Bill 115 replaces Bill 103 [materials], which was introduced this summer [JURIST report] to reduce the number of students attending English language schools in the wake of Bill 104's invalidation. Bill 104 was designed to plug a loophole in the language rules set forth under Bill 101 [text] that allowed parents to enroll otherwise ineligible students in English-language public schools by first sending them to private English school for a year. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld [JURIST report] Bill 101 itself, which requires French-speaking parents to send their children to francophone schools. Under the bill, parents must have received the majority of their own schooling in English to be able to have their children educated in that language. Eight families had sought to prove that Bill 101 was discriminatory in precluding their children from receiving an education in English. The court found that members of the linguistic majority have no constitutional right to an education in English, the minority language in Quebec.

Google informed our Office that engineering and product teams are accountable for complying with Google's privacy policies and principles. Google then stated that it is working towards improving its code-and-product review processes, as well as accountability mechanisms, for engineering and product management personnel in order to improve their sensitivity to privacy issues at all stages of product and code development. A legal team is working with engineering directors to ensure a comprehensive review of codes for any privacy issues. Google believes that the review of its policies and procedures that it has undertaken will ensure no recurrences. Google stated that it will keep this Office informed as Google completes its review.

Google has been under scrutiny from several other nations in relation to its data collection policies. Australia's privacy commissioner reached the same conclusion as Canada's, declaring Google in violation of national privacy laws [JURIST report] in July. Both the UK and Connecticut launched investigations against the company in June for collecting image data over unsecured wireless networks for the Google Street View feature [JURIST reports]. Google testified to the US House of Representatives that any privacy violations were lawful mistakes [JURIST report]. Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have also asked Google to retain data collected in those respective nations. Canada has pursued other outlets for violation of privacy laws related to data-sharing, including launching an investigation [JURIST report] of Facebook [official website] in January and finding the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) [official website] not in violation of privacy laws [JURIST report] when sharing financial information with the US after 9/11.

A Kyrgyz court handed down the first convictions stemming from the violence last month when the Nooken District Court [GolbaLex backgrounder] sentenced five men to life terms [JURIST report] on charges of murder, fomenting ethnic hatred, instigating violence and organizing public unrest. Among them was prominent human rights activist Azimjan Askarov. The convictions were later described as politically motivated [Reuters report]. In July, Kyrgyz authorities announced the opening of more than 1,000 criminal cases [JURIST report] stemming from the violence and that 106 individuals had been detained, with 97 in custody. Also in July, Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva [Telegraph profile] established a commission [JURIST report] to investigate ethnic violence against the country's Uzbek minority. The commission is expected to consult with government and international experts and present its findings on the causes and repercussions of the violence this year.

Mr Bemba merely states that the alleged error of the Trial Chamber "significantly affected the fair and expeditious conduct of current proceedings." The rest of his submission in relation to this ground of appeal concerns the importance the Trial Chamber previously accorded to this issue and the difficulties the Defence team faced which prevented it from submitting this filing sooner, but not that the alleged error materially affected the outcome of the impugned decision.

In April, defense lawyers argued before the court that charges against Bemba should be dropped [JURIST report] because he had been denied due process and the charges are illegal. In addition, defense lawyers claimed that Bemba lacked the financial resources [JURIST report] necessary to ensure a fair trial. The ICC ordered Bemba to stand trial in July 2009 for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity [JURIST report] committed between October 2002 and May 2003 while he was a military leader of the Congo Liberation Movement (MLC). Bemba was arrested [JURIST report] in Belgium in May 2008 after the ICC issued a sealed warrant for his arrest. The charges in the arrest warrant included rape, torture, outrages upon personal dignity and pillaging.

It is now for all policymakers, national as well as European, to show that the commitment to this largest European minority is not just a one-off matter. But that we now move on to action and results, on the basis of our European values and the fundamental right of non-discrimination.

Reding has been critical [JURIST report] of Roma deportation practices in France. She threatened legal action [text] against France in September claiming that France's discrimination and systematic deportation of the Roma was a violation of EU law. France has been at the center of the controversy concerning the deportation of Roma migrants in Europe. In July, French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] ordered measures [press release, in French] against illegal Roma communities in France and announced new legislation to facilitate deportation [JURIST report]. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [official website] and the EU Parliamentary Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats have expressed concern over the discrimination faced by Roma migrants in numerous European countries and over the French expulsion policies [JURIST reports].

The Illinois legislature had a secular purpose in passing Section 1, namely mandating a period of silence to calm school children before the start of their day. There is no evidence that the secular purpose is a sham and that Illinois's true purpose was to promote prayer. And there is nothing impermissible about clarifying that students may pray during that time period. Section 1 also does not advance or inhibit religion (or specific religions that practice momentary silent prayer), but rather mandates only a period of silence. There is also no state entanglement with religion. Therefore, Section 1 satisfies the Lemon test and Sherman's First Amendment challenge fails. Sherman's vagueness challenge also fails because Section 1 is not unconstitutionally vague in all of its operations.

This case is the most recent development in the ongoing debate concerning free speech and the Establishment Clause in public schools. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that the words "one state under God" in the Texas Pledge of Allegiance [text; JURIST news archive] do not violate the Constitution. Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [JURIST post] that a teacher-led recitation of the national Pledge of Allegiance in public schools does not violate the constitution. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld [JURIST report] the constitutionality of requiring students through grade 12 to obtain parental permission before being excused from the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento upheld the unconstitutionality of the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance which included the words 'under God' [JURIST report].

Proponents urge "responsible procreation" as the justification for Proposition 8. But the State "may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational..." Because Proposition 8 did not alter California's laws concerning having and rearing children, Proponents' asserted justification is too disconnected with Proposition 8 to be credited, and this Court must look elsewhere to find the basis for Proposition 8.

Last month, officials in Imperial County [official website] submitted a brief [JURIST report] appealing the federal court's decision finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The appeal came just days after supporters of Proposition 8 filed a brief [JURIST report] seeking standing in order to file the appeal. Earlier in the month, a judge for the California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown [official websites] is required to appeal the decision of the district court. In August, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay [JURIST report] of district court's decision, pending appeal. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit, and their refusal to oppose the stay left defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat, and today's convictions affirm our commitment to do everything we can to protect against it. The defendants in this case agreed to plant bombs and use missiles they thought were very real weapons of terrorism. We are safer today as a result of these convictions.

The case highlighted the continuing threats by homegrown domestic terrorism [JURIST news archive] in the US. In May, lawmakers introduced a bill [JURIST report] that, if passed, would strip US citizenship rights from those suspected of engaging in terrorism. In March, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) proposed a law [JURIST report] that would require terror suspects to be stripped of their Miranda rights and to face military interrogation and trial. Amos Guiora of the University of Utah College of Law criticized the proposed legislation [JURIST op-ed], claiming its impact "would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice."

In recent months, Iran has prosecuted members of the media for crimes against the state. Last month, Iranian blogger Hossein Derakhshan, known for popularizing blogs in Iran was sentenced to 19.5 years imprisonment [JURIST report] for cooperating with hostile countries, spreading propaganda against the ruling establishment, promoting counterrevolutionary groups and maintaining obscene websites. In addition to serving his prison sentence, Hossein Derakhshan faces a five-year ban from membership in political parties and fines totaling nearly USD $45,000. Also last month, Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court of Iran [GlobaLex backgrounder] sentenced [JURIST report] Shiva Nazar Ahari, a journalist arrested following the 2009 presidential election, to six years in prison. During the Tehran trial, conducted by head judge Pyrabasy, Ahari faced charges of warring against God [CHRR report], known in Islamic law as Moharebeh, conspiring to commit a crime, propaganda against the revolution and disturbing the public order, violating several articles of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran [Mehr backgrounder].