JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, January 28, 2012

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Friday that the Stolen Valor Act (SVA) [text], which criminalizes the act of falsely claiming to have received a medal from the US military, is constitutional and not a violation of the First Amendment [text] right to freedom of speech. The SVA imposes a six month prison sentence on anyone who falsely claims to have received a military service medal or a one year sentence if the individual claimed to have received a Congressional Medal of Honor [official website]. The court stated that "knowingly false factual statements are not intrinsically protected under the First Amendment" as long as the law punishing false statements provides "breathing space" for protected speech: "knowingly false statements, in contrast even to incendiary ideas, are no part of the 'the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.' Just because controversial ideas and opinions merit constitutional protection does not mean false facts deserve the same immunity." The court further stated that there was no danger of the law suppressing free speech, because it only criminalizes knowing misstatements of fact and does not criminalize political speech, criticism or parody.

The Supreme Court [official website] is set to hear arguments in February in US v. Alvarez [JURIST report; docket] to decide whether the SVA is constitutional. The case is an appeal from a ruling [JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] that the SVA is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Ninth Circuit held that the speech prohibited under the Stolen Valor Act did not fit within the narrow categories of false speech held to be beyond the First Amendment's "protective sweep." The Stolen Valor Act was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed into law by former president George W. Bush in 2006. The act broadened provisions of previous US law and criminalizes the unauthorized wear, manufacture, sale or written or oral claim of any military decorations and medals.

[JURIST] The UN told Maldives on Saturday that Judge Abdulla Mohamed must either be charged or released from indefinite detention. Mohamed was arrested for corruption [JURIST report] in an unprecedented move by the military, following a ruling to release a government critic. Mohamed is also accused of obstructing police investigations and having ties to organized crime [Minivan News report]. The arrest has sparked street protests and prompted all the country's courts to boycott sessions. The Maldives Minister of Foreign Affairs [official website] asked the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] for help resolving the issue [JURIST report] last week. The Maldives Supreme Court [official website] and the Judicial Service Commission [official website], which investigates judicial conduct, have called the arrest illegal and have demanded that Mohamed be released, but the army has yet to comply. UN officials have not yet decided how to respond to the request [AP report].

The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption.

[JURIST] A UN expert on violence against women urged [press release; official statement] Italy on Friday that it must do more to end violence against women, primarily by focusing at underlying causes of gender discrimination in Italian society. UN Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo [official profile] made her recommendation after a 12-day visit to Italy [UN News Centre report] during which she met with multiple survivors of domestic violence. Manjoo emphasized that the current poor economic climate in Italy is no justification for violence against women and that the country has many resources available to women, such as psychological and economic assistance, that should not be disposed of. Manjoo said:

Most manifestations of violence are underreported in the context of a family-oriented and patriarchal society where, domestic violence is not always perceived as a crime, there is economic dependency, and there are perceptions that the state response to such complaints will not be appropriate or helpful...[a] fragmented legal framework and inadequate investigation, punishment for perpetrators, and compensation for women victims of violence, also contributes to the silencing and invisibility surrounding this issue.

Manjoon is expected to present the findings from her mission to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] in June.

Violence against women and gender equality also proves to be an issue for the rest of the world. In October, Manjoon appeared in front of the UN General Assembly to urge states to fulfill their obligations to prevent violence against women. Manjoo also released a report in June that said there is a continued prevalence of violence and discriminatory treatment of women in the US [JURIST report], with a heightened impact on poor, minority and immigrant women. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay pressed [JURIST report] Tunisia and Egypt to ensure that women's rights receive constitutional protection and to include women in the dialogue to shape the future of their countries. Last January, a US Military panel recommended [JURIST report] that women should be allowed to serve on the front lines of combat. Also last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on the Afghan government to protect the rights of women [JURIST report] during integration and reconciliation efforts conducted with the Taliban and other militants. Earlier in 2010, India's upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha, approved a bill [JURIST report] to ensure that one-third of seats in parliament are reserved for women.

[JURIST] The Cabinet of the Netherlands announced on Friday that a ban on burqas [JURIST news archive] in the Netherlands will go forward later this year. The ban, proposed in September [JURIST report] and heavily supported by Geert Wilders' [personal website; JURIST news archive] anti-Islam Freedom Party, is aimed at prohibiting burqas and other face coverings. Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen [official profile, in Dutch] denied that the ban was meant for religious clothing [Reuters report] and noted that the ban will also include motorcycle helmets and balaclavas when they are worn in inappropriate locations. The proposed legislation will not prohibit face coverings in mosques. Verhagen said the purpose behind the ban is to stop people from being able to commit crimes and remain undetected by concealing their identities and covering their faces. The Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition, the majority party in parliament, has agreed to propose a modified ban next week which would impose fines on people who violate the ban. The ban must still pass both houses of parliament in order to be enacted as law.

If enacted, the Netherlands will become the second European country, after France [text, in French], to ban the burqa. A French court in September first enforced its own ban [JURIST report] when it fined two Muslim women for violating the controversial French law. Although more than 90 women were previously cited by police, the fines are the first time a French court has enforced the law passed in April. The Netherlands is not the only country to follow France's lead by attempting to ban face coverings. In August, an Italian parliamentary commission approved a draft law [JURIST report] that bans women from wearing full-face veils in public. In July, Belgium implemented a law banning women from wearing the burqa [JURIST report] in public, with violators facing the possibility of fines or up to seven days in jail.