Case 30814/06

That’s the number of the case that has us all talking. It’s Lautsi vs Italy and just in case you are one of those whose job it is to edit the comments on the Times let me remind you that the case is set before the European Court of Human Rights and not the European Court of Justice. That’s right the Strasbourg Court that is linked to the Council of Europe and not to the European Union. Today Silvio the Sinner announced that no matter what the result of the appeal will be, Italy is not obliged to implement the decision of the court. No surprise there – it is after all Mr Lodo Alfano speaking – but this matter is not only about Silvio and Italy. It is a European matter (do note the absence of the word Union from this sentence).

The matter goes straight to the heart of European identity and queries the “poitical correctness” that has managed to infiltrate the hallowed ground of the courts of law. The problem with deeming a crucifix offensive might be seen to be the fact that leaving the crucifix might offend some but there is also the inalienable fact that removing the crucifix offends many. Personally I find the cross vs crucifix discussion a non sequitur – an amateur attempt to wriggle out of the real question at stake. It’s not like crucifixes have suddenly sprung up in Italian (or other nation’s) schools this year (or in 2006): they have been there since before De Amicis wrote his “Cuore”.

Is it the bloodied face of an emaciated human being nailed to two blocks of wood that is disturbing to some children all of a sudden? Are they the same kids who will play Grand Theft Auto on their X-box till late at night? Or is it the threatening danger of the symbol that worries mothers of potential agnostics and atheists? To me it sounds like the same kind of petulance that inspires a student movement to campaign for a condom machine on campus to prove their point. Actually it’s just as petulant as the hardliners who oppose the same condom machine to make sure that the illusion that their point of view has the upper hand still survives.

Also this lay state vs religious argument does not hold water. Even if we were to set aside the religious fundamentalist bias of our own constitution as a peculiar example we would still have huge question marks with regards to the Anglican Church (with the Queen at its head) and other countries who have reached some sort of concordat with the Vatican.

Fact is that you may be a non-practising agnostic like myself but it is hard to hide from the fact that christianity and its symbols are indissoluble from the development and formation of this European continent and its history. There is no harm in that. All things considered the requesting of the removal of this symbol from the classes is an affront to the heritage of millions of people living on this continent – how the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg missed that is a mystery.

This may just be another chapter in the religion vs identity saga but it sure promises to be a hell of a discussion.