The debate over the constitutionality of Education Law No. 7546 in the province of Salta, which mandates Catholic religious instruction in public schools, has reached the Supreme Court of Justice after seven years of litigation. Those arguing against the law highlight its violation of the right to identity and the danger it poses to various groups, including the LGBTI community. Today, the first of four hearings was held at the Supreme Court of Justice to discuss Education Law No. 7546 of the province of Salta, which authorized Catholic instruction in public schools. This stage was reached after a group of parents, along with the Association for Civil Rights (ADC) , filed an injunction in 2010 alleging the violation of children's rights. The law stipulates that in public schools, "religious education must be in accordance with their own convictions," "will be part of the curriculum," and will be taught "during school hours." Salta is one of the provinces, along with Catamarca and Tucumán, that has mandatory religious instruction in schools. After two unfavorable rulings for the plaintiffs, the case "Castillo, Carina V. and Others v. Province of Salta" reached the Supreme Court with the presentation of some 50 amicus curiae briefs (friends of the court) who argued for and against the constitutionality of the law. Among them was Fernando Esteban Lozada, in his capacity as director and spokesperson for Latin America of the International Association of Free Thought (AILP), who drew a parallel between the secular community and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) community with respect to the right to identity. “In Salta, teachers are chosen by the Bishopric itself. There's a power dynamic at play regarding the minds of children. This year, a girl who was the flag bearer had her flag taken away because she refused religious instruction. Saying she doesn't want religion put her in a vulnerable position. It will be on a registry. They're forcing her to publicly declare what she believes and what she doesn't believe,” Lozada told Presentes

Right to identity

Lozada, sponsored by lawyer and LGBTI activist Claudia Vega (a member of the Mar del Plata-based organization AMI), based his presentation on the right to identity and emphasized the foundations of the Gender Identity Law, approved in Argentina in 2012. “We used arguments from the LGBTI movement to discuss identity, as well as those from the Grandmothers and Mothers of Plaza de Mayo and Indigenous Peoples,” he added. The document presented by Lozada reviews local and international jurisprudence on the right to identity. “I presented myself as part of an atheist collective, in which I defend a sector of society. In Argentina, we represent 7%, and adding the agonistic sector and those who don't belong to any particular group, we reach 11%. I want to demonstrate how this law is about the persecution of one group, the atheist group, but that it also affects others, such as the LGBTQ+ community, because the education provided in Salta schools is purely Catholic, and the Church's social doctrine and catechism have specific sections that talk about trans people and the LGBTQ+ community, saying aberrant things like promoting celibacy, among other things.” Esteban Lozada and Claudia Vega 

“This affects us as a group.”

Claudia Vega, who is sponsoring Lozada, said that she, as a member of an organization that fights for the rights of LGBTI people, feels directly affected. “This law affects us as a group. Because of what the Catholic Church says about LGBTI people, and also because Comprehensive Sex Education is not implemented in Salta.” Lozada, in turn, links this law to the Religious Freedom project The bill, promoted by the Executive Branch and already submitted to Parliament, would allow public officials to invoke conscientious objection. “A judge could refuse, for example, to marry two people of the same sex, saying that their religion forbids it. The setback in rights would be terrible,” he says. The bill has sparked much criticism among civil society organizations, who have expressed their opposition through statements and letters. That's what Amnesty International did. and some 20 sexual diversity organizations. “Religion, whether through mandatory education or by defending its 'freedom,' prioritizes moral precepts over rights, and that is what we cannot allow,” Lozada added. The second hearing will be held tomorrow at the Supreme Court. The last two are scheduled for August 30 and 31.