The article deals with the two European Court of Human Rights decisions on the Lautsi v. Italy case, relating to the compulsory display of the crucifix in Italian State-school classrooms. According to the Court’s case-law, under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 the State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions. But it must be acknowledged how problematic this principle is, when applied to a symbol instead of to the content of school curricula. Taking as a starting point an Italian Government’s argument disregarded by the Court, namely that keeping crucifixes in schools is a matter of preserving the transmission of a centuries-old traditional cultural expression, a change of perspective is suggested. As the Court established in its case-law, the ECHR and its Protocols must be interpreted also in the light of any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties. In applying this method, the issue of the Crucifix displayed in the classrooms is considered by interpreting ECHR Articles 10 and 14 and Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 in the light of the relevant rules on the protection of the cultural diversity, particularly those enshrined in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
Scheda prodotto non validato
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
|Titolo:||- Il crocifisso esposto a scuola e il principio della pari dignità e del rispetto di tutte le espressioni culturali: spunti di riflessione sulla posizione della Corte Europea dei Diritti Umani|
|Autori interni:||ODONI, Mario|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2012|
|Rivista:||LA COMUNITÀ INTERNAZIONALE|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|