Judge Giovanni Bonello replies to Justin BB
I have received this from Giovanni Bonello in response to a comment uploaded here, from Justin BB (in turn reproduced below for reference):
I am moderately amused to be described by Justin BB as “the most rabidly conservative member of the European Court of Human Rights”.
That’s news. When my work in Strasbourg was praised, it was for exactly the opposite reason. It was for my views being ‘progressive’, ‘far sighted’, ‘boldly out of the box’.
When it was criticized, it was also for exactly the opposite reason: for being ‘liberal over the top’, ‘too daring’, ‘uncomfortably, almost subversively, revolutionary’.
Of course, Justin BB is entitled to his views, but these are hardly shared by anyone else in the human rights law world. I was probably the only judge in Strasbourg, in over 60 years of the Court’s activity, whose opinions were singled out for publication during his or her tenure of office (not a vanity publication by some judge of his own opinions).
Entirely behind my back and unknown to me, two of the most luminous personalities of the European human rights firmament, Bratza and O’Boyle, got together to edit and publish my opinions, for Wolf Legal Publishers of The Netherlands.
Bratza (later president of the Court) and O’Boyle (of Harris & O’Boyle fame) would laugh themselves silly at Justin’s dismissal of me as “rabidly conservative”. That book is now sold out, but if Justin BB is curious to find out what Bratza and O’Boyle thought of my opinions, I will arrange to lend him my extra copy of ‘A Free Trade of Ideas – the Separate Opinions of Judge Vanni Bonello” dedicated exclusively to my rabidly conservative Strasbourg opinions. Just let me know where I can leave the copy.
Justin’s views will also come as a shock to the University of Leuven, which houses what is probably the most prestigious faculty of human rights law in Europe. Not that long ago, in the examination paper for the finals of the Masters degree in human rights law, one of the set questions was “Judge Bonello is the greatest of them all. Discuss”.
How many European jurists that he knows of, happen to have been singled out for that honour? My speculation is that Justin is a lawyer. I sincerely wish that some day one of the great universities of Europe will include in its toughest examination paper the question “Justin BB is the greatest of them all. Discuss”. I will be thrilled for him when this happens.
Justin BB ties all his fortunes to the Lautsi case, the one about the display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms. This case centred round highly charged, emotive and contentious issues, and the Grand Chamber of the Court (including myself) ruled that the display of a crucifix in a classroom did not constitute a violation of human rights.
In issues of freedom of worship and of conscience, the Court decided, the national authorities (the Italian government, parliament and the courts) were better placed to determine these issues, than a far-away international court, ever could by judicial diktat.
The Court judgement (and my concurring opinion) were, quite naturally for such a controversial subject, praised by many and dammed by some. Stale communists, crusading secularists and militant atheists, not surprisingly, called the judgement, and my separate opinion, “disgraceful”.
I have only a couple of comments to make. My disgraceful views were, in substance, supported by 15 out of the 17 Grand Chamber judges. All disgraceful? All embarrassing?
What a few doctrinaire critics dubbed ‘disgraceful’, far more qualified jurists praised to high heaven. Professor Carozza, till recently President of the Inter-American Commission for Human rights (the American equivalent of the ECHR), chair of constitutional law in Notre Dame and lecturer at Harvard, wrote that Judge Bonello’s Lautsi opinion “is probably the greatest that ever came from the Strasbourg Court”.
Not too bad for a judge from a tiny, almost unknown island, to be pointed out as the very best among the legal colossi of Europe. I just hope that one day someone of the juridical eminence of Carozza will write about Justin that one of his opinions is probably the best that ever came out of the supreme court of Europe.
In a later post, Justin modified the thrust of his attack to define me as “rabidly conservative in religious issues”. No offence meant, but frankly I don’t believe he knows what he is talking about. Maybe he should see how I voted in the Irish and Polish abortion cases, in the validity of church marriages case, in the Jehovah Witnesses cases and in the compulsory religious instruction case. Maybe he will then apologize, but I’m not holding my breath.
Justin is perfectly entitled to belittle me and my work in the ECHR, provided he is aware that the juridical company he keeps is poor in numbers and poorer in quality.
———-
This is the relevant part of Justin BB’s comment:
The myth of Giovanni Bonello
Maltese newspapers refer to Vanni Bonello as an outstanding legal mind: ‘an eminent figure whom this newspaper had already proposed for such a role’ (The Times, 26.03/13)
Judge Bonello was the most rabidly conservative member of the European Court of Human Rights. How’s that for a progressive government?
I discussed the judgment in Lautsi with several academics, most of whom found the ‘Italian’ judge’s opinion hilarious. They were embarrassed by my embarrassment when I told them that Bonello was Maltese.
Here’s what a Reader at King’s College, London thinks: ‘Judge Bonello joined the feast with a rant that reads like an advertisement on why nation states should opt out of the Court.’
‘he adds that secularism, pluralism and religious tolerance have nothing to do with the Convention, which is only concerned with freedom of religion. This is not a tenable position: freedom of and from religion is a byproduct of the historical struggle between the Church and the state. I am tempted to say that even a child would know this…’ (Lorenzo Zucca, KCL)
And another: ‘Judge Bonello’s concurrence is disgraceful.’ (Colm O’Cinneide, KCL).
‘As for Bonello, anyone who seriously uses “Armageddon” and “rivers of blood” in his opinion, as he did in Bosnian voting case, cannot really be taken seriously’ (Leart, a pseudonymous commentator).
36 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Wow, what an inflated ego.
True, but you can’t say he’s not entitled to it.
No, he is not entitled to that kind of reaction.
Kudos to what he has achieved and to all good deeds that he represents (defence of human rights). I have a lot of respect for his work but I fail to agree with his reaction to an innocent criticism.
I can’t help but notice that Malta, being a tiny island, is full of inflated egos with a thin skin, who can’t stand an iota of criticism. It is a society of mammoni.
There are numerous examples of people in Malta with different degrees of thin skin. Only a few days ago, Kenneth Zammit Tabona wrote that The Times should not allow any negative (i.e. critical) comments of him, since he is one of their keynote columnists.
If I may, I think Giovanni Bonello’s mistake is in treating us young frustrated professionals as if we were his peers.
We are way down in the gutter, looking up at his level with envy. I’d say we are entitled to our own slightly bilious, irrational views of him, as we would with any celebrity who has achieved far greater success than we ever will.
A jurist may disagree, but the world isn’t a courtroom, and humans are driven by passions which may be wrong or destructive. Such is the world.
Although, with your tongue firmly planted in cheek, you’re being much too subservient.
Yes, you are correct, the world is not a courtroom. However, this guy’s sense of self-importance indicates that he thinks it is just that. Or should be.
It’s not tongue in cheek at all. I really think Giovanni Bonello belongs to that class of men and women who cannot understand their position in the world in relation to the rest of us.
Just said that. Time to share a drink.
Santo subito.
Bonello kien avukat li iddefenda tajjeb hafna nies martri tal-PL fi zmien Il-Perit Mintoff.
…colpito e affondato!
Who is Justin BB?
Bonello is an honour to Malta and the PM did the right thing in choosing him. Bonello was praised by people who count and definitely know what they are saying.
Judge Bonello’s appointment is the only sensible one made by the new government. We can only be relieved that he has accepted to be part of the reform process. It is only someone of his stature that can reign in the arrogance of Frankie. (though if I recall even he has come under attack from our new law commissioner)
Judge Bonello is a solid defender of human rights. He is our only hope that the reform proposed respects these essential freedoms. Let us hope that Frankie’s puppet masters do not try to use Judge Bonello to give legitimacy to whatever they are seeking to accomplish.
You are so right, H.P. Baxxter.
I still have to pluck some courage to say a few words of sincere thanks to Judge Bonello for his fantastic sense of civic justice over the years mostly towards us people of this tiny nation.
The few times I happened to be close to him I always felt to lack proper words of thanks for my civic indebtedness towards him. Not that I feel inferior but yes, “ghandi sudizzjoni lejh” I’m of the Old school when we mention respect, I know, and I feel a sense of gladness too when I come across him.
For now however, I will tell him thanks from here for all the years of honoring us with what he has done over the decades in civil rights in Malta, but not only.
Oh Justin B.B. spare us more “academic opinions”. In Maltese we say “Lil min tafu s-saqsix ghalih” – we have known for decades what great legal mind Judge Bonello is and still remember with regret the mistake that EFA did when he chose to not appoint him in the European Court of Justice when the first opportunity arose.
Er? Right about what?
Kemm ghandek ragun hi. Dawn x’ikunu “academic opinions”?
The argument which sunk the issue was whether churches, by default should rid themselves of any icon on their exterior, these being in the same indistinct public space.
Imagine dismantling San Gaudenzio’s Christ or Milan’s Madonnina. Florence would have to get rid of its David, or rename it Donovan.
What part of religion, if freedom has to be obtained, offends unbearably?
Northern iconoclasm doesn’t subscribe to experimentation with the soul. To think everyone laments its absence nowadays.
And yet the national gallery or the Louvre couldn’t exist. European capitalism is singularly supreme.
If politics, polis, is the state of the art, offence is the obstacle to the city’s prospects, make that prosperity.
It’s fine to hurt Muslim’s deepest sentiments, perversing through an image, horrible when an icon, ironically its accepted inverse, determines the irrational to pervade.
I suppose Justin BB prefers wooden planking to a horoscope inlaid in a marble floor.
As a militant atheist, I would like to throw in my two cents worth.
I don’t think there is any point in a discussion about Judge Bonello’s stature and credentials. Even this last comment is a superfluous statement of the obvious. Justin my boy, what were you thinking?
Not having read the judgement itself (always a mistake, I know) and basing myself solely on the references Judge Bonello makes, it is unclear to me whether the court actually “ruled that the display of a crucifix in a classroom did not constitute a violation of human rights” or whether the Court decided that “the national authorities (the Italian government, parliament and the courts) were better placed to determine these issues”.
These are two different things and I would be interested to know how they formed part of the same opinion, if they did. Surely one should have stopped at the first ruling?
On the merits, however, I think I am entitled to an opinion which does not have to agree with that of the other militant atheists Judge Bonello refers to. Like Christians, we come in many exciting flavours. I happen to agree with both findings above.
I don’t believe that displaying a crucifix in a public place constitutes a human rights violation. This would apply to any symbol of any imaginary friend anyone had. After all, one must have a sense of proportion. 150 years ago I’d have been sentenced to death in many countries, possibly including this one, if it became publicly known I was an atheist. In many US States today, I am ineligible to stand for public office (in violation of federal statutes). So at the least, I would think it is unfair to display ONE religious symbol rather than another, and at most the crucifix may be offensive to non-Christians. Jews find the display of the Swastika highly offensive, and so do I, not only in solidarity with the Jews, but also because, as not enough people are aware, the first people Hitler went for were the atheists. My feelings about the crucifix are the same as the Swastika, but I don’t feel as violated or offended, purely the basis of the amount of elapsed time.
So in a secular state, the solution would be to display no religious symbols at all (in public ‘state-owned’ places) and in a religious state, display the symbols of the religions practised by the citizenry (including the symbols of those who practice no religion). I would therefore agree that it is correct to state that “the national authorities (the Italian government, parliament and the courts) were better placed to determine these issues”, not least the initial determination of whether the state in question is secular or religious. Ours, for instance, is religious.
The USA however, for all the extreme Christian ranting that goes on, is a secular state and the American Supreme Court has ruled that display of religious symbols (in the specific case I refer to, the ten commandments) amounts to government sponsorship of religion and is therefore unconstitutional. Not a violation of human rights, just plain wrong. I’m sure that both Judge Bonello and Justin BB will agree that the American Supreme Court is not an amateur institution. Of course they have an advantage. The first amendment to the US constitution prohibits government from establishing a religion and from favouring one religion over another, or from favouring religion generally over nonreligious beliefs. We certainly don’t have that in our constitution, and I would imagine the Human Rights Charter speaks of freedom of religion, not from religion.
Finally a word to Justin and a word to Judge Bonello;
Justin first. If you are an atheist, please note religious publicity is a GOOD thing. As long as an educational system is geared towards the production of open, rational, inquisitive minds, religion is doomed to extinction. Against a background of a good educational system, it is in our strategic long term interest for religion to get as much publicity as possible. It is ALL, by its very nature, negative. Just as it was in our interest for the divorce referendum to fail. (In my case, conscience won out over strategy, and I voted yes). So if you want to be shrill about something, be shrill about our educational system, but when taking others to task, there is no need to demonise believers, remember the maxim, “Good men do good things, bad men do bad things, but for a good man to do a bad thing, you need religion”.
And for Judge Bonello, a provocation, assuming he has the time and inclination to respond. I’ve been thinking about the Christian concept of original sin. To my mind, that is a textbook example of collective punishment. Now as far as I know, that is a war crime. I know the ECHR and the ICC are separate institutions, but surely on that basis, those who believe should be doing their utmost to bring the perpetrator of this crime to stand trial before the ICC?
Are you sure you’re on the right blog?
Should I be in a ghetto? A step up from being burned at the stake, I suppose.
Where do atheists, burning at the stake and ghettos come into the picture here? I’m sorry, go away, I’ll go away, whatever, I give up.
Catherine, I didn’t know this was an exclusive Catholic blog.
I want compensation from God for false advertising. The advert said that life is beautiful.
I think the good Judge may be too busy at the moment looking up all the praise he’s had over the years….now is not the time to ask him for compensation.
I’m getting confused here. Is Giovanni Bonello god?
A joke. Thank you, I’m here all week.
Daphne, your blog has just become heavenly. We are all saved.
I must admit that I too am moderately amused. But I will begin with an apology – I could have been far more academic in my analysis and erred in describing Judge Bonello as the ‘most rabidly conservative member of the European Court of Human Rights’.
Judge Bonello is right to observe that I rely principally (but not exclusively) on his opinion in Lautsi. To my knowledge, he has not disavowed this judgment.
In his opinion in that case, one which adds plenty of bluster but little of substance to the main judgment, he supports the views of the majority in the most rabidly conservative terms. I repeat – and I make no apology whatsoever for this – it is a rabidly conservative judgment.
The critics of Judge Bonello, neither poor in number nor in quality, are unlikely to seek a right of reply here. Indeed, they would be embarrassed to sing their own praises.
They are highly unlikely to list the multiple citations of their work, other than – perhaps – at job interviews. The two that I cited are extremely accomplished young jurists at one of the leading law schools in the UK.
I will not, however, attribute the laughter since it is for those eminent scholars to laugh publicly should they choose to.
As regards exam questions in which students are asked to discuss whether ‘Justin BB is the greatest of them all’, I would be appalled. I prefer my work to be cited studiously.
What is more, as any first-year law student should know, exam questions are meant to be provocative. Students are invited to engage with the strengths and weaknesses of the proposition. There are arguments on both sides. I know how I would answer the question.
If Justin BB is who I think he is, his “criticism” of Judge Bonello should certainly not be taken at face value…. and nor should Judge Bonello’s reply.
That’s some foxy woxy cunning you got right there…
Honestly, this is so symptomatic of what’s wrong with unthinking Malta.
I say something. Judge Bonello replies. Instead of considering the merits of what I said, considering the merits of Judge Bonello’s response and making up his mind, Dwayne here looks for ulterior motives.
I have none, and I would be astounded if Judge Bonello had anything other than an academic interest in my identity (Daphne, please feel free to pass that on if Judge Bonello doesn’t know already).
I would understand criticism of the Lautsi judgement from an militant atheistic, rabid anti-religious and ultra-secularist person. However, fortunately, the great majority of ECHR judges, although probably not persons of faith, are not extremists. Only such an extremist would object to a symbol of a Christ on the cross, representing the two thousand year old Christian culture in Italy. Freedom of religion is a basic human right. Freedom from religion is not.
http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/es/el-dia-dia/detail/article/european-court-of-human-rights-crucifixes-in-public-schools-do-not-violate-freedom-of-religion-of-a.html
I’m a great admirer of both his legal career and his facial hair, but I’m afraid I really don’t think much of Giovanni Bonello’s books on Maltese history.
I hope he’s not offended by this; if it’s any consolation I feel the same about most of the other Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti publications.
Wanting them burnt might be a bit harsh, but having them shredded and showered onto drunken revellers during a village feast would be a fitting end.
Abulafia, I love you and I want to have your babies.
Finally, a like-minded fellow. The Maltese are unable to do history. They do erudition. Totally different, and totally worthless outside Malta’s shores.
Giovanni Bonello will be offended. But he shouldn’t. He’s not a historian. He writes fascinating newspaper articles on historical titbits.
The trouble is Malta worships the ground he walks on. So he’s never found anyone to challenge him.
As an aside, I can’t understand why people who seek to abolish all expressions of religion call themselves progressive. I thought it was the other way round; that the true progressive actually accepts all expressions of religion.
frank, your incomprehension is only due to your belief in the myth. I can’t think of a single European atheist who wants to prohibit the expression of religious belief.