Dr. Vanja-Ivan Savić is a Croatian lawyer and scientist, long-term lecturer of the Theory of Law and State at the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law. Dr. Savić is well-known to wide public as an expert for Law and Religion, Religious Freedom and Interreligious Dialogue. Professor Savić is a member of ‘Iustitia and Pax’ Commission of the Croatian Bishops Conference. He is author of numerous papers in the field of Legal Theory, Religious Freedom and Religious Legal Issues. He was visiting scholar at DePaul University in Chicago, Northwestern University, the University of Adelaide and University of Vienna. He is frequent attendee to numerous conferences, seminars and roundtables around the World. Dr. Savić is member of the International Consortium for Law and Religion Studies, African Consortium for Law and Religion Studies and Full Member of the Croatian Academy of Legal Sciences.
The reason for this interview is Professor Savić’s engagement in the project of the Central European Academy (Miskolc, Hungary) which gathers top researchers from Central and Eastern European countries to discuss different topics and issues from a comparative law perspective which are topical for countries of the Central and Eastern European legal space sharing many particularities and values. The aim of the work in the Central European Academy is to connect researchers from Central Europe to articulate, in a conservative but modern way, views and reality of this part of Europe. All this is done politely with readiness for dialogue . This year’s theme is Privacy Law. Professor Savić has concentrated on the privacy laws of family and religious life in Europe.
MI: Professor Savić, is privacy of family something we discuss today? Considering the current state of the world situation of the corona virus crisis, earthquakes and now, the war in Ukraine. In other words, is there any space left for talking about family?
SAVIĆ: Family is the real center of society and most people still understand the importance of family and family life, even in a crisis. Think about which emotions influence us most? Those emotions are connected with the suffering of real people, real families and especially when we see that families are separated because of war. In many cases victims are children. Family peace is a symbol of the peace in society. If the father is fighting and the mother is left alone with children; if people are separated and if there is no family lunch on Sunday, we miss our ‘daily bread’. Family still is, at least in Central and Eastern Europe, the nucleus of society.
MI: And what happens when we live in peace? Are we preoccupied with the world of conformity? Does family cease to be important to all of us?
SAVIĆ: There is no doubt that we were also caught by new trends, but Croatia is not and should not be an island not receiving or emitting influences. Not all influences are bad. For instance, many questions regarding environmental protection or improvement of the health care system are good inputs. However, we have to say that, in Croatia, feelings and cohesion which family life provides is still on the high level. Croats have family high on the list of values and in that sense, family bonds and connections form an important part of our life and identity. When I stated that Croatia is not and cannot be an island, I meant that we receive but we give as well. It seems that Croatia is recognized today, together with many Central and Eastern European countries, as a country where traditional values are still cherished and where, despite the modernization, people want to keep up traditional systems, which disintegrate in many other countries. Croatia as a member state of the European Union contributes to Europe’s identity as well. We have to realize that we are not outsiders but creators of the community called Europe.
MI: Are you talking about differences between Eastern and Western Europe?
SAVIĆ: Yes, I am talking about the fact that there are two Europes. It seems that communist regimes in Croatia and in other countries in Europe unintentionally had the opposite effect. I have written about that extensively. The West, which lived its freedoms subsequently, departed from traditional values and religion in general. On the other hand, states of the so-called Eastern bloc, where former Yugoslavia (together with Croatia) also belonged kept its national, ethnic, and religious identities and values. Faith survived in the catacombs and became symbol of Croatian freedom, identity and culture. It is a well-known fact that the Catholic Church managed to save Croatian culture and identity. By saying so, we do not undermine the identities of others, on the contrary. However, the Catholic Church was definitely the keeper of Croatian traditions and values.
MI: In today’s more and more secularized society we see that there is a trend to interfere in families and to put parents under control especially when we talk about the education of children. Is that true?
SAVIĆ: I want to be perfectly clear – children ‘belong’ to parents, not to a state. Of course, and without any doubt, the state has control and a corrective mechanism which is taking care of families and securing the logistics for a child’s healthy and comprehensive development. However, to parents and only to parents alone, belongs the right of private expression of religious and philosophical convictions and subsequent education and upbringing of their children. It is the topic I covered when writing for this year’s project of the Central European Academy. When you see that under normal circumstances, only parents have the right to give permission for their children to be photographed or filmed during kindergarten shows or school plays – everything is clear. Also, only parents decide if they will post photos on their social media platforms using images of their children (this is done by many, and they expose their children to the eyes of strangers). However, regardless on that, law gives the power to parents to lead and support children, and in this situation, the state is partner with parents. Parents are also a partner with state. The state has to take care about family life, and especially about children by using domestic laws and international instruments.
MI: And what about families with problems?
SAVIĆ: This question is a very important, and I am also covering it in the research I have done for the CEA. On one hand, the relationship between parent and child is protected and it has been considered a special value. However, on the other hand there is a duty of the state to protect the most vulnerable, especially children. Here at first sight there is a conflict between two concepts – the law on privacy and law on security. However, this is not the case. In a healthy and democratic society all legal norms should be coherent and, in some way, connected in one, logically shaped legal system. Security Law is a corrective mechanism which is about the corrective and controlling role of the state when misuse of law takes place, especially when we fight domestic violence and child abuse. Privacy laws are not absolute. It is also possible, and this is in accordance with our legal system, that parents preventing their child from going to school are punished and could be sanctioned by taking parental rights from them. It is a clear case where rules of public order and public morals do not allow arbitrary decisions for parents.
MI: Are private decisions also present when parents decide about children’s religious education?
SAVIĆ: The question of religious education falls within the scope of parents’ freedom of choice in the education of their children, based on their philosophical and moral convictions. Attendance at religious ceremonies, religious education and specially participating in classes of religious education in schools falls under the exquisite right of parents. The state cannot interfere into this matter. Nevertheless, there are more and more attempts to reduce or eliminate religious education from the state school system and even restrict parent’s rights in this matter. This goes against not only the Croatian but also the Central and Eastern European legal traditions. We should very clearly stand against the rule which says if you want to be democratic you have to be secular because you have to be neutral. This is wrong. Secularism does not equal neutrality because it is also a worldview. This was shown in the famous case of Lautsi v. Italy in which agnostic parents requested removing the crucifix from Italian classrooms including the classroom of their own child. This was a clear clash between parents’ views (and their right to educate their child according to their moral and philosophical convictions) and the Italian state order and public morals. From Trieste to Sardinia every classroom has crucifix on the wall as a part of Italian identity and values. In conclusion parents have the right to live according to their worldview, but they cannot secularize the state ‘in their own image’.
MI: What is the situation with the right to privacy in Europe in general?
SAVIĆ: In the history of human society, the focus shifted from tribal rights and rules of groups to the completely individualistic concepts which are present today. In the old days, the bearer of the right was the group as a whole, and individuals were considered only part of the system. Over time the focus of law started to shrink, and with some dramatic and unwanted periods in modern history, it came to the point where the individual was considered to be the primary bearer of rights and protection. Because of that personal characteristics of privacy rights became the most sophisticated and delicate elements of human existence seeking legal protection. As a result, the protection of the person and his/her properties, respecting his/her feelings, appearance, thoughts and creativity, has its renaissance. However, in today’s world it is necessary to understand that there are values which have to be considered as foundations of the society, and without those, society would lose its values. Now we talk about public order and public morals. In that respect, the protection of individual and privacy rights have to be coordinated with public order and public morals. We have to protect the weak and unprotected in the first place.
MI: Can you briefly explain the importance of your work with CEA?
SAVIĆ: I am glad that you have asked me this. It seems that today in the public discourse many people want to create the image that European values are unified and homogenous as a whole. We in Europe do share fundamental values of culture and heritage, the rule of law and human rights. We have a lot in common with other member states of the European Union. But this does not mean that Europe is completely homogeneous and culturally identical. Of course, all of us have to agree on basic fundamental questions, but in many ways we can think differently. This would be primarily due to different historical reasons and collective identity. The European Court of Human Rights also uses the margin of appreciation doctrine, which allows to observe different states as a whole and consider their special circumstances (historical, cultural, religious etc.). The importance of the work with CEA is the possibility to make the voice of numerous scientists’ heard from this part of Europe who can articulate their views and opinions which will sometimes differ from the ones articulated at other places. This is normal – we are product of different histories and different circumstances. Central and Eastern Europe was considered for so many times as a part of our continent which have only listened to others and not gave its contribution. It is the time to show that Central and East European lawyers and social scientists have a word to say and have solutions to offer, and that all this can be done in the dialogue with others who think differently. Respect and mutual understanding are a key for our aim to live together in our mutual and valuable living place – our Europe.
