JURIST - Paper Chase: Monday, October 4, 2010

[JURIST] The Amsterdam District Court adjourned the trial [prosecution materials, in Dutch] of right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders [personal website; JURIST news archive] Monday after a lawyer for Wilders accused a judge of bias. After Wilders, on trial for making inflammatory statements against Islam, said he would not speak at his trial, a judge commented that Wilders seems frequently to avoid discussion of his positions. A lawyer for Wilders argued that this comment indicated the judge was biased [Bloomberg report], and the court agreed to suspend the trial and consider appointing a new panel. Wilders, whose trial began Monday [AP report], frequently calls Islam "fascist," has compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and advocates barring Muslims from immigrating to the Netherlands. The court will announce Tuesday whether it will appoint a new panel of judges.

Last week, Wilders announced [JURIST report] that the Dutch government will attempt to ban the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full Islamic veils to secure the support of Wilders' Freedom Party [party website, in Dutch] in forming a coalition government. An Amsterdam trial court ruled in February held that it had jurisdiction to try Wilders for anti-Islamic statements. The court rejected [JURIST report] Wilders' claim that he should be tried by the Supreme Court as a member of parliament, finding that his alleged crime was committed outside his capacity as an MP. Last year, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) [official website, in Dutch] announced that they would prosecute Wilders following a January 2009 court order [press releases, in Dutch] by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. This decision came after the OM announced in June 2008 that it would not prosecute Wilders [JURIST report]. Much of the controversy stems from Wilders' 15-minute film, Fitna, which shows images of the Quran alongside images of violence and says democratic values are threatened by the increasing number of Muslims in Europe. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the film "offensively anti-Islamic" [JURIST report] after its release. In February 2008, Pakistan blocked access to YouTube's website because it had posted a movie trailer for Wilders' film, but access was restored [JURIST reports] several days later. Indonesia followed suit [JURIST report] in April 2008. The same month, a district court in the Netherlands rejected [JURIST report] a bid by the Dutch Islamic Federation to block Wilders' anti-Quran statements, saying that his comments are protected by the right of free expression and do not constitute speech that incites hate or violence.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] opened its October 2010 term Monday by hearing oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] in Ransom v. MBNA [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report]. In this case, the court is considering whether, in calculating a debtor's "projected disposable income" during the plan period, a bankruptcy court may allow an ownership cost deduction for vehicles only if the debtor is actually making payments on the vehicles. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the bankruptcy court may not allow such deductions. Counsel for the debtor, Jason Ransom, argued that, "[i]n 2005 when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Act, it made a policy decision to limit judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis in the area of reasonable and necessary expenses." Counsel for the respondent, MBNA, argued that, "[t]he Bankruptcy Code precludes an above-median income debtor like Petitioner from shielding from his creditors $471 a month for a car payment that he does not have." Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.

In the consolidated cases of Abbott v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] and Gould v. United States, the court heard arguments on whether the minimum sentencing guidelines for armed offenses in 18 USC § 924(c) [text] include the drug offense giving rise to the sentence, or another weapons offense for the same transaction. Counsel for the petitioner Carlos Gould argued, "[t]he Government ... advocates a narrow construction that is not supported by the text and defends it primarily on the basis that section 924(c) supposedly should always produce the most severe minimum sentence for every defendant. Respectfully, the Government's interpretation is incorrect." Counsel for the US government argued that "the 'except clause' is triggered by an offense which has a greater mandatory minimum and which has the same elements as and is the same offense as a section 924(c) offense."

[JURIST] Many African nations are seeing a decline in democratic rights and the rule of law despite making economic advances, according to a survey [press release] Monday by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation [advocacy website]. The annual Ibrahim Index of African Governance [text, XLS], established in 2007 by Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim [profile], assesses 88 indicators, including the overall governance, safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity and human development in 53 African nations. Ibrahim noted that the 2010 Index reflects a "mixed picture about recent progress on governance" across Africa, showing that citizens are "healthier and have greater access to economic opportunities," but experience dangers to personal safety and are "less political enfranchised." Former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) [advocacy website] Salim Ahmed Salim [official profile], said:

We must ensure that the political side of governance in Africa is not neglected. We have seen from evidence and experience across the world that discrepancies between political governance and economic management are unsustainable in the long term. If Africa is going to continue to make progress we need to pay attention to the rights and safety of citizens.

The quality of the overall governance remains generally consistent with previous surveys, but there are significant variations among the countries examined. Mauritius, Seychelles, Botswana, Cape Verde and South Africa led the overall governance ranking with Angola, Liberia and Togo showing significant improvements and Somalia, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Sudan [JURIST news archives] falling at the bottom. Of the 53 African states observed, 41 improved in areas of sustainable economic opportunity, and 44 progressed in areas of human development, notable in categories of health and welfare. The survey also displayed general progress in areas of gender rights among African states. However, 35 states have experienced declines in areas of safety and rule of law and nearly two-thirds of African states declined in areas of participation and human rights.

Last month, the UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict called for an to end impunity [JURIST report] for leaders of militias and armed groups in the DRC, saying that perpetrators of mass rapes would face war crimes charges after Congolese rebel groups Mai Mai and the Democratic Liberation Force of Rwanda (FDLR) [GlobalSecurity backgrounders] raped between 150 and 200 women and children between July 30 and August 3 of this year. In April, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report [materials; JURIST report] charging the government of Angola to take a stronger stand against corruption. Despite the nation's large economic growth and increased stability following the end of the nation-wide civil war in 2002, the majority of its citizens' lives fail to reflect the improvements, according to the report. A Freedom House [advocacy website] report [materials; JURIST report] released in March showed that women's rights and opportunities have increased in nearly all Middle Eastern and North African countries over the last five years.

[JURIST] The Bangkok Criminal Court decided Monday not to drop additional charges against Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], further delaying his extradition to the US. The court denied US and Thai requests to drop the charges of money laundering and fraud against Bout and will launch new legal proceedings [BBC report], which will delay his extradition indefinitely. The additional charges [indictment, PDF] were filed by US prosecutors in February, before a Thai appeals court ruled [JURIST report] in August that Bout could be extradited to the US to face charges including conspiracy to kill US nationals and conspiracy to provide material support to a proscribed terrorist group. According to the appeals court ruling, Bout must be extradited to the US within three months or be released from Thai custody. If the new legal proceedings continue, the court order may expire and the extradition process will have to start all over again. The criminal court will make a decision on Tuesday as to whether Bout can be extradited on these additional charges.

Last week, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva [official website, in Thai; BBC profile] said that, although the case must work its way through the court system, he will make the final decision [AFP report] as to whether Bout will be extradited to the US. The August appeals court decision overturned a 2009 decision by the Bangkok Criminal Court, refusing to extradite [JURIST report] Bout on the basis that the accusations made by the US were not cognizable under Thai law. The appeals court ruled that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], the group Bout is accused of supporting, is a cognizable terrorist group [Guardian report] under Thai law and that Thailand is obligated to honor its extradition treaties with the US. Lawyers for Bout argued that his safety would be in jeopardy in the US and that he would be unable to receive a fair trial. They have also indicated that they will continue fighting Bout's extradition by filing an appeal with the Thai government.