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”.