Can and Should a Religious Symbol Be Passive? Pasquale Annicchino’s Doubts over Lautsi v. Italy

In Lautsi v. Italy (2011), the European Court of Human Rights considered whether a crucifix displayed in an Italian public-school classroom violated the right to religious freedom of non-Catholic students. While a chamber of the Court decided in favor of the students and their parent, the Grand Chamber later sided with the Italian government and found the crucifix to be a passive symbol that did not infringe their rights. In this video, Pasquale Annicchino explains that, while the Catholic Church won the legal battle in Lautsi, it lost the war by accepting that the ultimate symbol of Christianity be culturalized and trivialized in order for its display to be allowed in educational settings. Annicchino believes that religious groups should be the first to object to such reframing and restructuring of religion, even to maintain a specific presence in public spaces.

(more…)

Continue ReadingCan and Should a Religious Symbol Be Passive? Pasquale Annicchino’s Doubts over Lautsi v. Italy

More Layers to Consider: Andrea Pin on Bayatyan v. Armenia

In Bayatyan v. Armenia (2011), the European Court of Human Rights recognized for the first time that the right to conscientious objection to military service must be protected by the state. In this video, Andrea Pin of the University of Padua shares his views on Bayatyan, the right to object, and the Court itself. While Pin supports the protection of objector rights, over time he began to discern additional layers inherent in the ECtHR judgment. Pin raises rule of law concerns over Bayatyan and wonders if such strong and unconditional protection is realistic and practically survivable in a world where countries are increasingly open to waging war against each other.

(more…)

Continue ReadingMore Layers to Consider: Andrea Pin on Bayatyan v. Armenia

The State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland

In Murphy v. Ireland (2003), the European Court of Human Rights decided in favor of the state’s power to prevent a radio station from broadcasting a religious advertisement, based on public order concerns. David Kenny of Trinity College Dublin was initially disappointed that the Strasbourg Court did not find against Ireland. But over time he came to see the decision differently. While he still does not approve of the Irish domestic court decisions that were challenged to the ECtHR, he has reconsidered his opinion on how the ECtHR, as an international court, should deal with cases when religious sensitivities are involved. Kenny explains why he is still skeptical about the “view from Dublin” on Murphy but appreciates “the view from Strasbourg.”

(more…)

Continue ReadingThe State’s Right to Err: Why David Kenny Now Supports Murphy v. Ireland