EUROPE/SPAIN - Supreme Court decides that the right to conscientious objection does not exist in the case of Education for Citizenship; parents who object say “the Government cannot ignore over 52,000 objections”

Madrid (Agenzia Fides) – The Supreme Court, after nearly 3 days of debate, has ruled that “the right to conscientious objection does not exist” in the case of the academic course “Education for Citizenship,” in a 22-7 vote. The Supreme Court says that the course “does not infringe on the right of parents in allowing their children to receive the religious and moral education they prefer.” The ruling, whose text will be released in the days to follow, will serve as the unifying doctrine to be used in all the courts across Spain.
Parents who have objected, in defense of their freedom and that of their children, say that “a democratic government cannot ignore a situation that has led over 52,000 people to object to Education for Citizenship, in addition to the nearly 2,000 legal processes.” The organizations that defend the conscientious objection regarding the course say that much information is still lacking on the ruling, in order to make a valid assessment, and it seems that it will definitely by a complex ruling with complicated wording, as they have taken two and a half days to reach a decision. These organizations have not given up hopes for the future, after hearing the ruling, as there is still the Constitutional Court and other international authorities.
The Catholic Confederation of Parents (CONCAPA) has asked families who object to continue defending their constitutional right to educate their children according to their own criteria and philosophical, religious, and moral convictions, awaiting the release of the ruling in its entirety in order to decide on how to further proceed.
The group “Professionals for Ethics,” one of the promoters in the campaign for conscientious objectors, in response to the Supreme Court's statement and awaiting the release of the ruling, has stated that “the ruling declared by the Supreme Court affects the concrete cases that have formed part of the process; it does not effect the cases of other objectors who are protected by other judicial rulings .” It also announced that it will present a case to the Constitutional Court, to request that the course not be of obligatory attendance, and it will also take the case to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg.
Bishop Jose Ignacio Munilla of Palencia, upon hearing of the ruling, issued a statement affirming that “when a parent discerns, in conscience, that their child should not attend Education for Citizenship, they make a decision that exclusively affects the family, without having serious effects on any third-party members. Objecting to EpC (Education for Citizenship) does not imply that their classmates will have to do the work for them, as is the case in military service.” Thus, he denounces the fact that “the principle of conscientious objection can be acknowledged or rejected depending on whether or not the material in question is politically correct.”
Bishop Munilla says that “it makes very little sense that a court can decide on whether or not the contents of EpC violate parents' moral convictions,” as this decision belongs to the parents themselves. “If parents are denied this discernment, their right to conscientious objection is not truly respected.” (RG) (Agenzia Fides 29/1/2009)