SOMMARIO: 1. Comunicazione interculturale e relazioni interetniche nella società globale - 2. Il precedente storico della Sicilia normanna di Ruggero II - 3. Identità religiosa e convivenza multiculturale - 4. L'esigenza socio-culturale di una legge generale sulla libertà religiosa - 5. Laicità e principio di uguaglianza.
Summary: 1. The Challenges of Pluralistic Societies with Dissimilar Cultural Identities and Religious Traditions: from a Melting Pot to a Cultural Mosaic - 2. European Catholic Tradition of Dual Legislation and Jurisdiction: 2.1. The Development of the Religious Jurisdiction: from the Episcopalis Audientia under the Christian Roman Empire to the Homologation of Religious Decisions by a Civil Judge – 2.2. The Development of Secular and Religious Jurisdictions: from the Leges Barbarorum et Romanorum under the Principle of Personality to the Medieval Dual Jurisdiction in Europe – 2.3. Religious Minorities under Christian Rulers – 3. Muslim Legal Tradition of Plural Jurisdictions: 3.1. Muslim Empires and the Dhimma System – 3.2. Islamic Communities in Transition: from the Pre-colonial Era to the Colonial Rule – 3.3. The Exceptionality of Palestine and Israel- 4. Toward a Global World: Legal Pluralism and the Development of ADR. The Role of Religious Mediation and Arbitration: 4.1. The American Experience in Religious Arbitration: the Jewish Beth Din Courts and the Challenge of Islamic Arbitration – 4.2. Confronting the Fear of Islamic Arbitration Tribunals in the UK, Canada, and Australia - 5. Conclusions.
Abstract: Most of juridical systems are historically developed from the interaction of two main legal principles: the principle of personality and the principle of territoriality. Roman Law is one of the best examples of it; its legacy channeled the growth and coexistence of religious and secular jurisdictions in the Germanic kingdoms of Western Europe. Under the principle of personality of laws, bonding individuals to their cultural or religious communities, legal pluralism was the common grounds from the Antiquity to the pre-Modern era. However, as a result of the religious wars in the Holy Roman Empire between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th and the 17th centuries, the Westphalian state model reinforced a territorial religious jurisdiction under the principle cuius regio eius religio, allowing the ruler to impose his religion on his subjects. The Muslim legal tradition developed, as well, plural juridical systems from the Dhimma System. One of them was the Ottoman Millet system that was adapted from the colonial era to the most of Middle East nation-states as a bonding personal religious law applied to non-Muslim communities. The secular paradigm of the Rule of Law, centralizing and reinforcing state and federal legislative powers, is implemented in Europe and her former colonies in the 19th century under the nation-state constitutional model, expanding worldwide the principles of territoriality and citizenship. As a result, religious legal systems are progressively confined to the private sphere. However, the secular paradigm is confronted gradually by a new development of legal pluralism, mainly as an effect of an extensive increment of global migrations; Halakha or Jewish Law, Canon Law or Catholic Law, Sharia or Islamic Law, are gaining strength as formal or informal religious ADR under the principle of Religious Freedom. Religious legal systems are becoming an innovative tool of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration accepted by some secular jurisdictions around the world, although there is a polarized debate about it. In today´s global world, which are the lessons to be learned from legal traditions and contemporary models of legal pluralism? Can religious legal systems become a tool of mediation for restorative justice preventing and exiting from violence? This article addresses this juridical and social challenge from an interdisciplinary comparative analysis.
SOMMARIO: 1. Discorsi odiosi - 2. La repressione giuridica delle idee odiose: vecchie difese, nuovi difesi - 3. Le ragioni del contrasto giuridico ai discorsi d’odio - 4. Due direttrici nella giustificazione della repressione giuridica del discorso d’odio.
Forbidden hate: the legal repression of hate speech
ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is two-folded. First, it offers a general overview of the legal repression of various categories of expressive behaviours ascribed to the notion of hate speech. Especially in Europe, such repression often passes through criminalization, long since used by law to suppress thoughts or points of view for some reason considered harmful. The social groups nowadays protected by such repressive measures, however, are different from the past: weak and/or minoritarian groups rather than strong and/or majoritarian ones. The second aim of this work is to identify the reasons for the legal repression of expressions, beliefs or doctrines certainly in many cases morally deplorable, yet protected by other high-ranking legal reasons: the principles of freedom of thought and speech. It will be noted that especially for untargeted hate speech not connected to a clear and present danger of unlawful actions, there is no general agreement about those reasons. Furthermore, they tend to be structured in justifications showing some typical flaws of, respectively, deontological and teleological reasoning: the former tend to be superficial as apodictic, generic and vacuous; the latter tend to evade the argumentative burdens of factual order from which their validity depends.
Sono molto grata all’amico Giuseppe Casuscelli per avermi invitato a partecipare a questo incontro. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale è una rivista che seguo con grandissimo interesse fin dalla sua fondazione. È uno strumento prezioso, del quale ho sempre apprezzato in particolare la vocazione trasversale e interdisciplinare. Questa qualità non deriva solo dal fatto che il pluralismo è questione che si presta appunto ad analisi trasversali e interdisciplinari, ma è frutto di una precisa scelta editoriale, quella cioè di accogliere punti di vista differenti, approfondimenti e riflessioni di studiosi di discipline e di generazioni diverse. Come sociologa del diritto mi sono occupata di pluralismo culturale e religioso soprattutto in riferimento ai movimenti migratori che di tale pluralismo costituiscono il principale fattore nella società italiana. A partire dal titolo di questo incontro, mi sono allora chiesta se in questi dieci anni abbiamo assistito a un progressivo riconoscimento del pluralismo religioso e, di conseguenza, del godimento di diritti legati alla libertà religiosa e al suo esercizio.
SOMMARIO: 1. Le sfide del nuovo multiculturalismo in materia matrimoniale - 2. La riforma del processo matrimoniale canonico e le sue potenziali ricadute sul giudizio di delibazione - 3. Il processus brevior - 4. La crisi della bilateralità - 5. Il “mite” pluralismo statunitense e le nuove “anti-sharia laws” - 6. L’esperienza del pluralismo “forte” israeliano e i suoi effetti sulle minoranze - 7. Modelli di pluralismo a confronto.
Pluralism in Marriage: the New Challenges of the “Overlapping Jurisdictions”
ABSTRACT: The challenges of the “new multiculturalism” in the field of marriage law regard not only which forms of marriage should be recognized by the State but also the forums in which marriage cases can be adjudicated and the role of faith-based laws and religious courts in democratic and secular legal systems. Religious groups increasingly ask for accommodation of their cultural identities; however, a growing skepticism concerning forms of religious jurisdiction is developing in regimes devoted to individual liberties, which employ public policy as grounds to vacate religious rulings. The present paper highlights the need for Western States to update and exploit the full potential of their legal instruments in order to prevent restrictions on collective and individual religious freedom in matters of marriage.
La lecture de l’ouvrage de Philippe Portier, L’État et les religions en France. Une sociologie historique de la laïcité, est particulièrement stimulante pour ceux qui s’intéressent à la recherche des facteurs favorisant l’évolution des formes et des techniques juridiques élaborées par un Etat face au phénomène religieux.
De ce point de vue spécifique, j’apprécie l’effort accompli par Portier pour exposer et argumenter la thèse selon laquelle, à l’intérieur des lignes brisées qui délimitent le polygone correspondant à l’espace géopolitique occupé par la France continentale - et qui ont conduit à calquer la figure géométrique définie dans son emploi originel de “laïcité hexagonale” comme synonyme de laïcité à la française -, se serait en fait inscrit peu à peu, à partir d’un certain moment historique et pour l’avenir, un modèle vivant de laïcité tout autre que dur et rigide, qui aurait progressivement amené la France à s’adoucir par rapport aux religions et mériterait donc d’être représenté par un dessin plus conforme à la réalité actuelle. (continue)
SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa – 2. Le due mancate intese e la discussione parlamentare – 3. L’art. 8 cpv. Cost. e il limite del non contrasto con l’ordinamento giuridico – 4. Alcune riflessioni conclusive.
SOMMARIO: 1. Il primato della persona umana: le radici del costituzionalismo - 2. Interessi collettivi, “lottizzazione” dello spazio pubblico e libertà individuali - 3. Alla ricerca del giusto bilanciamento tra interessi collettivi (di parte) e aspirazioni libertarie individuali - 4. Spazi di libertà, flessibilità e autonomia dei soggetti organizzati - 5. Rappresentanza degli interessi collettivi, anche di natura religiosa, e compiti dello Stato a garanzia dei diritti costituzionali - 6. Il diritto pattizio, la sua contraddittoria specialità e le nuove prospettive del diritto pubblico in materia religiosa - 7. Il futuro delle libertà religiose: i vantaggi di una legge generale e le proposte avanzate di recente.
SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa: flussi migratori e problematiche sanitarie, una nuova sfida per la pacifica convivenza nel Mare nostrum - 2. Tutela della salute e normativa di riferimento: profili etico-giuridici - 3. Stranieri regolari e irregolari - 4. L’assistenza sanitaria per i “richiedenti asilo” - 5. Gli stranieri temporaneamente presenti (S.T.P.) - 6. Gli apolidi e i rifugiati per motivi politici - 7. Alcune notazioni conclusive.
SOMMARIO: 1. Indivisibilità delle libertà – 2. Imprescindibilità della giurisdizione – 3. Libertà negativa: a) legislazione – 4. (segue:) b) giurisdizione – 5. Libertà positiva – 6. Pluralismo – 7. Diritto ecclesiastico futuro.