4 MOTIVI PER RIFIUTARSI DI TENERE LE UDIENZE SOTTO I CROCIFISSI (dal ricorso per cassazione di Luigi Tosti) 
Riporto, qui di seguito, uno dei passi più significativi del ricorso per cassazione nel quale elenco i motivi per i quali mi sono rifiutato e mi rifiuterò di tenere le udienze sotto i crocifissi cattolici.
" La richiesta di rimozione dei crocifissi del dr. Luigi Tosti.
Il dr. Luigi Tosti non è un magistrato che ha scelto di “lavorare” alle dipendenze della Chiesa o del Vaticano nei Tribunali della Santa Inquisizione o in quelli ecclesiastici o rotali: se lo avesse fatto, non avrebbe potuto accampare la strampalata pretesa di far rimuovere i crocifissi, avendo egli accettato, sin ab initio, di lavorare alle dipendenze di un’Amministrazione della Giustizia CONFESSIONALE.
Dr. Luigi Tosti, on the contrary, a citizen who, after having passed a competition in the judiciary, has agreed to work under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic "secular" and, therefore, that courts can not tolerate or manifestations of "freedom religion "by the State, or connotations of denominational" partisan "of the judicial function carried out by the courts, or where imposition of a religious nature to which no one can escape except through the termination of the employment relationship.
Dr. Luigi Tosti is also a person who, in exercising its discretion the individual right of freedom religion, abhors any form of idolatry or religious symbolism, so much so that does not put on their person or in his home or at places of its membership idols, fetishes, sacred images or relics as macabre bits of skin, scabs and blood clots Padre Pio.
So he does not and will never accept-is repeated for the second time, does not and will never accept--is repeated for the third time, does not and will never accept--is repeated for the fourth time, hoping that the concept is treated as such: do not accept and will never accept that the Minister of Justice requiring him to perform his work duties under the incumbency of the crucified. This taxation is in fact an act innocuous, as well as the innocuous act would not be a hypothetical counterpart obligation to hold hearings with a crucifix around her neck.
Dr. Tosti does not deny that the Administration and the Legislature may require the neutral symbols such as flag, a portrait of the President or the toga; disputes, however, that can be imposed symbolism partisans of a religious nature, such as crucifixes. And if a crucifix around his neck, perhaps over-robe connotes the jurisdiction of the Catholic partisanship and violates the rights of religious freedom which the court is obliged to wear a crucifix on the wall above his head, has the exact same meanings, the exact same religious significance and the same adverse effects on the right of freedom of the court and its powers of impartiality.
The undoubted fact that we are "addicted" to the vision of the crucified, because they are hung on the walls of the classrooms for nearly 90 years, no reason for erroneous conviction that the crucifix is \u200b\u200ba symbol of "passive", an "inert "that does not force anyone to believe or to perform acts of worship, as stated by some courts grotesquely.
If that were the case, you should also affirm the legitimacy of a hypothetical law imposing Italian citizens the obligation to display crucifixes in their private homes, even the heavy fines offenders: in this "case" (which has nothing hypothetical, considering that hundreds of mayors "sheriffs" have issued "orders" with which they have imposed on the display of crucifixes in public places, imposing fines of up to 500 €) we could say that these crucifixes are symbols of "passive", the "inert" that do not require the tenants of the houses to believe or to perform acts of worship. That assessment, however, is not acceptable as it puts in clear conflict with the legal principle that the effect of Article. Rule 58 of the prison that she describes as "an act of manifestation of religious freedom" the 'display of images and symbols of their religion in their room or in their own space of belonging. "
If we consider that the choice of a faithful display of a crucifix around his neck has the same meaning and the same religious significance than exposing it in a place of belonging (eg. In the house or car), it must be concluded that if the Minister of Justice grants the "right" to require employees to work under the incumbency of the crucifix, the Minister himself could not then refuse to grant a "right" to force employees to work with the crucifix around the neck. The applicant doubts that civil servants Italians are willing to accept such an imposition, and believes, on the contrary, that there would be a "Waste" of vast proportions which should lead to rational homology to reflect, as "solitary" REFUSAL "which was put in place dr. Luigi Tosti.
And indeed, if the "waste" dr. Luigi Tosti stands out for its "singularity" (only the magistrate refused Tosti), this does not depend on the "singularity" of the reasons cited by him (which are otherwise endorsed by the judgments of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and the ECHR) but the Italians dall'assuefazione general (sorry, subjects of the Vatican) in the presence of crucifixes, since they are hanging on the walls for almost 90 years. If a judge is presented at the hearing, however, with cardinal-like clothing, that is, with a gaudy crucifix around her neck, the appellant strongly doubt that there would be no negative reactions from users is that by the supervisory authorities. So what would His Excellency the Minister of Justice, the best of a bad game, or promote a disciplinary procedure against the magistrate because it "dares" to show that same crucifix around his neck that he imposes on his head? These considerations should encourage rational thinking on the question raised the "loner" Tosti.
In summary, the applicant considers that the imposition of work in classrooms decorated with crucifixes violation, first, his right (negative) religious freedom. But not all.
Dr. Luigi Tosti is in fact a subject that is "woefully" informed respect for and observance of the principles of the Constitution, especially those of "supreme" so he does not and will never accept-is repeated for the second time: no accepts and will never accept, is repeated for the third time, so that the concept is well understood: does not and will never accept that the Minister of Justice / employer compel stepping on the supreme principle of secularism, forcing it to connote partisanship of the Catholic exercise of its judicial functions. In one truly "secular", in fact, the courts must administer justice in a "visibly" impartial, neutral and equidistant, and not an idol in identifying blatantly partisan as the crucifix.
Again, the principle of "secularism" stems from the fact that all citizens and all faiths "are" equal before the law (Article 3 and 8) and that, therefore, the state has an obligation to "equidistant, impartial and neutral towards all religions, in accordance with art. 8 of Constitution, where it is in fact enshrined in the equal freedom of all religions before the law "(as most recently expressed 18.4.2005-29.4.2005 Constitutional Court No. 168).
And if the State has an obligation to not to discriminate against citizens, it is very obvious that citizens have the same subjective absolute right not to be discriminated against and to be treated with impartiality, neutrality and equidistance with respect to their beliefs or their religion. Thus, the "principle of secularism" not is a subject of "Martian" or an invention of the Constitutional Court, but a true "legal relationship" that arises from the fact that all citizens and all faiths have equal rights e pari dignità, sicché lo Stato e tutti gli enti pubblici hanno il corrispondente obbligo di non discriminare i cittadini e le confessioni religiose in ragione del credo.
Ebbene, esporre un solo simbolo religioso nelle aule giudiziarie significa privilegiare una confessione religiosa e connotare di confessionalismo cattolico l’esercizio della funzione giurisdizionale, violando così uno dei precetti fondamentali della Costituzione: il che è ovviamente vietato, tant’è che la Corte Costituzionale, con sent. n. 195/1993, ha affermato che “qualsiasi DISCRIMINAZIONE in danno dell'una o dell'altra fede è COSTITUZIONALMENTE INAMMISSIBILE in quanto contrasta con il diritto di libertà di religione e con il principio of equality. " The
that dr. Luigi Tosti, who has sworn allegiance to the Constitution, ITALIAN, and not a monarch of a foreign state as the Pope-is absolutely intolerable.
But that's not all.
Dr. Luigi Tosti is a subject which, although not Catholic, "dares to" advancing the "claim" to have the same dignity and equal rights that his employer shall grant the "superior" race "of Catholics: he therefore , does not and will never accept-is repeated for the second time, does not and will never accept--is repeated for the third time, since the concept was not the least assimilated by those who are interested in his story: do not accept and will never accept--is repeated for the fourth time, hoping that the concept is beginning to be treated: does not and will never accept that the Minister of Justice, after having imposed an obligation to work under the incumbency of crucifixes Catholic, denies the equal right to display their symbols, ie it discriminates in a direct and blatant in the work environment on account of his religious beliefs.
It is emphasized that the dr. Tosti has expressed his utter willingness to hold hearings under the incumbency of the crucified, as long as was permitted to display their symbols, that is not being trampled on because of his right to manifest and propagate his beliefs. So, if there is a responsibility for the failure of hearings held, this is not Tosti, but administration "racist" that prevented him from exposing its symbols, trampling and raping the following laws:
- l 'Art. 3 of the Constitution, which states that "all citizens, then the Jews and atheists," they have the same dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of religion ";
- art. 8 of the Constitution, which states that "all religions-Judaism and atheism, and therefore, are equally free before the law ";
- art. 19 of the Constitution, which states that "all-and then the Jews, and atheists have the right to profess freely their religion, to propagate it and to worship in public;
- art. 9 of the International Convention on Human Rights, which states that "every person-and therefore also the jew-el'ateo has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this matter right the freedom to change religion or thought, as well as the freedom to manifest one's religion or their thoughts individually or collectively, in public or in private, through worship, teaching, practices and performance of rituals;
- art. 14 of the Convention, entitled "Prohibition of discrimination", which states that "the enjoyment of civil rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be guaranteed for all, therefore the Jews and atheists, without any distinction based on .. . religion ";
- art. 43 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998, entitled "Discrimination on racial, ethnic, national or religious," which sanctions as an act of discrimination "any conduct which directly or indirectly involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on ....... . convictions and religious practices " and states that "performs an act of discrimination ... the officer ..... that the exercise of its functions or fails performs acts in respect of a citizen .... that it is only because of his condition ....... of belonging to a given ..... the religion unfairly discriminate "and" the employer who ....... any action or behavior that would produce an adverse effect discrimination, even indirectly, the workers because they belong to a religious confession ............. "
- art. 43 of Legislative Decree 286/1998, which stipulates that "When the behavior ....... public administration makes discrimination on grounds ..... religious the court may ......... order the cessation of the injurious behavior and take any other measure under the circumstances, to remove the effects of discrimination ";
- the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, signed at Strasbourg on 1 February 1995 and ratified by Law August 28, 1997, No 302, which states in Article. 6 that "The Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue and take effective measures to promote respect and mutual understanding and cooperation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of their identity .. religious .... ....... and undertake to take all appropriate to protect people who may be victims ..... acts of discrimination ...... religious;
- art. 2, Part I ^, of L. 03/08/1989 No 101, which states that "in accordance with the principles of the Constitution, is entitled to freely profess and practice the Jewish religion in any form, individually or in groups, to promote them, and in private or in public worship and rituals" that "in criminal proceedings is guaranteed equal protection of religious feelings and rights of religious freedom, without discrimination between citizens and between faiths;
- Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, which states "The right to equality before the law" and that "protection against discrimination constitutes a universal right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights respectively Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which all Member States are signatories. " The directive also provides that "discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation may undermine the achievement of the objectives of the EC Treaty, in particular the attainment of a high level of employment and social protection, improvement of living and quality of life, economic and social cohesion, solidarity and freedom of movement of persons " ;
- art. 2 of D. Legislative Decree No. 216/2003, which punishes all forms of "discrimination" by public or private employer, and that is the "direct discrimination" (when, for religion ...... a person is treated less favorably than is, has been or would be treated in a similar situation ") that the" indirect "(" when a provision, criterion, practice, act, pact or behavior would put persons having a particular religion ...... at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons ");
- finally the art. Act 3 of 13.10.1975, which punishes with imprisonment for "those who commit acts of discrimination on religious grounds ...."
Fourth, and finally, finally, the dr. Tosti is a person informed and inspired the respect of fundamental human rights, respect for the Republican Constitution, the fundamental principles that govern modern democratic states, the respect of criminal laws and those compelling and, last but not least, to respect its "brain" and its ability to be logical and critical thinking. Therefore, as the Italian state would not tolerate the crime requires the Nazi swastika, that is the standard of those Christians criminals under the command of a criminal named Adolf Hitler Catholic have become architects of racial persecution and genocide of six million Jews, Roma and homosexuals-a fortiori does not allow the Minister of Justice to impose a symbol that is infinitely more criminal than the swastika, that is the banner of a band of criminals and counterfeiters who has become artisans in about 1,700 years of disastrous history of heinous crimes against humanity, causing the sterminio di centinaia di milioni di esseri umani, e non di “appena” 6 milioni di innocenti. Il crocifisso -ad onta dei compiacenti ed oltraggiosi tentativi di contrabbandarlo come “il simbolo storico/culturale che identifica il popolo italiano e che esprime un sistema di valori di libertà, di eguaglianza, di dignità umana e di tolleranza religiosa, che stanno alla base del principio di laicità dello Stato”- rappresenta il “vessillo” della più grande banda di criminali e della più grande banda di falsari che sia mai esistita sul pianeta Terra, la quale si è resa artefice dei più efferati crimini contro l’umanità, condividendoli di papa in papa senza il minimo moto di resipiscenza o di pentimento.
La storia del “crocifisso” gronda di sangue, di genocidi, di assassini, di torture, di criminale inquisizione, di criminali crociate, di criminale razzismo, di criminali condanne a morte di eretici, di criminali torture e condanne al rogo di centinaia di migliaia di streghe, di criminale schiavizzazione a livello planetario delle popolazioni indigene, di superstizione, di criminale discriminazione e persecuzione razziale, di criminale shoà, di criminale collaborazione con i genocidi degli ustascia, di criminale fornitura di falsi passaporti e di aiuti per consentire l’espatrio e la fuga dei criminali di guerra nazisti, di criminali rapimenti di bambini ebrei perché “battezzati”di nascosto, castration of children to raise celestial melodies "to" good "God of Hosts, of criminal genocide of Native Americans and Australian criminal seizures of pathological misogyny and homophobia, discrimination against women and homosexuals, of pathological sexual phobia of intolerance, obscurantism, the absolute negation of the most basic political rights and human equality, freedom of opinion, freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom of science and research, and criminal conspiracy of silence coverage of pedophile priests in planetarium, of conspiracy and criminal coverage of murder and concealment of corpses in the attic of the church, and mafia collusion economic exchanges of favors with politicians and "gentlemen" of the pope to secure funding for major events, silence and complicity in criminal and dirty money laundering in processing tax, the imposition of unnatural practices such as chastity, criminal incitement to 'Murder by prohibiting the use of condoms for AIDS patients, non-adherence to international conventions concluded by the Member for the Protection of civil rights and fundamental freedoms of men and women, failure to adhere to international conventions aimed at combating crime, money laundering and tax evasion, abuse of financial, parasitic accumulation of enormous wealth that represent a scandal "theological" and an insult to poverty, ostentation of pomp, gold, precious stones, riches, liturgical vestments and shoes of Prada outrage that the real poor "Christs" of this planet, " offshore financial center "set up and managed to hide the tracing of criminals and facilitate banking transactions, the absolute denial of political rights and religious freedom, the absolute denial of the inviolable right of marriage of priests and nuns, of fraud, abuse of constant popular credulity for speculative purposes, to put fraudulent Gregorian, of simony, the commercialization of indulgences fraudulent marketing of "medals" miracle "of Madonna and other deities inferior marketing of fraudulent miracle of dihydrogen monoxide prestigious pharmaceutical laboratories of Lourdes, mafia bubbles composing, the nativity of Jesus Christ of false, false" donations "of Constantine to "justify" the Church's temporal power on planet Earth, and tarot constant falsification of the sacred writings, false relics, false foreskins of Jesus (at least 13!) of fake blood of Jesus Christ, to false "bands" Jesus' child, ox and donkey feeding false, false Baby Jesus baby feeding bottles to baby Jesus false, false and fraudulent "the blood of San Gennaro", false feathers of the wings of the Archangel Gabriel, the false veil of the Madonna, the Madonna of false hair, false lady's belts, false engagement rings of Joseph and Mary, false sticks and belts of St. Joseph, fake "milk" of the Virgin Mary, crown of thorns of false, false "heads" off of St. John the Baptist, Judas' false money-with relative false-bags of skulls, brains, vertebrae, clavicles, fingers, feet, hands, hips and other grisly human remains, belonging to those who know and those attributed to St. false, false apparitions of the Virgin Mary-a thousand but not in a Muslim country-of false Madonnas that weep blood, a plethora of fake hosts that are transformed miraculously Florentine blood, false case of Our Lady of Loreto that flit to the delight of the Italian pilots-in false nails of the cross of Jesus, the cross of Jesus false, false Lance of Longinus (Heilige Lanze) venerated by the villain Catholic Hitler, shrouds false, false veronica, false miracles, false saints-authors of false miracles - false exorcists practicing shamanic rituals on the mentally ill or accomplices impostors, false stigmata of false transubstantiation of the Host, the Holy Fathers of the Pious frauds, false purgatory, limbo of false, false demons, false angeli, di falsi arcangeli, di falsi cherubini, di falsi serafini, di falsi troni, di falsi indemoniati e, persino, della falsa “cacca” dell’asino che avrebbe trasportato Gesù Cristo.
Esporre i crocifissi nelle aule di giustizia non è dunque soltanto un insulto al principio supremo di laicità e all’intelligenza umana, ma è anche un insulto e un oltraggio alla Legalità, alla Giustizia, alla Civiltà e alla Memoria delle centinaia di milioni di esseri umani che, in nome di quel macabro e orrifico simbolo, sono stati assassinati, torturati, sbudellati, incarcerati, discriminati, inquisiti, ghettizzati, prevaricati, abbindolati, truffati, vilipesi ed emarginati dalla Chiesa Cattolica in his nefarious criminal history. The applicant considers that there is a symbol that is more "disqualified" and more unworthy of being exposed in court of the crucifix.
The applicant considers shameful and unacceptable that this exposes the Italian flagship in the court, as is shameful, outrageous and intolerable that the Pope and the church hierarchy seguitino still to be accredited, sponsored and backed by the Italian institutions, despite of the criminal past of the Church and in spite of their present, far from commendable. The applicant is shameful that the church hierarchy invade everyday Italian politics, public spaces and RAI with intrusive interventions that brutalize the principle of secularism and religious pluralism and are called to be present in first-line and in perfect "solitude" - the opening of the Italian judiciary, which is before the Supreme Court to the Courts of Appeals, as if the judiciary is subject to constitutional provisions, the sovereignty of the Church.
