David Pollock's statement

“Since we last met, the European Court of Human Rights has performed its 180 degree turn in the Lautsi case and in one of the worst argued and most unconvincing judgements for years has vindicated Italy’s law forcing every classroom in the land to display a Christian crucifix.

I want to focus this morning on one aspect of the arguments over the case - the dangerous contention that a blank wall cannot be neutral. For if this is accepted it potentially undermines the whole concept of secularism, whether in the sense of rigid separation of state and religion or in the sense of equidistance. Beyond that, all law about equality and non-discrimination must also be in danger, and the idea of a type of teaching that is not indoctrination is called into question.

We cannot have this!

But of course, the idea that a blank wall is not neutral is surely farcical. It is advanced to justify a grotesquely unequal status quo. Let us examine one of the submissions in the case – one coordinated by the Becket Fund and signed by a string of law professors. They argue:

“Neutrality is not achieved by removing religion from public debate, because the very act of removal sends a message of hostility towards religious belief”.

The same argument was put bluntly in a recent lecture in London by Professor Joseph Weiler, one of the counsel in the case for Italy. He said:

“It is a binary position - no neutrality is possible -there either is or is not a crucifix on the wall”.

The argument is obviously without foundation. It is sad that intelligent and eminent professors should for the sake of religion so demean themselves by endorsing such special pleading.

The argument illegitimately compares a continuing state of affairs with a transitional act. It tries to defend a grossly unfair state of affairs by seeing a move to a fair state as an act of aggression against the currently privileged position.

If it were valid, the argument would rule out any correction of any unbalanced situation because the “very act” of correcting it would “send a message of hostility” to the unfairly favoured position.

So, supposing the Italian state was broadcasting Christian sermons on all TV and radio channels in a way that was clearly not neutral and represented a serious curtailment of the freedom of expression of non-Christians, we are asked to believe that any move to break this monopoly, to reduce this preponderance of one side would be unacceptable because it would be seen as hostile to Christianity!

Suppose that schools were indoctrinating all children with one confessional religion – whether it was Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or whatever - no correction would be possible, because it would be hostile to the favoured religion.

We are dealing here with religion or belief – a matter on which there can be no human certainty except in the psychological conviction of individual persons. The state, the courts have no way of judging between rival contentions.

Even if they could call Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha and Joseph Smith to give evidence, they could not find a valid way to rule for one or another.

In this context, neutrality is a vital and desirable condition for state institutions. What is the alternative? Necessarily, to take sides for one group of citizens against another - to deny the freedom of religion or belief of all but those who hold the favoured beliefs.

Neutrality is the minimum condition for secularism. The argument made in defence of Italy - though not adopted in its badly argued judgement by the European Court of Human Rights - is based on a dangerous and fallacious idea. It needs to be discredited and ruled out of any serious argument about the place of religion or belief in law.”