The courtroom of the Supreme Court has a crucifix
Photo: Courtesy of Supreme Court
Press
He said the president of the Council of the Magistracy, Luis María Cabral, when asked by DiarioJudicial.com. The controversy erupted when Minister Carmen Argibay Court asked to remove religious symbols in courtrooms. In this note, in addition, the views of Angela Ledesma, Mario Filozof, Daniel Sabsay, Mario Fera and Paul Gallegos Fedriani.
President of the Council of the Magistracy, Luis Cabral considered in dialogue with DiarioJudicial.com that "corresponds to reflect" that "the people who go to the courts guarantee equality of conditions" and that sense, understood that "would be appropriate for public places [the judiciary] had no symbols religious. " Cabral was asked after this weekend the Supreme Court Judge Carmen Argibay raised the possibility of removing religious symbols from the courtroom and said he had discussed this issue with the head of the Council.
"In our country there is a majority of Catholics and that took as given that the courtrooms were symbols of the Christian religion," Cabral said, but stressed that in Argentina "governing freedom of religion" and noted that both judges and litigants "belong to different cultural communities and religions."
The judge asked counsel, "reaching consensus to achieve better inclusion of all "but, unlike the minister Argibay, which found that" conditions have a religious symbol "- Campbell denied that the presence of a religious symbol could" determine the witness or defendant. " Instead, put it as "a matter of respect for each other." Said spoke on the subject since Argibay-court judges were both oral-and together reflected on the idea of \u200b\u200b"seeking consensus and making decisions not by an act of authority."
Meanwhile, the vice president of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, Angela Ledesma, agreed with Campbell that the presence of a religious symbol "no conditions" but warned that "the defendant professed not [the same faith that could be represented in this symbol] may create a situation of bias." In that sense, it was "prudent" that religious symbols "pulled out" of the courtrooms of the court that part.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Mario Filozof Crime, who said he spoke in a personal capacity, called for "the difference between what the State should do and what you can do yourself." He said that "the Court has the right to understand what should respect crucifixes or religious symbols that are inventoried or in offices of public access "but not in that" every judge makes in the privacy of his office, to the extent that it does not affect the development of tasks.
"What is at issue is the secularism of the system," Filozof raised and added that the Court may make a decision as not to affect the "personal rights."
who expressed a more radical approach was Daniel Sabsay constitutional lawyer who agreed to remove religious symbols "when the state is secular." Argibay counsel that coincided with the presence of a religious symbol in a court "may cause intimidation that matter a violation of the principle of nondiscrimination."
Meanwhile, the president of the Chamber of Labour Mario Fera reminded that the Constitution, in its second article, states that "the Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion."
Fera, who in November will take over as representative of the list Celeste as a director of the Judiciary, denied that the presence of crucifixes were discriminatory or offensive and said it was "the expression of what became the State from the constitutional point of view" . However, the maid, of recognized commitment to the Catholic faith, said the issue would merit the "exchange of ideas" and was "willing to talk."
For his part, President of the Chamber V of the Administrative Disputes Chamber Federal elected Paul Gallegos Fedriani rule on the issue with a sentence from a doctor in the social teaching of the Church who said that everyone can think what they want but that God has "constitutional existence" in the country: the maid recalled that names God (plain, without saying what God is) in the Preamble and Article 19 which states that "private actions men of any way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are for God alone and outside the competence of judges (...). "
consulted by this means in relation to possible conditioning to individuals faced with the presence of a religious symbol, said: "It can offend." But in line with Fera, recalled the second article of the Constitution and stated that "order that crucifixes be removed against the Constitution" but said that if someone is offended, he would withdraw. Background in failure
In 2003, the judge in Federal Administrative Susana Córdoba made in a pose of the Association for Civil Rights (ADC) and ordered withdrawal of a Virgin of the Rosary that was located on the Ground Floor of the Courthouse. The House of the forum turned that ruling and allowed the permanence of the religious symbol. Finally, although he did not rule on the issue, the Court decided to remove the image of the Virgin.
0 comments:
Post a Comment