[JURIST] The Pittsburgh City Council [official website] on Wednesday passed an ordinance [text, PDF] in anticipation of the upcoming Group of 20 (G-20) [official website] summit [official website] that will allow police to cite people in possession of certain items if they intend to use them unlawfully. The temporary ordinance, passed in anticipation of protests at the summit scheduled for September 24 and 25, expires at the end of the month. It prohibits the possession of tools or other items such as handcuffs, padlocks, and pipes with an intent to use those items to block access to streets, sidewalks, and public buildings or to defeat crowd control orders. Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Mike Huss said that the ordinance will help to protect the public [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report]. Councilman William Peduto [official profile], the only member of council to vote against the ordinance, said that laws prohibiting protesters from blocking access to streets and sidewalks and requiring them to obey dispersal orders already exist and that the ordinance allows officers "to make a judgment call not on an act but on an assumption of an act," exposing the city to federal lawsuits.

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] claiming that the US Secret Service, the City of Pittsburgh, and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [official website] are acting illegally by failing to issue protest permits for the summit. The ACLU claims that the failure to issue protest permits for certain areas of the city is a violation of the First Amendment right to peaceful protest. In its complaint, the rights group argued for injunctive and declaratory relief claiming that only two protest permits have been issued so far for the G-20, and those two permits were far away from downtown Pittsburgh. A federal judge heard arguments [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report] in the suit Wednesday. A proposal to ban masks and hoods [text, PDF] during the summit was voted down [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report] by the City Council last week.

[JURIST] The Taipei District Court has ruled that former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] will not be released on bail, according to an aide Wednesday. Chen was found guilty on corruption charges and sentenced to life in prison [JURIST report] last week. Under Taiwanese law, the life sentence will be automatically appealed, but Chen has also appealed the corruption conviction. Chen had sought release on bail pending appeal, but the three-judge panel rejected his request, finding [AFP report] that he posed a flight risk and that he could destroy evidence or collude with other suspects. Chen's aide said that Chen, who was maintained his innocence and called the charges politically motivated, was disappointed by the ruling.

Last month, Chen filed suit [JURIST report] against the three judges hearing his corruption case, accusing them of illegally prolonging his detention. Chen was indicted [JURIST report] on corruption charges in December. He has staged three hunger strikes in protest of the charges against him, and in January he unsuccessfully appealed [JURIST reports] his pretrial detention. Chen has long argued that current Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou [official website; JURIST news archive] is using Chen's trial to distance himself from Chen's anti-China views.

[JURIST] The Hungarian government said [press release, in Hungarian] Wednesday that it would accept one prisoner of its choosing from those still held at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] in order to aid in the closure of the detention center. According to a statement [text, in Hungarian] by Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai [official profile], Hungary will accept a detainee from a list of candidates who will participate in an 18-month controlled integration process in the country. Bajnai said his country will receive a Palestinian man. Bajnai also added that the candidate will be one who is not under investigation or subject to any judicial proceedings in the US or abroad, and must be one who is not able to return to his home country.

Earlier this month, US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] general counsel Jeh Johnson [official profile] said that the Obama administration was still hoping to meet the January deadline [JURIST report] for closing the detention center at Guantanamo but that there were many challenges. The primary obstacle is the question of what should be done with detainees who cannot be released. Officials are reportedly still considering creating a military-civilian prison facility that would house its own court at a site in Michigan, but local residents have strongly opposed [JURIST reports] the plan. Officials are also considering trying detainees in federal courts, with cases assigned to federal prosecutors [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Israeli officials on Wednesday rejected a call by the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict [official website] to establish an independent inquiry into accusations of war crimes during December and January's Operation Cast Lead [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in the Gaza Strip [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The establishment of independent inquiry is one of the key suggestions from the UN report [text, PDF; JURIST report] issued Tuesday, which found that Israel impermissibly disregarded the welfare of civilians, failed to look into alleged misconduct by its soldiers, and used white phosphorous [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in violation of international law during the conflict. In emphasizing Israel's stance on the commission's findings, President Shimon Peres harshly rebuked [statement] the conclusions of the report:

The Goldstone Commission report is a mockery of history. It fails to distinguish between the aggressor and a state exercising its right for self defense. War itself is a crime. The aggressor is the criminal. The side exercising self-defense has no other alternative.

[JURIST] The UN General Assembly [official website] passed [press release] a resolution [materials] Monday to consolidate four agencies to create one large, overarching department that will be responsible for women's rights development. The UN Development Fund for Women, the Division for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues, and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women will be collapsed into one department [UN News Centre report], headed by an under-secretary-general. The resolution:

Strongly supports the consolidation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women, the Division for the Advancement of Women, the United Nations Development Fund for Women and the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, into a composite entity, taking into account the existing mandates.

[JURIST] Ninety members of the US House of Representatives [official website] introduced [press release] a bill [HR 3567 text] Tuesday to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. Signed by former president Bill Clinton [official profile], DOMA refuses federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples [JURIST news archive], including social security, tax laws, and immigration rights, and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Clinton has stated his support [press release] for the the new bill, the goals of which President Barack Obama [official website] supported during his candidacy. Called the Respect for Marriage Act and introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) [official site], the new bill would permit states to define marriage individually:

For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

[JURIST] The French National Assembly [official website, in French] voted 285-225 Tuesday to approve a new version [text, in French] of a controversial Internet piracy law [text, in French] after portions of it were rejected [decision, in French; JURIST report] in June by the Constitutional Council [official website, in French]. The new version leaves discretion to suspend a user's Internet services to a judge after the Constitutional Council ruled that the power to restrict the fundamental right of accessing the Internet should not be entrusted to an administrative authority, as the original version [JURIST report] had proposed. The determination to suspend access for up to one year would be made on an infringer's third violation, after previously receiving two warnings. Consumers could be sanctioned for negligence for any illegal downloading unauthorized users conduct through their Internet accounts. Opponents of the bill argued that it still does not sufficiently afford an alleged infringer a meaningful way to challenge accusations. The French Senate [official website, in French] approved [JURIST report] a slightly different version of the bill in July, and a parliamentary commission will now reconcile the two versions before a final vote is conducted next week. The bill continues to generate controversy and Socialist members of parliament who oppose it have not ruled out another challenge to it in the Constitutional Council.

Other European governments are also taking steps to combat Internet piracy. Last month, the British Department for Business Innovation and Skills [official website] proposed stricter sanctions [JURIST report] against illegal file-sharing that would include restricting and suspending user Internet access. The proposed regulations would be managed by an administrative agency, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) [official website], which would report to Business Secretary Lord Peter Mandelson [BBC profile] recommending action against specific users. The measures could be implemented before initial year 2012 projections. While the proposal was welcomed by media industries, it provoked strong rejection among consumers and service providers. The government's consultation period on the subject is now due to close on September 29 after it was extended when changes to the proposal were announced.