.
52. TAR Veneto, 17 March 2005, Decision n. 1110 supra n. 25 para. 13.3.
53. Ibid., para. 10.1.
54. Ibid., para. 12.6.
55. Ibid.
56. Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof [BayVGH] [Bavarian Higher Administrative Court] 3 June 1991, 122 Bayerische Verwaltungsblatter [BayVBI] 751 (751-54) (F.R.G.).
57. Gesetz zur Änderung des Schulgesetzes, 1 April 2004, and Gesetz zur Änderung des Kindergartengesetzes, 14 Feb. 2006 .
58. Gesetz Nr. 1555 zur Änderung des Gesetzes zur Ordnung des Schulwesens im Saarland (Schulordnungsgesetz), 23 June 2004. In the explanation to the draft law, it is stated that the regulation is not limited to headscarves; however, the wearing of Christian and Jewish symbols remains possible.
59. Gesetz zur Sicherung der staatlichen Neutralität, 18 Oct. 2004.
60. Gesetz zur Änderung des Bayerischen Gesetzes über das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen, 23 Nov. 2004.
61. Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Schulgesetzes für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 13 June 2006.
62. Human Rights Watch, Discrimination in the Name of Neutrality Headscarf Bans for Teachers and Civil Servants in Germany, p. 26 , visited 21 Dec. 2009.
63. Art. 2, Gesetz zur Sicherung der staatlichen Neutralität, supra n. 55.
64. Art. 59. Gesetz zur Änderung des Bayerischen Gesetzes über das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen, supra n. 56.
65. L. Wildhaber, 'A Constitutional Future for the ECHR', 5-7 Human Right Law Journal (2002) p. 161 at p. 162.
66. ECtHR 28 Nov. 1984, Case No. 8777/79, Rasmussen v. Denmark, para. 40.
67. ECtHR 20 Sept. 1994 , Case No. 13470/87, Otto Preminger Institute v. Austria.
68. Id. at para. 49.
69. Id. at para. 36.
70. ECtHR 24 May 1988, Case No. 10737/84 Müller and Others v. Switzerland.
71. ECtHR 15 Jan. 2001, Case No. 42393/98, Dahlab v. Switzerland.
72. Id. (quoting the Federal Court of Switzerland).
73. Id.
74. ECtHR 4 Dec. 2008, Case No. 27058/05, Dogru v. France.
75. ECtHR 4 Dec. 2008, Case No. 31645/04, Kervanci v. France.
76. ECtHR, 29 June 2004, Case No. 44774/98, Sahin v. Turkey.
77. Id. at para. 114.
78. Id. at para. 116.
79. Id. at para. 115. In this context, the Court recalled its statement in Dahlab v. Switzerland that the wearing of a headscarf represents a 'powerful external symbol' and that it may be questioned whether it 'might have some kind of proselytising effect, seeing that it appeared to be imposed on women by a religious precept that was hard to reconcile with the principle of gender equality.' Sahin, para. 111.
80. Id. at para. 108.
81. Id. at para. 122.
82. E. Benvenisti, 'Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards', 31 International Law and Politics (1999) p. 843 at p. 850.
83. Id.
84. Id. at p. 852.
85. M. Rosenfeld, Just Interpretations. Law Between Ethics and Politics (Berkeley Los Angeles London, California University Press 1998) p. 2.
86. R.K. Newman, 'The Warren Court and American Politics: An Impressionistic Appreciation', 18 Constitutional Commentary (2001) p. 681.
87. R.C. Post & R.B. Siegel, 'Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash', 42 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (2007) p. 373, who refer however to the American experience.
88. On the differences between courts pursuing public actions and courts acting as dispute resolution agents, see P.M. Bator et al., Hart and Wechsler's Federal Courts and Federal System, 3rd edn. (Westbury, NY, Foundation Press 1998) p. 79 et seq.
89. Sahin v. Turkey, supra n. 72, para. 107.
90. I. Rorive, 'Religious Symbols in the Public Space: In Search of a European Answer', 6 Cardozo Law Review (2009) p. 2669 at p. 2696.