Bill C-35, titled “An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour” (the Act), would establish an independent legislative framework as opposed to the current import prohibition provision under the Customs Tariff that in turn would strengthen the existing forced labor import prohibition regime.

If enacted, the Act would also authorize the foreign minister to establish a list of high risk goods in respect of which “there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are produced by forced labour.” The high-risk goods will be identified by region, entity, or individual. The Act would also require importers of the listed high-risk goods to provide the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) with “enhanced supply chain tracing information.” Failure to do so will trigger another provision of the Act whereby the goods of the importer identified as high-risk will be “deemed” as prohibited goods.

The Act would also authorize a customs officer designated by the CBSA president to detain imported goods up to 90 days “or for any longer prescribed period” from the first day on which the goods are detained to determine whether the goods are produced wholly or partly by forced labor. There are additional provisions in the act to improve coordination and information-sharing between federal agencies to support enforcement, and for the creation of a cost-recovery model where importers are found to have imported goods produced by forced labor.

Speaking in support of the legislation, Anand said:

Canada will not tolerate the presence of goods produced through forced labour in our markets. This legislation strengthens our commitment to human rights and fair, transparent trade by giving us stronger tools to stop these goods at the border and protect the integrity of our supply chains. It also supports vulnerable workers and aligns Canada with global efforts to eliminate forced labour from international trade.

Presently, Canada, the US and Mexico are the only countries that have a forced-labor import prohibition in place. Canada enacted the Supply Chains Act in 2024, which requires certain entities and federal institutions to submit annual reports detailing steps taken to prevent or reduce the risk of use of forced or child labor in their supply chains. With this new legislation, Canada hopes to compliment its efforts to address forced labor and promote transparency and accountability.

This bill is being introduced in the wake of ongoing forced labor concerns globally. Last month, Amnesty International released a report alleging that tea workers on private estates in Sri Lanka are being subjected to conditions that “may amount to forced labour,” and called on the government to launch immediate criminal investigations and targeted inspections. A current US federal lawsuit litigates forced labor claims from Filipino workers against US-based construction companies that oversaw FIFA World Cup stadium projects in Qatar. In March, the Taiwan Ministry of Labor enacted new guidelines to help businesses prevent forced labor in response to US trade enforcement actions and mounting international criticism of labor abuses against the country’s migrant workers. A 2024 ILO report revealed that forced labor in the private economy generates annual illegal profits of US $236 billion per year.

The post Canada introduces legislation to strengthen ban on goods produced with forced labor appeared first on JURIST - News.

The per curiam order keeps in place a 10 percent surcharge that President Donald Trump imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a balance-of-payments provision that no president had invoked since its enactment. The US Court of International Trade had ruled on May 7 that the surcharge exceeded the president’s statutory authority and permanently enjoined its collection, but only as to the three plaintiffs found to have standing: the state of Washington, which imports through the University of Washington, and two private businesses, spice importer Burlap and Barrel and toy manufacturer Basic Fun.

Applying the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder, the court found that three of the factors favored the government and that the fourth, the public interest, was neutral. On the merits, the court said the government had made a sufficient showing that it is likely to succeed, expressing skepticism toward the trade court majority’s reading of the statute. The trade court had concluded that a “balance-of-payments deficit” under Section 122 is limited to three technical measures, liquidity, official settlements, and basic balance, an interpretation the appeals court said the legislative history calls into question. The court also found the government had shown likely irreparable harm absent a stay, crediting its argument that other importers would file follow-on suits seeking the same relief if the injunction stood. The court noted that at least two such cases had already been filed. It further reasoned that refunds with interest would adequately address any harm to the plaintiffs should the tariffs ultimately be held unlawful.

The order is non-precedential and does not resolve the underlying appeal. The court was explicit that it was not offering its own interpretation of Section 122 and was not prejudging the merits panel’s ultimate disposition:
Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of these consolidated appeals by a merits panel, we conclude based upon the papers submitted that a stay is warranted under the circumstances. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the traditional four stay factors: (1) whether the movant has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

Trump imposed the Section 122 surcharge on February 20, the same day the US Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, striking down his earlier reciprocal and country-specific duties. The Section 122 measure took effect February 24 and is set to expire July 24 unless Congress extends it. A coalition of 24 states sued over the surcharge in March, and their case was consolidated with the importers’ challenge on appeal.

The stay returns the three plaintiffs to paying the surcharge alongside every other importer while the Federal Circuit weighs the appeal on the merits.

The post Federal appeals court keeps Trump’s 10 percent global tariff in place for three importers during appeal appeared first on JURIST - News.

Québec Minister of Justice Simon Jolin-Barrette stated that he asked for the consent of the opposing parties several times, but they “have always refused.” Jolin-Barrette accused the opposing parties of deliberately and systematically derailing the constitution project, and said that the bill would have been adopted were it not for the lack of time in the session, and “there was nothing in the text [of the bill]—absolutely nothing in the text—that posed a problem.”

Bill 1, titled Loi constitutionnelle de 2025 sur le Québec (i.e. Québec Constitution Bill), was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly in October with an aim to “protect [Québec] culture, territory, heritage, language and fundamental values.” The project explicitly notes autonomy of “Québec nation,” “Distinguishing the Québec model from the Canadian multiculturalist vision,” and “parliamentary sovereignty” as important objectives. The bill does not appear to have an English translation on the Québec government website.

Québec Liberal Party, Québec Solidaire, and Parti Québécois, together with more than 200 other groups were opposed to the bill; the said opposition primarily stemming from a failure to consult on the part of CAQ.

“Talking. Advocating. Living in Québec.” (TALQ), an advocacy group representing the English-speaking community in Québec, expressed rejoice at the demise of the bill. TALQ leader Eva Ludvig said:

It was never a legitimate constitution. From a flawed process at the outset which ignored the need for broadly based consultation with the population, to the restrictions and hierarchies of rights it sought to impose, to its initial refusal to even acknowledge the 1.3-million-member English-speaking community as an integral part of Quebec, this was part of a divisive government agenda. That agenda includes Bills 96, 21 and 84 among others – all aimed at reducing and restricting our community. In resisting Bill 1, with our presentation in Quebec City and efforts we led within our community, we found we had many concerns in common with other Quebecers, especially those focused on the damage it would do to our democracy, something that worried Quebecers of all political stripes, language groups and backgrounds.

TALQ said it fully expects revival of the Québec Constitution Project and acknowledged the need for the province to have its own constitution, but stressed the need for “a more inclusive process, a better balance between collective and individual rights, and a more complete recognition that Quebec is a diverse society and, in that diversity, lies strength, not weakness.”

The post Québec’s ruling party abandons bill to create a constitution in the Canadian province appeared first on JURIST - News.

On June 14, 2025, Boelter dressed like a law enforcement officer, put on a mask, and drove a black SUV, equipped to resemble a law enforcement vehicle, to the Hortmans’ home. The ruse caused the lawmakers to grant him access to their homes, where he shot them. Boelter tried to murder two other lawmakers that night, but one was on vacation. At the other home, he left when real police arrived.

Boelter had apparently planned his crimes for months, including surveillance missions and detailed online searches for information. The attacks on Hortman and Hoffman were only the start of a planned series of murders. He intended to kill 45 state and federal officials in multiple states, including Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

The case exemplified “a fear [citizens] should never have had to imagine, that their public servants had been hunted and attacked in their own homes,” said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms St. Paul Field Division Special Agent in Charge Joe Persails.

“Mr. Boelter carried out a heinous and unprecedented act of political violence against Minnesota’s political leaders. Violence targeting public officials is an affront to our democracy. We are grateful for all the agencies that worked in partnership,” added Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans.

Boelter still faces state charges in the crimes. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office announced that it is charging him with two counts of premeditated first degree murder, four counts of attempted premeditated first degree murder, and other crimes. “Mr. Boelter will…be held accountable for his actions (in Hennepin County). We are in contact with the US Attorney’s Office about transferring Mr. Boelter into our custody,” said Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. Minnesota does not have the death penalty, and the sentence for a conviction on a single charge of first-degree premeditated murder is mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The post Minnesota man pleads guilty, avoids federal death penalty in murder of state lawmaker appeared first on JURIST - News.

Justice Jacqueline Hughes found that the BC Community Charter authorizes municipalities to regulate the use of public places and protect the community’s well-being. Thus, the municipal council acted within its authority to enact a bylaw that limits overnight sheltering in designated parks in the city.

The petitioner argued that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights restrain the municipal council’s legislative authority. They argued the government’s domestic obligation to protect the right to life, liberty, and security bars the municipal council from enacting bylaws that prohibit overnight sheltering. They also argued that the international obligation to protect the right to housing produces the same effect.

Hughes rejected the arguments, reiterating the difference between a vires review and a constitutional review: the former concerns whether the institution acts within the scope of its legal authority, and the latter concerns whether the validly enacted legislation complies with the constitution. She also refused to comment on the bylaw’s compliance with said obligations because that was outside the petitioners’ challenge in this case.

In May, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the municipal council of Waterloo cannot vacate encampments because an insufficient alternative shelter violates the right to life, liberty, and security of the homeless population living in the area. The court also found that the bylaw discriminated against residents with disabilities, Indigenous residents, women, and gender-diverse residents.

Similarly, the BC Court of Appeal ruled against a city bylaw that imposed a blanket ban on homeless people erecting temporary shelters in 2009.

The country is facing a homelessness crisis. In 2024, the government estimated that more than 60,000 people experienced homelessness in 87 communities; around 17,000 of them are unsheltered. The number of unsheltered homeless population quadrupled from 2018. The Canadian Human Rights Commission recognized the right to adequate housing—to live in security, peace and dignity—as a fundamental right. It urged the country to take prompt measures to address homelessness.

The federal government enacted the National Housing Strategy Act in 2019. In 2025, it also invested CAD 13 billion to build affordable housing. The sufficiency of the measures remains to be observed.

The post British Columbia judge rules Victoria municipal council can legislate to remove encampments appeared first on JURIST - News.

Section 16(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the equality of status, rights and privileges between English and French in all executive and legislative institutions of New Brunswick. The six-justice majority found that the section represents a “lasting social pact” between the linguistic communities to preserve minority language rights and establish a genuine partnership in the government. The justices also considered that the province’s Lieutenant Governor–the highest-ranking officer of a province–is inseparable from its sole office holder; thus, the appointment holds a unique symbolic effect. Chief Justice Richard Wagner concluded that appointing a unilingual Lieutenant Governor can undermine the rights of the Francophone community in the province.

On the other hand, the dissent would have held that the charter provision guarantees institutional bilingualism without requiring the officer holder to be bilingual personally. Justice Malcolm Rowe warned that the ruling may have the effect of imposing the bilingual requirement on other provincial roles such as the Premier; thus, the majority risked amending the Constitution “in the guise of constitutional interpretation” and overstepping the executive power to appoint the Lieutenant Governor.

Responding to the ruling, Nicole Arseneau-Sluyter, President of Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB), said:

The SANB will always be there, as a watchdog for the linguistic rights of the Francophone community in New Brunswick before the courts, before governments, before anyone. We are proud to have taken these steps to reaffirm the equality of linguistic communities. It is not always easy, but we will continue to fight for our rights.

In 2019, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recommended Brenda Murphy as New Brunswick’s lieutenant governor, citing her extensive experience improving poverty and gender inequality. She served three times as a municipal councillor before her appointment. Her term of office ended on January 22, 2025. In its Friday statement, SANB expressed gratitude to Murphy’s contributions to the province, maintaining that the lawsuit sought to defend a constitutional principle.

The group initiated the lawsuit shortly after Murphy’s appointment. While provincial Chief Justice Tracey DeWare sided with the appellant, the provincial appellate court held that a bilingual lieutenant general is not necessary to advance institutional bilingualism as the charter guarantees. Responding to DeWare’s ruling, Murphy said she valued the importance of official bilingualism and had developed relationships with the Francophone communities in the province.

Relatedly, the province is reviewing its Official Languages Act. One of the central struggles is balancing language obligations with staff shortages in public services. Francophone rights groups, the NB Francophone Seniors’ Association, and SANB advocated for covering nursing homes in the act, arguing that senior citizens must be able to understand their service providers to receive quality services.

The post Canada high court rules New Brunswick language rights require bilingual lieutenant governor appeared first on JURIST - News.

ActBlue is a fundraising platform for Democratic candidates running for public office. The company has generated approximately $19 billion in donations, primarily from small donors, since its founding in 2004. Paxton began investigating ActBlue as early as December 2023, and had conducted review of documents made available by ActBlue at its Massachusetts headquarters. Although ActBlue complied with many of Paxton’s demands, Paxton filed a lawsuit two months ago for alleged violations under the Act, and “touted” it on many conservative podcasts and his campaign e-mails. ActBlue responded by filing its own suit in Massachusetts federal court and filed a motion for the preliminary injunction herein.

In an attempt to dismiss ActBlue’s suit, Paxton had argued that the Massachusetts federal court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over him in his official capacity as Texas AG because: 1) he has not purposefully availed himself of Massachusetts as a forum, (2) ActBlue’s claims do not arise out of any Massachusetts-based conduct, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is not reasonable as a matter of due process. The court dismissed Paxton’s arguments stating that Paxton brought himself under the court’s jurisdiction by serving Request to Examine and Civil Investigation Demand on ActBlue in Massachusetts and further conducted review of documents made available by ActBlue at their Massachusetts headquarters in Somerville, to pursue his own Texas lawsuit against ActBlue. Thus, in the court’s words, “the exercise of jurisdiction is both reasonable and constitutional.”

The court also rejected Paxton’s argument that the court should abstain from allowing ActBlue’s suit, which seeks to block an “ongoing quasi-criminal proceeding in state court,” under Younger v. Harris. The court agreed with ActBlue that evidence of bad faith can be a proper exception to Younger, and that such evidence is overwhelming in the present case. Judge Stearns elaborated:

First, the timing of events alone speaks volumes about Paxton’s underlying motivation. The investigation against ActBlue sat dormant for more than a year and a half, until the day after Talarico announced his fundraising results…

Second, the theory of harm underlying the consumer fraud claims rings hollow. When given the opportunity during the June 4 hearing, Paxton’s Assistants were unable to articulate anything more concrete than the proposition that Texans, as a matter of principle, care deeply that businesses stay true to their word…This is not a compelling basis on which to premise a major lawsuit, particularly given Paxton’s well-known history of filing retaliatory lawsuits…

The court is also not persuaded, Paxton’s remonstrations to the contrary, that the speech at issue here…can reasonably be considered “commercial,” such that it falls within the scope of the [Act]…The facilitation of political donations reflects two types of protected speech: (1) ActBlue’s own choice of which candidates or causes it will include on its platform, and (2) donors’ individual choices to fund those candidates or causes with which the donor identifies…As the Supreme Court has reminded us more than once, ‘political speech [is] at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.’

Third, Paxton’s public statements in the wake of filing the case against ActBlue reveal his true motivation…Paxton did not hesitate in drawing a connection between the lawsuit and his candidacy for Senate…

The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund Talarico’s campaign.

Having dismissed each of Paxton’s arguments, the court granted ActBlue’s motion for preliminary injunction after having found that ActBlue has established a likelihood of success on the merits in its own lawsuit against Paxton and that the suppression of speech constitutes irreparable harm “Even setting aside the chilling effect the lawsuit is meant to have on private donors.” The court also found that the balancing of relevant equities and public interest factors, “which merge when the government is the opposing party,” favor ActBlue as there is an “inherent public interest in ensuring that state officials respect the explicit guardrails set out in the U.S. Constitution, particularly when it comes to matters of political speech.”

ActBlue chief legal officer Lawrence Oliver lauded the ruling as one where a court “clearly chose the Constitution over partisan politics.”

The post Federal court blocks Texas AG lawsuit against Democratic fundraising platform appeared first on JURIST - News.

The report said explicit deepfakes present an individual in their vulnerable states and are invasive in nature. Collection of sensitive personal information–sex life or sexual orientation–requires valid consent from the individual who understands the purpose and consequences of such collection. The commission found that X users could not have expected that their images, posted for an unrelated purpose on the platforms, can be processed by AI tools to generate explicit deepfakes of themselves; thus, the companies have not obtained valid consent.

The report also concluded that the companies could have provided their AI services in a less intrusive manner. One such measure could have been a safeguard at the outset to prevent the generation of deepfakes.

In response, the companies claimed that users were responsible for initiating the collection of personal information when they prompted Grok to generate and post deepfakes. The commissioner disagreed, contending that the companies are responsible when they provide the service to collect personal information and generate deepfakes. The commission also concluded that the current safeguards in place are insufficient to protect users’ privacy under Canadian law.

The commission recommends that X suspend its Grok function until a comprehensive privacy safeguard is in place. It also recommends that the companies include prominent warnings about the risks of AI outputs before X users post their information on the platforms. The companies refuted the findings, arguing that they have already removed illegal content and limited how users can use Grok.

Even though the report concluded that the companies violate users’ privacy under Canadian law, the federal Privacy Act does not empower the commissioner to compel compliance or impose penalties. Calling for a legislative amendment, Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said:

The Grok investigation highlights the need for modern privacy laws that are designed for a modern world and include administrative monetary penalties and the power to make orders to bring companies into compliance. Modernized privacy laws can support both innovation and privacy protection by establishing clear guardrails that ensure the responsible and trustworthy management of Canadians’ personal information.

Relatedly, the Canadian federal government introduced a new law to regulate AI chatbots on Wednesday. The bill, if enacted in its current form, requires AI chatbot operators to act responsibly and mitigate the risk of its chatbots communicating harmful content to their users.

The post Canada privacy watchdog says Grok generates explicit deepfakes without users’ valid consent appeared first on JURIST - News.

In emphasizing the severity of the circumstances affecting the community, UN Independent Expert on the human rights of persons with albinism Muluka-Anne Miti-Drummond stated:

While much has been done to provide free education, health care and subsidised air and rail travel for persons with albinism, the lack of harmonization between federal and provincial services had led to sporadic and inconsistent provision of support services… Many who need support are unclear about existing policies.

Albinism is a genetic condition that limits or prevents the body from producing melanin, the pigment that contributes to the color of a person’s skin, hair and eyes, leading to pale skin and white or light blonde hair. Societal treatment of individuals with albinism in the country illustrates how they are viewed as being cursed or carrying bad omen. This ostracization has often led to such persons developing negative self-perception, stress and anxiety, which has been worsened by limited job prospects and educational barriers.

Although Miti-Drummond recognized the progress made by the Pakistani government to address the inequalities faced by this group, such as its enactment of the Islamabad Capital Territory Rights of Persons with Disability Act, she stressed that more proactive measures needed to be undertaken. She recommended that federal and provincial legislation should be streamlined to better coordinate efforts in creating policies that enhance the rights of this community in all facets of their life.

For instance, research that was conducted on the Bhatti Tribe in rural Pakistan, where around four percent of villagers had a rare and specific type of albinism known as oculocutaneous albinism, revelaed that the side effects of their condition, such as low vision, made it difficult for them to retain employment. This has only led to them continuing to be socioeconomically disadvantaged. Additionally, given the scarcity of data surrounding individuals with albinism across different sectors, it is an uphill task to accurately identify the range of challenges that they face in daily life, especially since climate change has entered the picture.

Discriminating individuals due to an albinism diagnosis is prohibited under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The post UN expert urges Pakistan government to protect rights of individuals living with albinism appeared first on JURIST - News.

The mother, Kristie Carrier, claims that Alice spoke with ChatGPT repeatedly about her suicidal ideations, but that the system did not flag the conversations. She alleges that the chatbot led to Alice’s suicide by failing to advise her to seek help. Instead, she says it validated her daughter’s thoughts:

My daughter is gone because of a product that was unsafe and defective… The responses were validating her emotions in a way that basically told her she was right to feel the way she did—abandoned, ghosted, alone and uncared for. There was nothing that redirected her, nothing that said, “You can get through this” or “You should reach out for help.”

Alice was a web developer in Montreal and initially began using ChatGPT to troubleshoot technical problems. Later, she formed a deep relationship with the artificial intelligence (AI), sharing personal information and discussing potential suicide methods. The alleged responses from ChatGPT include agreeing with her feelings, criticizing her partner’s behavior, agreeing that crisis helplines are unhelpful, and urging Alice to keep talking with it.

The chat records show at one point the AI told her, “Maybe this is just the end.”

Alice’s girlfriend, Gabrielle Rogers, had also talked to ChatGPT, seeking guidance due to her concerns over Alice’s well-being. “I was trusting it to raise red flags for me. And it basically kept telling me everything would be fine,” Rogers said.

Drew Pusateri, spokesperson for OpenAI, said that the company has been revamping its models, stating:

This is a heartbreaking situation and our thoughts are with everyone impacted. We’re currently reviewing the legal filing, which indicates that these interactions took place on an earlier version of ChatGPT that is no longer available… While ChatGPT is not a substitute for medical or mental health care, we have continued to strengthen how it responds in sensitive and acute situations with input from mental health experts.

Carrier’s hope is that her lawsuit will lead to increased oversight for AI companies and awareness of the risks.

The Canadian federal government recently introduced Bill C-34, the Digital Safety Act, that seeks to regulate social media and AI chatbots.

Both the benefits and dangers of using Generative AI have been documented. For example, UNICEF has published a collection of research showing that there may be potential for supports for children with disabilities and other learning tools. However, the organization also raises concerns with children’s vulnerabilities potential misinformation, the growing use of AI to create child sexual abuse material, and its encouragement of dangerous behaviours, such as an Amazon Alexa advising a child to stick a coin in an electrical socket.

This lawsuit will proceed alongside 18 similar suits against the company. These include the filing by the families of victims of a school shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, claiming that “OpenAI knew the Shooter was planning the attack” but failed to warn authorities.

The post Canada mother sues OpenAI, alleging ChatGPT encouraged daughter’s suicide appeared first on JURIST - News.

The protests concerned “increasingly repressive restrictions” and the detention of multiple women for violating orders restricting their attire, such as the wearing of a burka or chador with a face mask and a ban on use of perfumes. Authorities allegedly opened fire on and physically assaulted protestors, which included women and children. According to reports, two were killed, including a minor, and 20 were injured. While the experts acknowledged reports of stone-throwing by some of the protestors, they noted that this act alone does not warrant use of lethal force.

The experts urged the Taliban to comply with international human rights treaties and reminded that Afghanistan is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The experts added:

Use of force in law enforcement is strictly restricted under international law. It is permitted only when it is legal, necessary and proportionate to the threat posed to officers or to others, and when it respects principles of precaution, non-discrimination and accountability…

Allegations that women were detained for dress code violations are deeply concerning and may constitute arbitrary and unlawful detention, as it appears to penalise the exercise of their right to freedom of expression and right to be free from gender discrimination…

Equality, peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and movement, and protection from arbitrary detention are fundamental rights essential to restoring public confidence and preventing further deterioration of the situation

Special Deputy Representative for Afghanistan Georgette Gagnon confirmed that the women, who were arrested sometime during the weekend were released on Monday. However, Gagnon, who also leads the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, warned that the arrests in and of themselves carry “enormous stigma,” which can put women at risk of further violence and isolation in their families and communities even after they are released. Gagnon likewise called on the Taliban to comply with international legal standards and uphold the rights of “all” Afghans to freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, liberty and security of person, and to freedom from arbitrary detention.

The experts have called on the Taliban to “promptly, effectively, independently, impartially and transparently” open an investigation into the incident to determine whether “the use of lethal force was strictly necessary and proportionate to protect life,” and hold accountable those responsible “and their chain of command.”

Since regaining power in 2021, the Taliban has imposed multiple restrictions on the rights of girls and women, including a ban on education, employment prohibitions, and the implementation of discriminatory laws. Earlier this month, Taliban authorities prohibited Afghan women from entering UN premises, which was decried by a coalition of UN experts. In March 2026, the UN found in a report that these policies resulted in a systemic restriction on Afghan women’s access to health care. In July 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against a Taliban leader for implementing extensive legal restrictions that targeted women and girls.

In addition to constituting serious violations of Afghan women’s fundamental rights, these restrictive policies and the exclusion of women from public life had devastating consequences on Afghanistan’s broader socio-economic situation by depriving the nation of educated professionals who could contribute to providing vital services, especially during crises such as environmental disasters.

The post UN rights experts condemn Afghanistan’s Taliban government for arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force appeared first on JURIST - News.

RSF, a Sudanese paramilitary force that emerged from the Janjaweed militia active in Darfur 20 years ago, has been engaged in a conflict with the SAF since April 2023. The war followed the collapse of negotiations over security sector reforms and a proposed transition from military to civilian rule in the wake of Sudan’s 2021 military coup. The conflict has displaced millions of people and worsened Sudan’s humanitarian crisis. The RSF and allied forces have reportedly committed widespread abuses, including unlawful killings, mass executions, sexual violence, attacks on civilian property, and the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas. Allegations against the SAF and its allied forces, including indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, sexual violence, torture of detainees, and mutilation of bodies.

HRW Sudan researcher Mohamed Osman stated that “those responsible for serious international crimes and human rights violations do not get a free pass if they switch sides.” Osman added that victims of abuses committed under military commanders’ authority deserve justice regardless of changing political or military alliances.

Under international law, the Sudanese authorities have an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for atrocity crimes and other serious human rights violations. This duty cannot be undermined by any pardon, amnesty, or other domestic legal provisions that effectively bestow impunity on those responsible for such crimes under international law.

HRW also appealed to members of the Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice on Sudan, established in February 2026 by the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway, to support efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to all of Sudan. The organization urged coalition members to publicly oppose measures granting impunity for serious crimes, support documentation efforts, and prioritize justice and accountability in any future negotiations to end the conflict.

The post HRW urges accountability for RSF commanders who defected to Sudanese military appeared first on JURIST - News.

Characterizing the violations as tantamount to a “confrontation with the Judiciary,” the contempt application has alleged that construction and development of the secretive US facility have illegally continued despite the explicit court orders prohibiting all plans to “establish, operationalise, or approve the facility.”

Stating that this direct disobedience has undermined the legitimacy and authority of the courts, KI and the Law Society (the applicants) have asked the court to intervene immediately by sending a clear and firm message to the authorities. The applicants have warned that failure to do so imminently endangers the reputation of the courts and the integrity of the judicial process in the public eye.

The KI condemned both the Kenyan and US governments for their continued defiance of court orders, and accused them of “viewing themselves as entirely above the Kenyan judicial system.” KI executive director Nora Mbagathi added:

We are witnessing a profound disrespect for Kenya’s sovereignty and our constitutional rule of law. The fact that construction continues and vital documents remain hidden, in direct violation of a High Court order, shows that the U.S. and Kenyan government see themselves as above our courts. They must be reminded that Kenya is a sovereign republic with a Constitution that protects its people, not an offshore containment zone where foreign entities can operate above the law.

KI further noted that “even urgent diplomatic and public health initiatives must bow to constitutional accountability, transparency, and the rule of law,” and that no foreign government can be permitted to “bypass parliamentary oversight, evade public participation, and ignore court orders under the guise of an international health emergency.”

KI is a nonprofit is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to social justice, public interest litigation, and civic engagement. Justice Nyaundi of the Kenya High Court in Nairobi issued an urgent conservatory order last month suspending any move to establish the planned US-backed Ebola quarantine center. The conservatory order was granted following a petition by the KI, barring officials from opening or approving the facility until the case is fully heard before the Court. There has been growing backlash against the facility and the related plan, and medical professionals in Kenya have condemned the plan as treating Kenya as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen that Kenyans did not generate reminding that “Kenya is a sovereign republic, not a geopolitical isolation ward,” echoing widespread concern that Kenya should not become an offshore quarantine hub for foreign patients.

The post Kenya Law Society files contempt of court application against government appeared first on JURIST - News.

Originally adopted in 2024, the pact introduces stricter regulations aimed at broadening applicant screening, increasing health and security checks, expediting examination procedures, and providing free counseling services. The pact consists of 10 pieces of binding legislation, which HRW argues will make it easier for governments to rush decisions, limiting safeguards for migrants and extending the time migrants spend in detention.

In a news release, HRW’s senior refugee and migrant rights advisor, Judith Sunderland, stated:

The new EU asylum pact, despite the trumpeting of EU leaders, slams the door in the face of people who deserve to be treated with dignity and to have a fair hearing of their claims for protection. The Pact takes a sledgehammer to the right to asylum at a time when the world needs Europe more than ever to champion human rights.

HRW has criticized that the new pact will enable European countries to designate non-EU member states as “safe third countries.” This allows an EU member to refuse to examine an asylum claim, instead having the applicant file their claim with a third country to which they may have no familial or cultural ties.

The pact has faced challenges in the past, particularly from right-wing governments that opposed its adoption and later threatened to withdraw from the pact entirely.

Governments across the West have been increasingly adopting anti-immigration measures. Canada recently passed the widely criticized Bill C-12, which migrants rights groups have warned will enable the mass cancellation of immigration applications. In the US, headlines of abuses by immigration enforcement agents have been common since Trump took office, including the tragic deaths of migrants in custody, and the killings of Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Keith Porter, Ruben Ray Martinez and Silverio Villegas González.

The post HRW: New EU pact undermines right to asylum appeared first on JURIST - News.

Tabled at the House of Commons on Monday, Bill C-34 is  known as the Digital Safety Act. The act, if passed in its current form, will require social media companies to flag harmful content and mitigate the risk that users may be exposed to such content. Tech companies will also submit a digital safety plan, with planned measures to meet their duty to act responsibly, to the new digital safety commission.

The legislation places strong emphasis on child protection. It requires social media operators to ban content that sexually exploits children, and prevent users from sending intimate content to underage users without consent. The digital safety commission will handle complaints of children being exposed to the content. One central measure is the under-16 social media ban with compulsory age verification.

Michael Geist, privacy law professor at the University of Ottawa, said the law does not appear to make the ban temporary, even though major Canadian news outlets described it as such. However, tech companies can avoid this requirement by persuading the commission that they have implemented sufficient safeguards to protect children. Geist criticized the sufficiency requirement as “astonishingly uncertain.”

AI regulation is another major aspect of the bill. Under the Digital Safety Act, tech companies will be required to report their criteria and processes for notifying law enforcement agencies when users pose a risk of harm to others. This law is a direct response to the recent Tumbler Ridge mass shooting incident in British Columbia. OpenAI is currently facing lawsuits for failing to notify law enforcement when its users planned scenarios involving gun violence in the province. Whether the company owes such a reporting duty under the current law is uncertain. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, apologized for the company’s failure to report in the Tumbler Ridge incident.

Social media and AI have been a recent focus of government policy decisions worldwide. Many countries–such as Australia and Malaysia–have implemented an underage social media ban. At the end of May, however, UN rights chief Volker Türk called on countries to avoid a blanket ban and adopt robust regulations that address the root causes of online harm. He maintained that this would allow children to learn and connect with their community through online resources. The UN has also called for AI regulation that complies with international human rights standards and achieves environmental justice.

The post Canada moves to regulate social media and AI chatbots appeared first on JURIST - News.