[JURIST] A UK heterosexual couple whose civil partnership [Directgov backgrounder] application was denied [BBC News report] by their local town council announced Wednesday that they will challenge the refusal in court. Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are the first heterosexual couple to apply for a civil partnership in the UK, where same-sex couples may obtain legal recognition with rights akin to those of a married couple. They allege that the denial constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that such a distinction amounts to segregation in matrimonial law. The human rights and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell is supporting [press release] the couple in their challenge and has decried the difference in application of the laws experienced by heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the UK, civil partnerships were created exclusively to recognize same-sex couples by the Civil Partnerships Act of 2004 [text], and European nations remain divided on the issue of legal recognition of same sex couples [ILGA Europe backgrounder]. Several countries in Europe, including Spain and Norway [JURIST reports], recognize same-sex marriages. Other European countries recognize same-sex couples in various degrees through civil measures like registered partnerships and registered cohabitations, but the cohabitations are usually open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Countries like Hungary and Greece [JURIST reports] continue to ban legal recognition of same-sex couples.

[JURIST] The UK Supreme Court [official website] on Wednesday ruled [text, PDF; press release] that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) [official website] may not challenge the fairness of bank overdraft fee charges as a matter of law. The Court ruled in favor of seven major banks and one building society appealing a lower court decision, holding:

[T]he bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorized overdrafts...constitute part of the price of remuneration for the banking services provided and, in so far as the terms giving rise to the charges are in plain intelligible language, no assessment under the [Regulations] of the fairness of those terms may relate to their adequacy as against services provided.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Tuesday called for the UK to investigate allegations that government officials were complicit in the torture of British citizens in Pakistan from 2004 to 2007. The announcement followed the release of a report [text, PDF] alleges that Pakistani security agents tortured prisoners and then transferred them to British government officials for questioning. HRW concedes that there is no evidence that the officials were directly involved in the torture, but the report states:

[I]t is inconceivable that the UK government was unaware of the systematic use of torture in Pakistan. In the circumstances of the close security relationship between the two countries this would represent a significant failure of British intelligence...UK officials engaged in acts that virtually required that they knew about the use of torture in specific cases. Four men...have described meeting British officials while detained in Pakistan. In some cases this happened shortly after sessions in which the individuals had been tortured, when it was likely that clear and visible signs of torture were present. Further, UK officials supplied questions and lines of enquiry to Pakistan intelligence sources in cases in which detainees were tortured. UK officials knew that interrogations of these UK citizens were taking place and that torture was routinely used in interrogations. The UK was also putting pressure on Pakistani authorities for results. [sic]

[JURIST] The US State Department (DOS) stated [press release] Tuesday that the US will not be signing the treaty [text; JURIST news archive] to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines. The announcement comes a week before the Second Review Conference [official website] the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction is set to be held in Cartagena, Colombia. For the first time, the US will send a delegation of humanitarian landmine observers to the conference. A spokesperson for Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] expressed disappointment in the decision not to sign the treaty, but also welcomed [Reuters report] the presence of the observers as a possible sign of progress. To date 156 countries have signed the treaty [advocacy website], while 39, including China, Russia and India, have not.

Last year, the Bush Administration decided against [JURIST report] adopting the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) [text]. More than 100 countries have adopted the convention [JURIST report], but major users of cluster munitions, including Russia and China, have not. While the US did not adopt the ban, claiming it would impede humanitarian efforts [JURIST report]by discouraging cooperation with non-signatories, it did adopt a formal policy [text,PDF] on cluster munitions "intended to minimize the potential unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure."

[JURIST] A US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] panel ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that a school district's policy prohibiting the performance of religious holiday songs does not violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder]. Plaintiff Michael Stratechuk argued that the policy of the School District of South Orange and Maplewood [official website] in New Jersey, which prohibits the performance of religious holiday music had the impermissible purpose and effect of condemning religion. In rejecting Stratechuk's claim and affirming the district court's decision [opinion], the Third Circuit held that the policy was neutral toward religion and that it was a permissible way to ensure that the school did not violate the First Amendment by promoting religion.

We note with approval the District Court’s observation that the restriction on “the performance of holiday music, which changed earlier practices within the School District...[did not] automatically convey a message of disapproval of religion because as the Supreme Court observed in County of Allegheny, '[a] secular state, it must be remembered, is not the same as an atheistic or antireligious state.'"