A ruling charged with religious bias

Last Wednesday the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) endorsed the government delegate's decision to prohibit the so-called atheist procession organized by the La Playa association in the central Madrid neighborhood of Lavapiés for Thursday afternoon, at about the same time as the Holy Week processions.

The ruling emphasizes that the proposed atheist demonstration constitutes "an affliction to the Catholic conscience, being hurtful to the same," makes reference to "the fundamental right to religious liberty," and expresses apprehension that the atheist event ? in itself "an offense to religious feelings" ? might give rise to confrontations and altercations.

Such arguments are rather less solid than those used by the magistrate Ángeles Huet in her particular dissenting opinion. There exists a fundamental right to association which the government delegate first, and the Court second, seem not to recognize. The only possible argument against the atheist procession is the risk of public confrontation. But this risk, as Judge Huet reminds us, could easily have been eliminated by keeping the atheist itinerary separate from those of religious processions. There are more than enough streets in Madrid to afford space for public manifestations of all kinds.

But the less acceptable argument employed in the ruling is that of an "affliction to the Catholic conscience." This is a judgment of intentions, irrelevant in juridical terms, which reveals in the judges' minds a perception contrary to the separation of Church and State. From this judgment it can be deduced that any public event intended to be staged simultaneously with another event built around Catholic fervor, may be understood to constitute an offense. This is a perverse attitude, entirely in line with the practical religious bias of the regional and municipal governments of Madrid (both governed by the rightist Popular Party), which from the very start took a hostile stance against the atheist demonstration.

If it is difficult to demonstrate an intention to offend, it is all the more difficult to argue the intention to "coerce or intimidate" the Catholic religion, which the ruling attributes to the event organizers. The exhibition of ideas contrary to the existence of God in no way coerces religious faith, just as the Holy Week religious processions must not be interpreted as an intimidation of freethinkers. The ruling, in short, is an unexplained ? and inexplicable under the separation of Church and State ? curtailment of freedom of expression, and a confirmation of the perception that the Catholic Church is in firm occupation of the public domain in Spanish cities, above the rights of others. For example, their right to public meeting.