 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, November 23, 2006 |
 |
|


Canada PM proposes tough gun crime law requiring some suspects to make case for bail
Bernard Hibbitts on November 23, 2006 4:39 PM ET

[JURIST] Canadian Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined with Ontario Liberal Party Premier Dalton McGinty and Toronto Mayor David Mills Thursday to lay out [speech transcript; recorded audio] the terms of proposed federal gun crime legislation [press release] being introduced in the Canadian House of Commons that would put the burden on serious gun crimes suspects seeking bail but guilty of a previous firearms offence to show cause why they should not stay in custody. Traditionally, the burden has been on Crown prosecutors to show why bail should not be granted. Harper defended the "reverse onus" aspect of the plan as being consistent with other laws already on the books concerning drug trafficking and organized crime. Last month Canadian Justice Minister Vic Toews defended a new federal crime bill which could require repeat criminal offenders to convince courts that they are no longer dangerous [JURIST report] instead of requiring Crown prosecutors to establish a continuing threat. CTV News has more. CBC News has additional coverage.
Pressure for stricter Canadian guns laws - already significantly more restrictive than those in the US - has increased in the past year in the wake of a surge in gun violence [JURIST report] in Toronto, Canada's largest city, and other Canadian centers. On Thursday, Harper himself pointed to Toronto police figures reporting that "almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this year", nearly 40 percent of which "were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation." Former Liberal Party prime minister Paul Martin pressed for a sweeping national ban on handguns [JURIST report] in the last federal election campaign, but ultimately lost to Harper on other issues.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Pakistan senate approves reformed rape law
Bernard Hibbitts on November 23, 2006 4:15 PM ET

[JURIST] Pakistan's Senate [official website] Thursday approved a reformed rape law that allows rape cases to be tried in either secular or Islamic courts, reduces the evidentiary burden necessary for conviction, and substitutes a fine and five-year prison term for persons found guilty of having sex outside of marriage. The Protection of Women Bill is expected to replace the Hudood Ordinances [Pakistan government backgrounder], which limited rape action to Islamic courts applying Sharia law. The bill has been strongly resisted by Muslim traditionalists, but is supported by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is expected to sign it into law. From Pakistan, Dawn has local coverage.
The National Assembly approved the bill [JURIST report] last week. Parliament had initially postponed consideration [JURIST report] of a revised version of the bill in September due to opposition. Women's and human rights groups have praised the bill, noting the inherent discrimination and the inadequacy of the Sharia system in a country where, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan [official website], rapes are perpetrated every two hours and gang rapes every eight hours.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

EU panel says financial institution broke privacy laws by sharing data with US
Jaime Jansen on November 23, 2006 11:31 AM ET

[JURIST] The European Commission's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party [official website] reported Thursday that the Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) [official website] violated European privacy laws when it released information about cross-border wire transfers by European citizens to the US government. The draft report had been delayed [JURIST report] while the European panel performed further investigations into whether the program violated the European privacy laws, but came as no surprise following a Belgian report [JURIST report] by the Belgian Data Privacy Commission [official website], concluding that SWIFT supplied the US Department of Treasury [official website] with "massive amounts of personal data for surveillance without effective and clear legal basis and independent controls in line with Belgian and European law." The EU panel lacks enforcement power and any punishment for SWIFT must come from Belgian authorities. The European Commission, however, could take action against Belgium for failing to uphold EU privacy and security laws, but will wait for the Commission's final report before making any decisions.
The New York Times and other papers revealed the once-secret program [NYT report; JURIST report] in June, prompting sharp criticism from the Bush administration, which defended the initiative [press briefing]. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee later encouraged the administration to press criminal charges [JURIST report] against the media for publicizing the program, which allowed the CIA [official website] to monitor international financial transactions processed by SWIFT, a Belgium-based banking cooperative. A London-based civil liberties group subsequently asked data-protection and privacy officials in more than a dozen countries to prevent the further release of confidential financial information [JURIST report] to American authorities. According to US government officials, the program targets those with suspected ties to Al Qaeda. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Kentucky Supreme Court upholds lethal injection protocol
Jaime Jansen on November 23, 2006 10:13 AM ET

[JURIST] The Kentucky Supreme Court [official website] ruled [PDF] Wednesday that the state's use of a three-drug lethal injection [DPIC backgrounder] does not violate the constitution because the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment "does not require a complete absence of pain." The unanimous decision upholds a lower court ruling last year which held that conflicting medical testimony prevents the court from concluding that death row inmates "categorically" feel pain during their executions. Justice Donald Wintersheimer added that the two inmates challenging Kentucky's death penalty [JURIST news archive] protocol, Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling, would have to prove that the three-drug cocktail creates "a substantial risk of wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, torture or lingering death."
Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, like several other states, requires a first drug to make the inmate unconscious, a second drug to paralyze the inmate, and a third drug to stop the inmate's heart. Several constitutional challenges [JURIST news archive] to the procedure have arisen across the country, arguing that the first drug fails to make the inmate fully unconscious, thereby making the inmate feel excruciating pain when the heart-stopping drug is injected. Inmates in Missouri and South Dakota have successfully challenged the lethal injections, while challenges in Florida and Texas [JURIST reports] have failed. Ohio recently executed its first inmate under a new lethal injection protocol [JURIST report] after a problematic execution last May prompted the state Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to review their methods. The New York Times has more. The Louisville Courier-Journal has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN committee chides Belarus, Myanmar for human rights violations
Jaime Jansen on November 23, 2006 9:54 AM ET

[JURIST] The UN General Assembly's Third Committee [official website] on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs approved draft resolutions [press release] Wednesday denouncing both Belarus and Myanmar [JURIST news archives] (formerly Burma) for human rights violations. The Belarus resolution, introduced by the United States and passed by a vote of 70 to 31 with 67 abstentions, blames the Belarus government for rigged elections last year and state suppression of opposition candidates. The Myanmar resolution, passed 79 to 28 with 63 abstentions, condemns Myanmar for widespread human rights violations [JURIST report], including summary executions, torture, forced labor, sexual violence and recruitment of child soldiers. A Belarus-sponsored resolution critical of the US human rights record was roundly defeated 114 to 6, with 45 abstaining, and an Iran-sponsored resolution criticizing the human rights situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada was rejected 107 to 6, with 49 abstentions. Iranian-Canadian relations have been strained since the death in Iranian custody of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi [JURIST news archive] in 2003.
The same UN panel on Monday blocked a resolution [JURIST report] faulting Uzbekistan's use of force to quell a May 2005 uprising in Andijan [JURIST news archive], its closure of 200 non-governmental organizations [JURIST report], and the detention of journalists and human rights activists within the country. Last week the committee narrowly approved a draft resolution [text, PDF] introduced by Belarus and Uzbekistan directly calling for an end to politically motivated condemnations [JURIST report] of countries for human rights violations. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Serb nationalist war crimes defendant skips pre-trial hearing due to hunger strike
Jeannie Shawl on November 23, 2006 9:23 AM ET

[JURIST] Hunger-striking Serbian war crimes suspect Vojislav Seselj [BBC profile; ICTY case backgrounder] refused to attend a preliminary hearing Wednesday at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [official website], saying his voice was too weak to be able to participate. Seselj went on hunger strike [JURIST report] early last week demanding [statement, DOC] that the ICTY dismiss his court-appointed lawyers, allow him to pick his own defense counsel, deliver all court documents to him in paper form, and permit unrestricted visits with his wife. Seselj's trial is scheduled to begin next week. Seselj was indicted by the ICTY in 2003 and charged [indictment, PDF] in connection with his role in establishing rogue paramilitary units affiliated with the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party [party website, in Serbian]. Those units are believed to have massacred and otherwise persecuted Croats and other non-Serbs in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Seselj has pleaded not guilty to the charges, five of which were dropped [JURIST report] by the ICTY earlier this month. An ICTY appeals panel last month ruled that Seselj could represent himself [JURIST report] during his trial, but also appointed two lawyers - David Cooper and Andreas O'Shea - to assist Seselj with his defense if necessary. During a pre-trial hearing earlier this month, Seselj was removed from the courtroom [JURIST report] for disrupting proceedings whenever the court-appointed lawyers attempted to speak. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|