United States v. Eichman

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment. It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty". It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag burning.
Background.
In response to "Texas v. Johnson", the 101st Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which attempted to circumvent the "Johnson" ruling by prohibiting mistreatment of the flag without regard to any message being conveyed. On the day that the law took effect, protests were staged around the nation. Demonstrators at two of these incidents, in Seattle and Washington, D.C., were arrested and charged under the revised statute.
In Seattle, flags were burned at a demonstration organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist outside the Capitol Hill post office shortly after midnight, moments after the law took effect. No one was arrested during the demonstration, but four people identified from photographs were later charged with violating the federal Flag Protection Act of 1989: Mark Haggerty, Jennifer Campbell, Darius Strong and Carlos Garza. None of the four were members or supporters of VVAW-AI or the Revolutionary Communist Party. None of the four had been among the organizers of the demonstration or had previously known each other.
In Washington, D.C., Gregory Lee Johnson, the defendant in "Texas v. Johnson", staged a protest together with three companions – artists Dread Scott and Shawn Eichman and Vietnam veteran David Blalock – by burning flags on the steps of the United States Capitol building before a crowd of reporters and photographers. Scott had recently aroused controversy with a "flag on the floor" exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago. Eichman was a member of the Coalition Opposed to Censorship in the Arts, and Blalock was a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist. All four were supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party and/or the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. On the day of the protest they released a statement calling for others to express opposition to "compulsory patriotism" by burning the flag.
In both cases, federal district judges in Seattle and Washington, D.C. dismissed charges brought against the protesters, citing "Texas v. Johnson". U.S. attorneys appealed the decisions directly to the Supreme Court. Because the Flag Protection Act called for expedited review, the two cases were consolidated into "United States v. Eichman" (1990), which would serve as a test case for the amended statute.
Opinion of the Court.
In an opinion by Justice Brennan and decided along the same 5–4 lines as in "Texas v. Johnson", the Court held that the federal government, like the states, cannot prosecute a person for desecration of a United States flag, because to do so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government conceded that desecration of the flag constitutes expressive conduct and enjoys the First Amendment's full protection. It is clear that the "Government's asserted interest" in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order "to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation" and certain national ideals, is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content of free expression.
The majority wrote that mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's "treatment of the flag communicates a message" to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals of the flag. The precise language of the Act's prohibitions confirms Congress' interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms – with the possible exception of "burns" – unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a "focus on those acts likely to damage the flag's symbolic value." This is further supported by the Act's explicit exemption for disposal of worn or soiled flags, which the Act protects from prosecution since disposing a worn or soiled flag does not desecrate the flag's symbolic nature. Thus, the Act is struck down as its restriction on expressive conduct cannot "be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." It must therefore be subjected to "the most exacting scrutiny," which cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. While flag desecration – like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures – is deeply offensive to many, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Subsequent developments.
On remand, Eichman's case was dismissed, as she and her fellow defendants had only been charged with flag desecration. However, the defendants in the "Haggerty" case had faced an additional charge of destruction of government property, as the burned flag was alleged to have been stolen from Seattle's Capitol Hill Post Office. On those charges, all four Seattle defendants pleaded guilty and were fined. Carlos Garza and Darius Strong each served three days in jail.
When Republicans retook control of Congress for the 104th session, the Flag Desecration Amendment was first proposed, which would grant the federal government the authority to proscribe flag burning. A resolution for this Amendment passed the House in every session from the 104th until the 109th Congress, but never got past the Senate (in the most recent vote, passage in the Senate failed by one vote), and has not been considered since the 109th Congress, which ended in 2007.


6 Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment


Leila Dzyba

Leila Dzyba is a former Chief of the Cabinet Staff of Abkhazia. Dzyba was appointed on 22 October 2014 by newly elected President Raul Khajimba. On 26 May 2015, Khajimba appointed Diana Pilia as new Head of the Cabinet Staff.
After working in the Presidential Administration, Dzyba was appointed as Deputy Mayor of Sukhumi on 17 January 2017.


Nodik Kvitsinia

Nodik Kvitsinia is a member of the People's Assembly of Abkhazia who was convicted for the murder of Russian businessman Sergei Klemantovich and his partner Oksana Skarednova.
Early life.
Kvitsinia was born in 1957 in the village of Atara, Ochamchira District.
Political career.
In the March 2012 elections, Kvitsinia successfully ran as an independent candidate for a seat of the 5th convocation of the People's Assembly of Abkhazia in constituency no. 34 (Gali), defeating in the first round two opponents nominated by political parties with 54.52% of the votes.
On 10 April, as parliamentary committees were composed, Kvitsinia was elected chairman of the Committee for Agrarian Policy, Natural Resources and Ecology. Kvitsinia was voted out of this post after he had come under investigation for the murder of Sergei Klemantovich and Oksana Skarednova, and on 7 October 2014, Kan Kvarchia was elected his successor.
Murder of Sergei Klemantovich and Oksana Skarednova.
In September 2012, Sergei Klemantovich, the Director of the Russian-Abkhazian scrap metal joint venture "EL-Petroleum — Abkhazia" disappeared along with his partner Oksana Skarednova. According to investigators, Kvitsinia organised the kidnapping of the pair on 11 September and held them on the outskirts of Sukhumi. When Klemantovich refused to pay a ransom of 2 million American dollars, Kvitsinia paid his henchmen 15 million rubles for their murder, in the village of Adziubzha, Ochamchira District, on the night of 12 September. Their corpses were subsequently dumped into the well of an uninhabited house.
On 11 October 2013, Kvitsinia's four henchmen were detained, and on 14 October, the bodies of Klemantovich and Skarednova were recovered. On 12 December 2014, Kvitsinia was formally indicted. The trial started on 24 March 2015. On 28 October 2016, Kvitsinia was convicted on the murder charges and sentenced to 16 years of strict regime prison (the prosecution had asked for 20 years).
By 16 November, Kvitsinia, not present during the pronouncement of the verdict, was still at large, and he was officially declared wanted.
On 16 February 2017, the Cassation Chamber of Abkhazia's Supreme Court ordered a retrial. On 22 February, Kvitsinia was arrested in Sukhumi.


Operation Rekstok

Operation Rekstok was a series of South African raids into southern Angola on 7 March 1979 during the South African Border War. The operation lasted six days. Operating from Ovamboland, SADF forces entered Angola and attacked SWAPO bases at Mongua, Oncocua, Henhombe and Heque. During the operation, a SAAF bomber was shot down, killing Lieutenant Wally Marais and Second Lieutenant O. J. Doyle. The SADF conducted Rekstok concurrently with Operation Safraan and later performed Operation Sceptic.


Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights

The Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR) was a civil rights organization in Birmingham, Alabama, United States, which coordinated boycotts and sponsored federal lawsuits aimed at dismantling segregation in Birmingham and Alabama during the Civil Rights Movement. Fred Shuttlesworth, pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, served as president of the group from its founding in 1956 until 1969. The ACMHR's crowning moment came during the pivotal Birmingham Campaign which it coordinated along with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the Spring of 1963.
Founding.
Shuttlesworth, the fiery pastor who took over the pulpit of Bethel Baptist Church in 1953, was already a leading figure in the Birmingham movement. He had led an unsuccessful campaign to convince the Birmingham Police Department to hire black officers and accompanied Autherine Lucy and Arthur Shores in the short-lived integration of the University of Alabama. He was membership chairman for the Alabama chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and was the featured speaker in a January 1956 "Emancipation Rally" sponsored by the NAACP.
Later that spring Alabama Attorney General John Patterson successfully headed efforts to ban the NAACP from conducting activities in Alabama. As a result, Shuttlesworth led a group of 11 pastors and laymen who met at A. G. Gaston's Smith & Gaston Funeral Chapel to outline the creation of a group of "free and independent Citizens of the United States of America, and of the State of Alabama" who would "express publicly our determination to press forward persistently for Freedom and Democracy, and the removal from our society any forms of Second Class Citizenship." The group met on June 4, 1956, and drafted a 7-point "Declaration of Principles":
The ACMHR was formally created at a mass meeting of 1,000 enthusiastic blacks at Alford's Sardis Baptist Church the following night. Shuttlesworth, acclaimed unanimously as president of the new group, recounted from the pulpit vicious lynchings and gross lapses of justice across the South, concluding that "these are dark days" before announcing that "...hope is not dead. Hope is alive here tonight!" A second meeting at Smith's New Pilgrim Baptist Church attracted additional members, including long-time ACMHR corresponding secretary Lola Hendricks.
Bus desegregation.
Initially the ACMHR continued the NAACP's tactics of filing lawsuits challenging enforcement of the city's segregation laws and also modeled itself on the Montgomery Improvement Association in attempting to organize African American citizens for boycotts and peaceful demonstrations.
Two small actions preceded the ACMHR's first mass demonstration. Two members applied to take the civil service exam in an attempt to become police officers, but were refused by the city's personnel board. The ACMHR sponsored a lawsuit against the board. On December 22, 1956, Carl and Alexandria Baldwin tested the Birmingham Terminal Station's compliance with an Interstate Commerce Commission ruling banning segregation among interstate passengers. They were arrested and a lawsuit was filed.
The first large public action undertaken by the ACMHR was aimed at the city's segregated bus service. After Browder v. Gayle, the decision that ended segregation on Montgomery buses, was upheld on November 13, ACMHR leaders petitioned the city to repeal the ordinances requiring segregated buses in Birmingham. When the city refused, Shuttlesworth organized a display of peaceful civil disobedience in which hundreds of African Americans boarded buses and sat in "Whites only" seats. On December 25, 1956, the night before the protest, Shuttlesworth's house was bombed, blasting him into the basement where he landed, still on his mattress. The fact that he emerged relatively unscathed left Shuttlesworth convinced that he was ordained to lead and contributed to his attitude of fearlessness. The demonstration went on as planned and resulted in 22 arrests, which in turn triggered ACMHR lawsuits asking for an injunction.
In February 1957 the ACMHR signed on as a charter member organization in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Shuttlesworth was named secretary of the SCLC. The next month he and his wife, Ruby, again challenged the segregated waiting rooms at Terminal Station. The couple were able to board their train without incident, but Lamar Weaver, a white man who had greeted them, was met by a violent mob outside the station when he tried to leave.
School integration.
On September 9, 1957, just a week after black students were escorted by police into Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, Shuttlesworth attempted to enroll two of his daughters at J. H. Phillips High School and was met by a mob armed with bats and bicycle chains. Hospitalized but undaughted, he left University Hospital to attend a mass meeting that night, redoubling his message of nonviolence and faith. He pledged to continue the attempts until the schools were successfully integrated and initiated lawsuits against the city's Board of Education.
Mass meetings and resistance.
By 1958 at least 55 "movement churches" were active in the ACMHR. Weekly mass meetings, filled with emotional testimony, music, and passionate preaching, raised an average of about $200–300 per week to fund the organization's lawsuits. Additional funds came from speaking engagements in other cities and from local supporters who did not join the group, including whites who were eager for change but could not risk certain retaliation for showing public support for the movement. In its first three years, the group spent over $40,000 of the $53,000 it raised on legal fees, much of it on black attorneys such as Arthur Shores, Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Oscar Adams, and Demetrius Newton of Birmingham and Ernest D. Jackson of Jacksonville, Florida. By 1965 the ACMHR had initiated more federal suits that reached the United States Supreme Court than any other petitioner. As the cases rose through the federal court system, they garnered assistance from the NAACP's legal defense fund.
Organized opponents of integration, including the Ku Klux Klan and the National States' Rights Party, threatened and intimidated movement supporters and conducted numerous bombings of churches and residences. Most of those terrorist acts were never prosecuted and their perpetrators acted with impunity, if not complicity, from city officials and police. In addition, white citizens who appeared uncommitted to segregation were terrorized by extremists. In the face of these challenges the ACHMR increased its membership, stirred at meetings by the Movement Choir, founded in July 1960 and directed by Carlton Reese. A group of volunteer guards stood watch at movement churches and pastor's homes and escorted Shuttlesworth and other leaders to appointments. Detectives from the Birmingham Police Department recorded the proceedings at most movement meetings. According to Colonel Stone Johnson, Commissioner Bull Connor would transfer officers from the assignment once they started to "get religion".
Freedom Rides.
In 1961 the ACMHR helped organize the Alabama leg of that summer's Freedom Rides, sponsored by the Congress for Racial Equality. The demonstrations ended with marked violence as one bus was firebombed in Anniston and another was met by an organized mob at the Birmingham Trailways Station with no police in sight. ACMHR volunteers took injured riders to the hospital and kept them in their homes until rides could be secured to safety.
Birmingham Campaign.
Shuttlesworth and the ACMHR were responsible for inviting Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy to come to Birmingham to lead mass demonstrations in 1963. Though King urged quick action, Shuttlesworth insisted on waiting until the 1963 Birmingham mayoral election was completed to avoid giving candidate Bull Connor any unintentional assistance with voters wary of "outside agitators". On the day after the election, won by perceived moderate candidate Albert Boutwell, the ACMHR distributed a "Birmingham Manifesto", outlining the purpose and demands of the campaign. As it happened, even Birmingham's moderate leaders opposed the campaign on the grounds that the incoming administration should be given an opportunity to lead the city through long-needed changes. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" responded directly to local white religious leaders' plea for patience.
During the campaign, Shuttlesworth acted as an emotional leader for ACMHR's local membership while King, Abernathy, and others made attempts to bring uncommitted parties into the movement. SCLC's Wyatt Tee Walker planned the practical details of the early part of the campaign, later joined by the campaign defining efforts of James Bevel of SCLC, by Birmingham residents and activists A. D. King, Edward Gardner, and James Orange, and by others. The movement's joint "Central Committee" met regularly at the A. G. Gaston Motel to coordinate plans and issue statements to the press. As pickets and marches against segregated stores and lunch counters dragged on through the Spring without evident progress, Bevel provided the spark by enlisting young people in the mass demonstrations, finally fulfilling the goal of "filling the jails" with nonviolent protesters and eventually providing the photographs and news footage of police dogs and firehoses that shocked the world's sensibilities.
A truce was announced on May 10, but the bombings continued, escalating to the murderous bombing of 16th Street Baptist Church on September 15. The events in Birmingham made imperative the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Later years.
Shuttlesworth had moved his family to the relative safety of Cincinnati, Ohio, where he had accepted the pulpit at Revelation Baptist Church in 1961. He traveled between Ohio and Alabama as he continued to lead the Birmingham movement. After the major events in Birmingham, the collegial relationships displayed publicly between Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the SCLC and other national Civil Rights groups began to fracture. Former ACMHR secretary Nelson H. Smith was tapped to head a Birmingham SCLC chapter. Shuttlesworth was left off the podium at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and was not invited to join the group traveling to Oslo, Norway to accept King's Nobel Prize for Peace.
In 1969 Shuttlesworth resigned as president of the ACMHR and was succeeded by Edward Gardner.


Inverness South

Inverness South was a provincial electoral district in Nova Scotia, Canada, that elected one member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. It was formed in 1981 when the former district of Inverness County was divided into Inverness North and Inverness South. It existed until 1993, when the boundaries were reformed to create the current provincial district of Inverness and the former district of Guysborough–Eastern Shore–Tracadie.
Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Inverness South elected the following Members of the Legislative Assembly:


Kaliningrad Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

The Kaliningrad Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, commonly referred to as the Kaliningrad CPSU obkom, was the position of highest authority in the Kaliningrad Oblast, in the Russian SFSR of the Soviet Union. The position was created on April 7, 1946, and abolished on August 23, 1991. The First Secretary was a de facto appointed position usually by the Politburo or the General Secretary himself.


European Alliance

The European Alliance (EA) is a political group in the European Committee of the Regions composed of a mix of regionalist parties and independent members. It was established in 1996, with strong influence of the European Free Alliance, and has since then existed in several incarnations.
Currently, the group gathers 28 local and regional politicians from the following Member States: Belgium, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain.
History.
Since its foundation in 1996 until 2004, the European Alliance group consisted of the European Free Alliance's member parties aligned with a group of independents and the then-governing party of the Republic of Ireland, Fianna Fáil, thus serving as a relatively loose grouping of regionalist and non-regionalist members of the European Committee of the Regions. The group's main founding principles included:
In 2004 the group was reconstituted as Union for Europe of the Nations – European Alliance (UEN–EA), uniting a wide range of political options, from traditionally centrist parties to more national-conservative ones. At the time, the group was partly affiliated with the European Parliament's Union for Europe of the Nations.
In 2009, the group restored its original name and has since returned to its regionalist roots.
Present.
Currently, the European Alliance group gathers members from the following
In addition, the group's membership includes independent local and regional politicians from Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
Political priorities.
Apart from its regionalist affiliations, the group gathers a significant number of independent members active in the development of Europe's disadvantaged regions, particularly rural, mountainous and island areas. In addition, a strong focus is put on the promotion of green economy and the protection of Europe's cultural and linguistic diversity, especially regional identities.
Some of the group's main priorities include:
Presidents.
Current president of the group is Mr Kieran McCarthy, Member of the Cork City Council, Ireland.
Previous presidents include:


Operation Kerslig

Operation Kerslig (Operation Candle Light) was a South African Defence Force special forces raid on an oil refinery outside Luanda, Angola. The raid took place on 30 November 1981 by members of the 1 and 4 Reconnaissance Regiments.
Background.
The Petrangol refinery was built in 1958 and supplied Angola with petrol, diesel, and jet fuel and managed by Belgium company Petrofina SA . The refinery was to be attacked around 1am on 30 November with the intention to damage or destroy the distillation towers, fuel tanks and pipelines within the refinery complex. Members of 1 Reconnaissance Regiment (1RR) would conduct the initial surveillance of the refinery and the actual attack while 4 Reconnaissance Regiment (4RR) would man the special forces Barracuda boats and supply the divers with transport to and from the Angolan capital of Luanda supplied by the South African Navy strike-craft. The mission was to be covert and blame laid on UNITA as being responsible and not the South African Defence Force. On 16 November, 1 RR was given training by 4 RR to refresh their knowledge with the boats and by 18 November with the two South African Navy strike-craft. By 20 November the two strike-craft, SAS "Oswald Pirow" and SAS "Jim Fouche", left Saldanha Bay with the 4RR boat crews and a two-man 1RR reconnaissance team and arrived for refuelling on 22 November at Walvis Bay before heading northwards to Angola. The survey vessel would arrive on 24 November at Walvis Bay from Simon's Town and picked up the members of 1 RR attack teams before heading northwards as well.
Operation.
On the night of 25 November, the two strike-craft positioned themselves off Luanda, 9 km north-west of the lighthouse at Ponto das Lagostas. Two special forces boats were launched and headed for a point off the shore. Two 4RR divers then entered the water and swam to the beach to ensure the landing point's suitability and its security and then called the boats in to drop off the two-man reconnaissance team. The boats returned to the strike-craft which withdrew 80 km offshore. As the dawn approached, the reconnaissance team found themselves in the middle of military transport storage area, but were able to leave and find a safer hideout during daylight hours. That evening they returned to reconnoitre the transport storage area before proceeding to the refinery, surveilling and photographing the target before returning to their hideout having establishing an inward and exit route for an attack teams. After spending another day at the hideout, on the evening of 27 November, the strike-craft returned and the boats collected the reconnaissance team. The two strike-craft then set off for their rendezvous with the SAS "Protea" on the early morning of 28 November for refuelling as well as the final planning and briefings of the forthcoming raid and the transfer of the attack teams.
By early evening of 29 November, the two strike-craft were 16 km off Luanda. Four boats were launched for the beach landing site and again dropped off the two reconnaissance team divers to investigate the landing site. The four boats were then signalled to land. A communications team was left on the cliffs to maintain radio contact between the teams and the strike-craft. The HQ and attack teams then proceeded to the outer perimeter fence of the refinery. None of the guard towers appeared to be occupied nor was the inner fence maintained. By 23h57 the four attack teams had cut their way inside the refinery grounds while the support and HQ teams maintaining the security of the exit route. Team 5 guarded the cut fence.
Team 1 proceeded to their target, three distilling towers, but were unable to lay their explosive in the right position as the design of the first tower and a manned control station did not match the intelligence so the explosives were laid on pipes into the tower. Signalling the rest of the teams to begin their arming they proceeded to the second tower that appeared unmanned and out of commission. While attempting to break into the tower they were interrupted by a premature explosion from within the refinery at Team 4's site. They then armed and left the charges at the towers' base and returned to the entrance site.
Team 2's targets were twelve jet fuel tanks. They were able to place six charges before the premature explosion from within the refinery interrupted them. Following orders if the plan changed, they left the remaining charges against a tank and before attempting to arm one of the charges, a second premature explosion occurred within the refinery and so they left the explosives unarmed and returned to the entry point on the fence. Meeting Team 1 they joined in the search of Team 4.
Team 3 managed to lay their charges on two spherical gas tanks and had proceeded to two horizontal tanks when the first premature explosion occurred within the refinery. Orders were now to return to entry point, but finding their route blocked by guards proceeded to another part of the perimeter fence and exited leaving their remaining two charges on pipelines leading to the harbour before returning to the rendezvous point by following the fence.
Team 4 had charges to place on twelve crude oil tanks and they began to place them as soon as Team 1 gave the order to start. About seven minutes after they started, one of their charges prematurely exploded and they decided to place the remaining charges together and Captain de Kok armed one but it exploded and the other two team members of the team were injured. One badly team member made it back to the entry point and so Team 1 and 2 re-entered the refinery to find the two missing men and found another team member badly burnt and blinded and returned him to the entry point and resumed their search for the De Kok, but after a third premature explosion it became too dangerous and it was realised he could not have survived.
The men returned to the entry point in the fence and made contact with the HQ team, returning to the beach via the vehicle transport area to save time while more premature explosions occurred in the refinery. The boats were already on the beach waiting and the strike-craft were closer to the shore to speed up the pick-up. The two injured were transferred to individual strike-craft for treatment by medical teams and as soon as the boats were loaded, headed out to sea as several more explosions broke out in the refinery. The two strike-craft would later rendezvous with SAS "Protea" and transferred the two injured men and latter would then head for Walvis Bay reaching there on 2 December where the men were transported to Pretoria for medical treatment. The two strike-craft left Angolan waters and would arrive back in Langebaan with the 1 & 4 Reconnaissance Regiment teams on 4 December before sailing for Simon's Town later that day to refuel and restock and return to their bases.
Aftermath.
Fire-fighters managed to bring the fires under control by 1 December while all fires had been extinguished by 3 December. Angolan and Western oil officials claimed that if the attack had been successful, the city of Luanda would have taken damage from the explosion and the release of poison chemicals. Brave refinery workers had managed to remove lead tetrachloride, which the South Africans did not know about, from the tanks before the flames got to them.
Kundi Paiama, Angola's Minister of State Security was demoted after the raid because of the security lapses. Several infantry units were called in to guard the complex while security infrastructure within the refinery was upgraded.
The Belgium operator of the refinery reckoned the damage to the refinery would be repaired in two months. It was close to three months before partial production began again. Seventeen tanks had been destroyed, but the gas spheres had not exploded even though their contents burnt close the point of the explosion. The South African intelligence reckoned that $60 million of various fuel products had been lost and that the damage was worth $36.5 million.
Jonas Savimbi, leader of UNITA, initially claimed responsibility for the attack by a small assault team firing RPGs. But his version of events did not match the evidence left behind by the attackers.
By the 1 December, Angolan officials presented evidence to Western diplomats that the attack had been carried out by South African "mercenaries". It appeared that SADF special forces member, Captain AJP de Kock, was killed instantly when demolition explosives he was laying, prematurely exploded. His remains, the mines, weapons and other sabotage equipment that was left behind were presented to the world's media.
The raid was acknowledged as a South African special forces operation during the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.


Erik Rshtuni

Erik Rshtuni was Chairman of the State Committee for Standards, Consumer and Technical Supervision of Abkhazia in the Government of President Khajimba from 2014 until 2016. Rshtuni was first appointed on 23 October 2014, after Raul Khajimba's election, who created the State Committee out of the State Administration for Standards, Metrology and Certification. Rshtuni served in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Beslan Butba and Artur Mikvabia, but he was replaced by Akhra Pachkoria on 1 November 2016, following the appointment of Beslan Bartsits as Prime Minister.


John Dupraz

John Dupraz (born 8 July 1945 in Geneva) is a Swiss politician and member of the National Council from the Canton of Geneva until 2007.
He was a member of the Grand Council of Geneva from October 1973 till October 1989, then again since October 1993. He was elected to the National Council in 1995, on the list of the Free Democratic Party, and to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 2003 until 2007.


Robert H. Jackson Center


Armagh City (UK Parliament constituency)

Armagh City was a United Kingdom Parliament constituency, in Ireland.
Boundaries.
This constituency was the parliamentary borough of Armagh in County Armagh. It was the successor constituency to the Armagh City constituency of the Parliament of Ireland.
The constituency was disenfranchised in the 1885 redistribution of parliamentary seats and incorporated into the county division of Mid Armagh.
Elections.
Elections in the 1830s.
Chetwynd-Talbot resigned to contest a by-election at , causing a by-election.
Elections in the 1840s.
Curry resigned after being appointed a Master in Chancery, causing a by-election.
Elections in the 1850s.
Moore's death caused a by-election.
Elections in the 1860s.
Miller was appointed a judge in bankruptcy, causing a by-election.
Elections in the 1870s.
Vance died, causing a by-election.


Democratic and Radical Union

The Democratic and Radical Union ("Union démocratique et radicale") was a French parliamentary group in the French Senate during the French Third Republic. The Democratic and Radical Union was formed by members of the Independent Radicals and other Radical Senators who did not join or left the Radical-Socialist Party.
The group disappeared in 1940 and was not re-created post-war. Most members joined the post-war PRI or the RGR.


Prostitutes Protection Act

The Prostitutes Protection Act (Prostituiertenschutzgesetz) is a German Federal Law that was enacted on 21 October 2016 and came into force on 1 July 2017. Core elements are the introduction of a permit requirement for all prostitution trades and a registration certificate for prostitutes (colloquially "whore pass" or "whore ID"). The intent of the law was to better protect prostitutes and fight crime. Interest groups criticised the law, which they claim penalises and endangers prostitutes and a constitutional complaint was filed in June 2017.
Contents.
Regulations for prostitutes.
As of 1 July 2017, the law requires persons who wish to pursue or pursue prostitution in Germany to register their activities with the competent authority (§ 3 ProstSchG).
There will be an information and information discussion, in which the notifying person should be informed about the social legislation in Germany, about counselling services and the contents of the new law (§§ 7 and 8 ProstSchG). After completion of prescribed health advice (§10 ProstSchG), a registration certificate is issued - colloquially and by some interest groups "whore ID" or "whore pass" - which includes a photo (§§5 & 6 ProstSchG). The registration certificate is valid for two years; for prostitutes under the age of 21, it is valid for only one year (§5(4) ProstSchG). In the case of renewal of the registration certificate, it must be shown that a health consultation took place annually - for prostitutes under the age of 21 every six months - (§5(5) parts 2 and 3 ProstSchG).
Upon request, the Office may issue a supplementary alias attestation, in which the real name is replaced by a pseudonym to protect the identity of the person (§5 Abs. 6 ProstSchG).
The information about the registration confirmation is sent automatically in electronic form to the responsible tax offices (§34 Abs. 8 ProstSchG).
The law stipulates that the authority responsible for counselings "arranges for the measures necessary for the protection of the person" if there are indications that a person is not pursuing prostitution of his own free will or is being forced to do so (§9 ProstSchG ).
Prostitution Trade.
The Prostitutes Protection Act regulates the operation of prostitution sites, the provision of prostitution vehicles, the organisation and implementation of prostitution events, and prostitution introductions (§2 Abs. 3 ProstSchG). All new commercial activities are required to present an operating concept to the competent authority with any application for a permit (§12 ProstSchG).
Permits are granted only if the authority affirms the authorisation, (§14 ProstSchG) and the applicant appears reliable to the officials ( § 15 ProstSchG), which is checked by obtaining information from the Federal Central Register (certificate of good conduct) and obtaining police information. Any person who, in the past 5 years, has been convicted of crimes or offences against sexual orientation, assault, forced prostitution, extortion, money laundering, fraud or has been convicted of violations of the Residence Act, is not considered reliable and therefore can not operate a prostitution business in Germany. Additionally, persons who belong to unapproved banned clubs or have belonged in the last 10 years, are usually not regarded as reliable.
The operator of a prostitution business has to fulfil the health and safety protection of employed prostitutes, ensure the admissibility of their employment and also further information, control and recording obligations (§§24 to 28 ProstSchG).
Prohibitions, sanctions.
The law introduced a requirement of condom use (§32(1) ProstSchG). Advertising for certain sexual services, such as sexual intercourse without a condom or with a pregnant women, is prohibited in the cases mentioned in Section 32(3) ProstSchG.
Violations of regulations can be punished with fines up to €10,000; if customers violate the obligation to pay fees, fines of up to €50,000 are possible (§33 ProstSchG).
Background and introduction.
During the government of Gerhard Schröder, the Prostitution Act was passed in 2001. This abolished the immorality of prostitution on 1 January 2002, which for the first time prostitutes and their clients could enter a legally effective prostitution agreement. Prostitutes could now obtain access to social security. Critics described this law as too liberal, it made Germany the "brothel of Europe", while defenders saw the shortcomings in the implementation. They also argued that effective protection for prostitutes is only possible if this work is legalised.
In its coalition agreement, the SPD, the CDU and the CSU decided in 2013 to regulate and introduce "regulatory control options" on the one hand "to better protect women from trafficking and forced prostitution " and on the other to "punish the perpetrators more consistently". In the summer of 2014, the coalition partners agreed on the introduction of a notification and a ban on so-called flat-rate brothels and group sex. The demand of the Union to reintroduce compulsory medical examinations for prostitutes, was as well as the requirement for a minimum age of 21 years was not included in the law. These demands had been criticised in an open letter after their becoming known by women's and social organisations (including German Women's Council, German Lawyers Association, Diakonie and German Aidshilfe) as inappropriate.
In the explanatory memorandum to the bill, which the Federal Government submitted to the Bundestag in May 2016, it was explained that prostitution was "an economic sector in which substantial revenues are generated and which [...] follow the intrinsic laws of the market economy". However, prostitution is also "an area in which fundamental rights such as sexual self-determination, personal freedom, health and personal rights of those involved are in fact at particular risk." In particular, it lacks "binding minimum standards for the protection of the health and safety of those working there" and legal bases for controlling the operators of prostitution trades. Lack of regulatory oversight instruments favoured criminal structures. At the same time "it must be taken into account that frequently prostitution is carried out by persons who are in a particularly vulnerable or stressful situation and who are therefore unable to defend their rights in an autonomous manner. Many [prostitutes] also fear discrimination in their social environment when their work is [...] known ". These characteristics should be taken into account in the regulation of the prostitution industry. The aim of the Prostitution Protection Act is to "better protect prostitutes and strengthen their right to self-determination, to [...] create the basis for ensuring tolerable working conditions and health [...]" and "human trafficking, violence against prostitutes and exploitation of prostitutes and pimping too fight".
While some states welcomed the introduction of a permit requirement for prostitution, a number of states spoke out against the law. In addition to the obligation to register, the costs incurred by the State were criticised, which the German government estimated at 17 million euros. On the other hand, the planned regulation of brothels received widespread approval.
The bill was slightly tightened by the Family Committee of the Bundestag at the request of the coalition parties (advertising ban on sex with pregnant women) and adopted by the Parliament on 7 July 2016 with the support of the Grand Coalition.
Implementation and effects.
The implementation of the law is the responsibility of the states and municipalities. Many states - including Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Hamburg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony - were unable to create the necessary structure by 1 July 2017, in particular to hire the necessary staff. In Munich, according to city officials, three doctors, a social worker and two administrative staff had to be hired by the health department. Added to this were "eight posts plus management for the registration and nine posts for the review of the brothels", which alone costs 1.5 million euros.
Some federal states charge a fee for registration and mandatory health advice. In Bavaria, a fee of 35 euros each for registration and counselling is changed, and in Saarland a 35 Euro registration fee. In Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein applications and health advice are free.
Criticism.
Shortly before the introduction of the law, the Berlin prostitute counselings centre and advisory board Hydra criticised that the obligation to register had "created a horrendous fear" because it was unclear what happened to the data and who had access to it. In particular, there were fears that correspondence between the authorities and the prostitute would deprive members of their activities, especially for those migrant women who could only give a foreign address. Similar reservations existed with regard to the "whore pass". If the anonymous and covert practice of prostitution is legally no longer possible, illegality threatens. This criticism also shared by the Berufsverband erotische und sexuelle Dienstleistungen (Professional association erotic and sexual services).
The importance of anonymity for prostitutes was underlined by the head of the prostitution advisory centre of the Diakoniewerk Hamburg, Julia Buntenbach-Henke: "[...] The result of an outing is for many [...] social isolation". However, the intention of the law to achieve "more self-determination for women in prostitution" was criticised in the implementation. Women who did not register would no longer report violent incidents to the police, as they feared they would be punished for the illegal practice of prostitution. The assumption that a woman would report a dependency relationship to the authorities - this argument was advocated by the Lower Saxony Social and Women's Minister, Cornelia Rundt (SPD) in 2015 - was dismissed by Buntenbach-Henke as "pure utopia." This opinion was also expressed by the Bundestag member Cornelia Möhring (Die Linke ), who, after the passing of the law by the Bundestag, criticised that a "one-time short contact with the authority" was barely sufficient to establish a relationship of trust. On the other hand, qualified advice is necessary.
The CDU deputy Sylvia Pantel countered the critics in September 2014, saying this does not stigmatise, but was "something that is quite normal for other workers." Prostitution can not be recognised as a "normal service offer" if there is no registration and control. The law should help those women who worked dependently and so far were defenceless. In a similar vein, Minister of Family Affairs Manuela Schwesig (SPD) said after the law had been passed that the obligation to register was not aimed at self-directed sex workers, but necessary to protect women who were lured to Germany and then disappeared in brothels.
The North Rhine-Westphalian Minister of Health and Emancipation, Barbara Steffens (Greens), argued against this view as early as 2015 in a statement on the draft bill submitted at that time. On the one hand, the draft "does not clear enough between the fight against trafficking and the regulation of prostitution", on the other hand, experiences from Vienna, where there was already a registration obligation, show that those victims of trafficking who are duly registered, assume that "their exploitation is legal and legitimised by the state".
In addition, Steffens criticized her counterpart, the Bremen Social Senator Anja Stahlmann (Greens), in that the state takes the law with the right to label women and men as prostitutes. According to Steffens, the proposed law includes an "almost boundless definition of prostitution"; This included people who occasionally provided sexual services. Even the Tantra Massage federation criticised the definition of "prostitution" being too broad: "Any kind of professional contact in the genital area as unskilled and often involuntary prostitution fits more in the spirit of the 50s and 60s [...]." Tantric masseurs now face a legal uncertainty and might only be allowed to act with a registration certificate.
The Frankfurt-based Doña Carmen association, together with 15 brothel operators and a few clients (26 in total) filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court in June 2017 against the Prostitute Protection Act. The complaint written by the Berlin constitutional lawyer Meinhard Starostik, was directed in particular against the obligation to register and advise, which is contrary to the constitution. All prostitutes would be under suspicion. In addition, according to Starostik, the lack of condoms is an "inadmissible interference with the intimate personal sphere", which makes it unreasonable for the brothel operators to be in control. Such comprehensive regulation as the Prostitute Protection Act applies "no other profession" and given that 200,000 people work in this industry, in 2015 nationwide there were only 72 convictions for pimping, trafficking and exploitation of prostitutes, these regulations are not necessary. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the adoption of the 2018 action because it was insufficiently reasoned. The Frankfurter Rundschau announced in February 2019, Doña Carmen has filed a lawsuit against the Prostitute Protection Act at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.


Burquitlam (electoral district)

Burquitlam was a provincial electoral district for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Canada from 2001 to 2009.
Member of Legislative Assembly.
Its only MLA was Harry Bloy, a former president of a local telecommunications company. He was elected in 2001 and 2005, as a member of the British Columbia Liberal Party.
Election results.


Fredericton North

Fredericton North () is a provincial electoral district for the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, Canada from 1973 to 2006, and was contested again in the 2014 New Brunswick general election. It was split between the ridings of Fredericton-Nashwaaksis and Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak from 2006 until 2014.
From 1974 to 2003, the riding consisted of the whole of the northside of the city of Fredericton. From 2014, it contained only a subset of that former territory, namely the former towns of Devon and Nashwaaksis (excluding parts north of the Ring Road).


Federation of the Lefts

The Federation of the Lefts () was a French electoral coalition during the French Third Republic founded in January 1914 by members of the Democratic Republican Alliance such Aristide Briand, Alexandre Millerand and Louis Barthou to provide a centrist alternative to the left's coalition, led by the Radical-Socialist Joseph Caillaux. However, the federation failed to attract the most moderate Radical voters and the left won the 1914 election which saw the centre fall back. The Federation was a failure.
However, a parliamentary group under the name Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Union ("Union républicaine radicale et radicale-socialiste") was formed in the new legislature and held a relatively important position in the legislature.


Durban Light Infantry

The Durban Light Infantry is a Motorised Infantry regiment of the South African Army. It lost its status as a Mechanised infantry regiment in 2010 in line with the rationalisation of resources. As a reserve unit, it has a status roughly equivalent to that of a British Army Reserve or United States Army National Guard unit.
History.
Origin.
The Regiment was formed as the "D’Urban Volunteer Guard", in May 1854.
In 1859 the unit became the "Durban Rifle Guard".
In 1873 the unit became known as the "Royal Durban Rifles".
In 1889 the unit became known as the "Natal Royal Rifles (Left half Battalion)".
In 1895 it became the "Durban Light Infantry".
With the Union Defence Force.
On the constitution of the "Union Defence Force" in 1912, the Unit became the "Durban Light Infantry", renamed the "1st Infantry, (Durban Light Infantry)". In consequence the Unit was permitted to add to its badge "Primus in Africa", the motto retained by the unit today in recognition of its foundation.
Seniority.
In 1935, King George V conferred the title "Royal" on two Regiments being the "Royal Durban Light Infantry" and the "Royal Natal Carbineers", as a recognition of their seniority and service.
In 1961 with the formation of the Republic, the title "Royal" was considered incompatible and the Regiment reverted to being the "Durban Light Infantry".
Regimental Colours.
At the centre of the 'Regimental Colour' is the badge worn by the Regiment since 1961. It consists of the recognised "Infantry Silver Bugle" with tassels and a shield with two wildebeest and a "crown". The wildebeest are symbolic of the Province, while the crown retained as a "traditional device" is reminiscent of the "title "Royal"" bestowed upon the Regiment by King George V in 1935.
The words "Primus in Africa" are superimposed within a scroll.
The crest is composed of a lion passant guardant on three mounds – the centre mound being charged with a pyramid. The lion is symbolic of strength, courage and fortitude. The three mounds are symbolic of the battles fought in World War II – Monte Stanco, Monte Peza and Monte Sole/Caprara. The pyramid is symbolic of the 1941–1943 Egyptian Campaign.
The "garland" which surrounds the coloured badge comprises the Thistle of Scotland, the Tudor Rose of England and the Shamrock of Ireland – symbols taken from the old colour – and the other two flowers, the Protea, the National flower of South Africa, and the Strelitzia, the flower of Natal (now KwaZulu-Natal).
Regimental Headquarters.
The regimental headquarters of the DLI has been declared as a National Monument.
Peacekeeping deployments and training.
The Regiment is being deployed in Africa, Burundi, DRC; in support of the United Nations and African Union mandate
All members of the Regiment are volunteers, with employment in the civilian roles, they fulfil their responsibilities and duties on top of their duties and responsibilities to their Families and Employers. An enormous commitment to the safety and security of the Republic of South Africa.
Training is mandatory with the current requirements of Equality and Equity in line with the SANDF Policy. The duration of training places an enormous pressure on members to get Employers to relieve them to attend the courses and training exercises.
Regimental history.
"Durban Light Infantry" by Lieut Col AC Martin BA (Cape) Hon.PhD (Natal) was published in 1969. It is out of print.
An illustrated history of the 150 years of the Regiment has been prepared by Prof. Brian Kearney, Mr Dave Matthews and Lieut Col "Bill" Olivier (Retd.). The book is being sold by the Headquarters Board.


Independents of the Left

The Independents of the Left (, IG) was a French parliamentary technical group in the Chamber of Deputies of France during the French Third Republic.
The group was formed by centre-right independents and members of political parties too small to form their own parliamentary party. It was roughly situated to the right of the Radical Left party (conservative Radicals) and the left of the Republicans of the Left party (conservative Liberals), and its members' political opinions tended to overlap with these two parties.
It was considered an affiliate of the Democratic Republican Alliance.
The group was presided, among others, by René Besse. It contained 26 deputies in the legislature of 1932-6, and 12 in the legislature of 1936-40.


Inflation hedge

An inflation hedge is an investment intended to protect the investor against (hedge) a decrease in the purchasing power of money (inflation).
"Barron's Finance & Investment Handbook" states: "Traditionally, gold and real estate have a reputation as good inflation hedges, though growth in stocks also can offset inflation in the long run. Money market funds, which pay higher yields as interest rates rise during inflation times, can also be a good inflation hedge."


Evadale High School

Evadale High School is a public high school in Evadale, Texas, United States and classified as a 2A school by the UIL. It is part of the Evadale Independent School District which is located in the southwest tip of Jasper County. In 2015, the school was rated "Met Standard" by the Texas Education Agency.
The district made news in June 2015 for refusing to change their Confederate Flag inspired crest despite pressure to do so.
Athletics.
The Evadale Rebels compete in the following sports
Volleyball, Football, Basketball, Track, Baseball & Softball
Catfish Festival.
Every year in May, the Evadale Catfish Festival is held on the High School grounds.


Astamur Tania

Astamur Tania is a former Head of the Presidential Administration of Abkhazia.
Career.
On 4 June 2014, following the May 2014 Revolution, Head of the Presidential Administration Beslan Kubrava and Security Council Secretary Nugzar Ashuba resigned, accusing the opposition of carrying out a witch hunt and imposing its decisions on the interim authorities. On 9 June, acting President Valeri Bganba appointed Astamur Tania as acting Head of the Presidential Administration. Tania was permanently appointed on 29 September 2014 by newly elected President Raul Khajimba.
On 6 May 2016, Khajimba accepted Tania's resignation. On 16 May, Tania was succeeded by Gagra District Head Beslan Bartsits.


Nodar Pilia

Nodar Pilia was Minister of Culture of Abkhazia in the early 1990s.


Charlotte Centre

Charlotte Centre was a provincial electoral district in New Brunswick. It was created from the multi-member riding of Charlotte in the 1973 electoral redistribution, and was abolished in the 1994 electoral redistribution.


The Republicans group (National Assembly)

The Republicans group (), formerly the Union for a Popular Movement group (), is a parliamentary group in the National Assembly including representatives of The Republicans (LR), formerly the Union for a Popular Movement.
History.
The group was formed in the National Assembly of the 12th legislature of the French Fifth Republic on 25 June 2002 with 356 deputies following the legislative elections under the name of the Union for the Presidential Majority group ("groupe de l'Union pour la majorité présidentielle"), and was renamed to the Union for a Popular Movement group ("groupe de l'Union pour un mouvement populaire") in line with that of its associated party on 5 March 2003. The group was subsequently reformed on 26 June 2007 with 314 members and 6 related following the legislative elections, and again on 26 June 2012 with 185 members and 11 related after legislative elections. On 2 June 2015, the name of the group was changed to The Republicans group ("groupe Les Républicains") following the renaming of the party to The Republicans.
The UMP group in the National Assembly was initially presided over by Jacques Barrot after his election unopposed on 19 June 2002, who later resigned to serve on the European Commission following Michel Barnier. Bernard Accoyer was elected unopposed on 4 May 2004 to replace him, serving until June 2007, after which successfully sought to become president of the National Assembly and replaced by Jean-François Copé. After Copé became General Secretary of the UMP, Christian Jacob was elected to succeed him on 23 November 2010. Jacob was re-elected most recently on 21 June 2017, collecting 62 votes against Damien Abad, who received 32 votes.
In the 2017 legislative elections, only 112 deputies under the label of the Republicans were elected, a "historic reversal" for the party, with the right and centre registering its worst score in the history of the Fifth Republic, the previous record being 158 deputies in the 1981 legislative elections. With the election of Emmanuel Macron and appointment of three right-wing ministers to his government, divisions in the right re-emerged, with a number of "constructives" interested in supporting his project. On 21 June, Thierry Solère announced the creation of a common group with the Union of Democrats and Independents (UDI) likely to contain 18 UDI and about 15 LR deputies. The formation of two parliamentary groups on the right represented a symbolic divorce to the two threads on the right (moderates and hardliners) and the end of the old UMP, created in 2002 to unite the right and centre.
On 27 June, Virginie Duby-Muller, Damien Abad, Valérie Lacroute, Véronique Louwagie, Frédérique Meunier, François Cornut-Gentille, Julien Aubert, Gérard Cherpion, Arnaud Viala, Guillaume Peltier, and Gilles Lurton were designated as the group's vice presidents. At the time of its formation on 27 June, the parliamentary group included 100 deputies, including 5 associated members.
On 8 December, the constitutional council annulled the election of Ian Boucard in Territoire de Belfort's 1st constituency due to the distribution of misleading electoral leaflets by the candidate; as a result, a by-election will be held to fill the vacant seat in 2018. The constitutional council subsequently annulled the election of Jean-Pierre Door, who won by 8 votes in Loiret's 4th constituency, on 18 December, triggering a by-election. Marine Brenier left the UDI, Agir and Independents group to rejoin the LR group on 23 January 2018, and Boucard won the by-election in Territoire de Belfort, and joined the group together with Antoine Savignat after he won the by-election in Val-d'Oise.


Mary Bourke-Dowling

Mary Bourke-Dowling (12 December 1882 – 21 July 1944) was an Irish suffragette and republican.
Life.
Mary Bourke-Dowling was born in Clontarf on 12 December 1882. By the early 1900s, Bourke-Dowling was an active member of the Irish Women's Franchise League. Along with Louie Bennett, Bourke-Dowling co-edited the IWFL's paper "The Irish Citizen".
Bourke-Dowling was amongst several hundred suffragettes arrested in November 1911 for breaking windows in London. She had unsuccessfully attempted to break windows at the Bow Street Police Court on 27 November 1911. Along with fellow Irishwomen, she was sentenced to 5 days imprisonment for her involvement. The IWFL welcomed back the released prisoners to Dublin with a special meeting. Bourke-Dowling along with a small number of others, including Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, were presented with a medal from the League engraved with "From Prison to Citizenship". In 1915, Bourke-Dowling addressed a meeting of Belfast suffragists.
She went on to join Cumann na mBan, and was on the Anti-Treaty side of the Irish Civil War. Her refusal to sign a declaration of fidelity to the Irish Free State government resulted in her losing her job as a writing assistant in the civil service in August 1922. Bourke-Dowling "had allowed her home to be used to harbour irregulars", those on the Anti-Treaty side. In February 1923, Bourke-Dowling was arrested and imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol and North Dublin Union for 6 months. She was a member of the Women Prisoners' Defence League along with Margaret Buckley, and drew on her experience as a suffragette to advise her fellow prisoners on how to resist the authorities. Like many other prisoners, Bourke-Dowling documented her experience with drawings and letters. Following her release in late 1923, no more is known about her political life. She was reinstated to her job in 1932, after a number of years campaigning. On 26 April 1933, she married William H. Lewers, leading to her leaving her job owing to the marriage bar on female civil servants. Bourke-Dowling died at her home in Clontarf on 21 July 1944.
In 2018/2019, Kilmainham Gaol held an exhibit dedicated to Bourke-Dowling, exhibiting her IWFL medal and other documents for the first time.


Flavio Maspoli

Flavio Maspoli (29 January 1950 – 11/12 June 2007) was a Swiss politician and a co-founder of the Lega dei Ticinesi. He was a member of the Swiss National Council (1991–2003).


Carl Feer-Herzog

Carl Feer-Herzog (23 October 1820 – 14 January 1880) was a Swiss politician and President of the Swiss National Council (1874).


Crown Dependencies

The Crown Dependencies (; ) are three island territories off the coast of Great Britain that are self-governing possessions of The Crown: the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man. They do not form part of either the United Kingdom (UK) or the British Overseas Territories. Internationally, the dependencies are considered "territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible", rather than sovereign states. As a result, they are not member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. However, they do have relationships with the Commonwealth and other international organisations, and are members of the British–Irish Council. They have their own teams in the Commonwealth Games.
The distinctive feature of the Crown Dependencies from the Overseas territories is that the link between the islands and the mainland forms through the monarch, not through parliament. This means each island has had a rather independent, though often parallel, political development from England and the UK.
As the Crown Dependencies are not sovereign states, the power to pass legislation affecting the islands ultimately rests with the Queen-in-Council (though this is rarely done without the consent of the dependencies, and the right to do so is disputed). However, they each have their own legislative assembly, with the power to legislate on many local matters with the assent of the Crown (Privy Council, or in the case of the Isle of Man in certain circumstances the lieutenant-governor). In Jersey and the Isle of Man, the head of government is called the Chief Minister. In Guernsey the head representative of the committee-based government is the President of the Policy & Resources Committee.
Definition.
"The Crown" is defined differently in each Crown Dependency. In Jersey, statements in the 21st century of the constitutional position by the Law Officers of the Crown define it as the "Crown in right of Jersey", with all Crown land in the Bailiwick of Jersey belonging to the Crown in right of Jersey and not to the Crown Estate of the United Kingdom. Legislation of the Isle of Man defines the "Crown in right of the Isle of Man" as being separate from the "Crown in right of the United Kingdom". In Guernsey, legislation refers to the "Crown in right of the Bailiwick", and the Law Officers of the Crown of Guernsey submitted that "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the "république" of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" and that this comprises "the collective governmental and civic institutions, established by and under the authority of the Monarch, for the governance of these Islands, including the States of Guernsey and legislatures in the other Islands, the Royal Court and other courts, the Lieutenant Governor, Parish authorities, and the Crown acting in and through the Privy Council." This constitutional concept is also worded as the "Crown in right of the Bailiwick of Guernsey".
Channel Islands: Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey.
Since 1290, the Channel Islands have been governed as:
Each Bailiwick is a Crown dependency and each is headed by a Bailiff, with a Lieutenant Governor representing the Crown in each Bailiwick. Each Bailiwick has its own legal and healthcare systems, and its own separate immigration policies, with "local status" in one Bailiwick having no jurisdiction in the other. The two Bailiwicks exercise bilateral double taxation treaties. Since 1961, the Bailiwicks have had separate courts of appeal, but generally the Bailiff of each Bailiwick has been appointed to serve on the panel of appellate judges for the other Bailiwick.
Bailiwick of Guernsey.
The Bailiwick of Guernsey comprises three separate jurisdictions:
The parliament of Guernsey is the States of Deliberation, the parliament of Sark is called the Chief Pleas, and the parliament of Alderney is called the States of Alderney. The three parliaments together can also approve joint Bailiwick-wide legislation that applies in those parts of the Bailiwick whose parliaments approve it.
Guernsey issues its own coins and banknotes:
These circulate freely in both Bailiwicks alongside UK coinage and English and Scottish banknotes. They are not legal tender within the UK.
There are no political parties in any of the parliaments; candidates stand for election as independents.
Guernsey has its own separate international vehicle registrations (GBG – Guernsey, GBA – Alderney), internet domain (.gg – Guernsey), and ISO 3166-2 codes, first reserved on behalf of the Universal Postal Union (GGY – Guernsey) and then added officially by the International Organization for Standardization on 29 March 2006. In any case the GBG on a numberplate is only put on the number plate of a car or motorbike at the request of the vehicle owner and is not compulsory, however a motorbike/scooter can have an identical number to a car, e.g. 5432 on 2 wheels and on 4 wheels.
Bailiwick of Jersey.
The Bailiwick of Jersey consists of the island of Jersey and a number of surrounding uninhabited islands.
The parliament is the States Assembly, the first known mention of which is in a document of 1497. The "States of Jersey Law 2005" introduced the post of Chief Minister of Jersey, abolished the Bailiff's power of dissent to a resolution of the States and the Lieutenant Governor's power of veto over a resolution of the States, and established that any Order in Council or Act of the United Kingdom proposed to apply to Jersey must be referred to the States so that the States can express their views on it.
Jersey issues its own coins and banknotes:
These circulate freely in both Bailiwicks alongside UK coinage and English and Scottish banknotes. They are not legal tender within the UK but are legal currency backed by deposits at the Bank of England.
There are a few political parties, as candidates generally stand for election as independents (but see "List of political parties in Jersey").
Jersey has its own separate international vehicle registration (GBJ – Jersey), internet domain (.je – Jersey), and ISO 3166-2 codes, first reserved on behalf of the Universal Postal Union (JEY – Jersey) and then added officially by the International Organization for Standardization on 29 March 2006.
Isle of Man.
The Isle of Man's Tynwald claims to be the world's oldest parliament in continuous existence, dating back to 979. (However, it does not claim to be the oldest parliament, as Iceland's Althing dates back to 930.) It consists of a popularly elected "House of Keys" and an indirectly elected "Legislative Council", which may sit separately or jointly to consider pieces of legislation, which, when passed into law, are known as "Acts of Tynwald". Candidates mostly stand for election to the Keys as independents, rather than being selected by political parties. There is a Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister.
The Isle of Man issues its own coins and banknotes:
These circulate freely on the island alongside British coinage (as well as coinage from the Channel Islands and Gibraltar) and English, Northern Irish and Scottish banknotes.
The Isle of Man, unlike the other Crown Dependencies, has a Common Purse Agreement with the United Kingdom.
Isle of Man Post issues its own stamps and derives significant revenue from the sale of special issues to collectors.
The Isle of Man has its own separate international vehicle registration (GBM – Isle of Man), internet domain (.im – Isle of Man), and ISO 3166-2 codes, first reserved on behalf of the Universal Postal Union (IMN – Isle of Man) and then added officially by the International Organization for Standardization on 29 March 2006. In addition, since 2008 the Isle of Man has used the aircraft registration M-.
Relationship with the British Crown.
In each Crown dependency, the monarch is represented by a Lieutenant Governor, but this post is largely ceremonial. Since 2010 the Lieutenant Governors of each Crown dependency have been recommended to the Crown by a panel in each respective Crown dependency; this replaced the previous system of the appointments being made by the Crown on the recommendation of UK ministers. In 2005, it was decided in the Isle of Man to replace the Lieutenant Governor with a Crown Commissioner, but this decision was reversed before it was implemented.
All "insular" legislation has to receive the approval of the "Queen in Council", in effect, the Privy Council in London. Certain types of domestic legislation in the Isle of Man, however, may be signed into law by the Lieutenant Governor, using delegated powers, without having to pass through the Privy Council. In Jersey, provisional legislation of an administrative nature may be adopted by means of "triennial regulations" (renewable after three years), without requiring the assent of the Privy Council. Much legislation, in practice, is effected by means of secondary legislation under the authority of prior laws or Orders in Council.
Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey.
The Channel Islands are part of the territory annexed by the Duchy of Normandy in 933 from the Duchy of Brittany. This territory was added to the grant of land given in settlement by the King of France in 911 to the Viking raiders who had sailed up the Seine almost to the walls of Paris.
William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, claimed the title King of England in 1066, following the death of Edward the Confessor, and secured the claim through the Norman conquest of England.
Subsequent marriages between Kings of England and French nobles meant that Kings of England had title to more French lands than the King of France. When the King of France asserted his feudal right of patronage, the then-King of England, King John, fearing he would be imprisoned should he attend, failed to fulfil his obligation.
In 1204 the title and lands of the Duchy of Normandy and his other French possessions were stripped from King John of England by the King of France. The Channel Islands remained in the possession of the King of England, who ruled them as Duke of Normandy until the Treaty of Paris in 1259.
John's son, Henry III, renounced the title of Duke of Normandy by that treaty, and none of his successors ever revived it. The Channel Islands continued to be governed by the Kings of England as French fiefs, distinct from Normandy, until the Hundred Years' War, during which they were definitively separated from France.
At no time did the Channel Islands form part of the Kingdom of England, and they remained legally separate, though under the same monarch, through the subsequent unions of England with Wales (1536), Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801). Elizabeth II reigns over the Channel Islands directly, and not by virtue of her role as monarch of the United Kingdom. No specific title is associated with her role as monarch of the Channel Islands, however; she is popularly referred to (even on a Buckingham Palace website) as "Duke of Normandy" (not "Duchess") but this anachronistic title has no basis in law. The monarch has been described, in Jersey, as the "Queen in right of Jersey", and in legislation as the "Sovereign of the Bailiwick of Jersey" and "Sovereign in right of the Bailiwick of Jersey".
A unique constitutional position has arisen as successive monarchs have confirmed the liberties and privileges of the Bailiwicks, often referring to the so-called "Constitutions of King John", a legendary document supposed to have been granted by King John in the aftermath of 1204. Governments of the Bailiwicks have generally tried to avoid testing the limits of the unwritten constitution by avoiding conflict with British governments.
Following the restoration of King Charles II, who had spent part of his exile in Jersey, the Channel Islands were given the right to set their own customs duties, referred to by the Jersey Legal French term as "impôts".
Isle of Man.
In the Isle of Man the British monarch is Lord of Mann, a title variously held by Norse, Scottish and English kings and nobles (the English nobles in feudality to the English Crown) until it was revested into the British monarchy in 1765. The title "Lord" is today used irrespective of the gender of the person who holds it.
Relationship with the UK.
Crown Dependencies have the international status of "territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible" rather than sovereign states. The relationship between the Crown Dependencies and the UK is "one of mutual respect and support, i.e. a partnership".
Until 2001, responsibility for the UK government's relationships with the Crown dependencies rested with the Home Office, but it was then transferred first to the Lord Chancellor's Department, then to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and finally to the Ministry of Justice. In 2010 the Ministry of Justice stated that relationships with the Crown Dependencies are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government as a whole, with the Ministry of Justice holding responsibility for the constitutional relationship and other ministries engaging with their opposite numbers in the Crown Dependencies according to their respective policy areas.
The British Government is solely responsible for defence and international representation (although, in accordance with 2007 framework agreements, the UK has elected not to act internationally on behalf of the Crown Dependencies without prior consultation). The Crown Dependencies are within the Common Travel Area and apply the same visa policy as the United Kingdom, but each Crown dependency has responsibility for its own customs and immigration services.
Acts of the British Parliament do not usually apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, unless explicitly stated. UK legislation does not ordinarily extend to them without their consent. For a UK Act to extend otherwise than by an Order in Council is now very unusual. When deemed advisable, Acts of Parliament may be extended to the islands by means of an Order in Council (thus giving the UK Government some responsibility for good governance in the islands). An example of this was the Television Act 1954, which was extended to the Channel Islands, so as to create a local ITV franchise, known as Channel Television. By constitutional convention this is only done at the request of the insular authorities, and has become a rare option (thus giving the insular authorities themselves the responsibility for good governance in the islands); the islands usually prefer nowadays to pass their own versions of laws giving effect to international treaties.
Westminster retains the right to legislate for the islands against their will as a last resort, but this is also rarely exercised, and may, according to legal opinion from the Attorney-General of Jersey, have fallen into desuetude — although this argument was not accepted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. (The Marine, Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 was one recent piece of legislation extended to the Isle of Man against the wishes of Tynwald.)
The States of Jersey Law 2005 established that all Acts of the United Kingdom and Orders in Council were to be referred to the States, thus giving greater freedom of action to Jersey in international affairs.
As in England, but not the United Kingdom as a whole, the Church of England is the Established Church in the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey.
In 2007–2008, each Crown Dependency and the UK signed agreements that established frameworks for the development of the international identity of each Crown Dependency. Among the points clarified in the agreements were that:
The constitutional and cultural proximity of the Islands to the UK means that there are shared institutions and organisations. The BBC, for example, has local radio stations in the Channel Islands, and also a website run by a team based in the Isle of Man (which is included in BBC North West). While the Islands now assume responsibility for their own post and telecommunications, they continue to participate in the UK telephone numbering plan, and they have adopted postcode systems that are compatible with that of the UK.
The Crown Dependencies, together with the United Kingdom, are collectively known as the British Islands. Since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into effect, they have been treated as part of the United Kingdom for British nationality law purposes. However, each Crown dependency maintains local controls over housing and employment, with special rules applying to British citizens without specified connections to that Crown dependency (as well as to non-British citizens).
Relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations.
While their constitutional status bears some resemblance to that of the Commonwealth realms, the Crown Dependencies are not members of the Commonwealth of Nations. They participate in the Commonwealth of Nations by virtue of their relationship with the United Kingdom, and participate in various Commonwealth institutions in their own right. For example, all three participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Commonwealth Games.
All three Crown Dependencies regard the existing situation as unsatisfactory and have lobbied for change. The States of Jersey have called on the British Foreign Secretary to request that the Commonwealth Heads of Government "consider granting associate membership to Jersey and the other Crown Dependencies as well as any other territories at a similarly advanced stage of autonomy". Jersey has proposed that it be accorded "self-representation in all Commonwealth meetings; full participation in debates and procedures, with a right to speak where relevant and the opportunity to enter into discussions with those who are full members; and no right to vote in the Ministerial or Heads of Government meetings, which is reserved for full members". The States of Guernsey and the Government of the Isle of Man have made calls of a similar nature for a more integrated relationship with the Commonwealth, including more direct representation and enhanced participation in Commonwealth organisations and meetings, including Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. The Chief Minister of the Isle of Man has said: "A closer connection with the Commonwealth itself would be a welcome further development of the Island's international relationships"
Relationship with the Common Travel Area.
All three Crown Dependencies participate in an open borders area (also) comprising the United Kingdom and Ireland. Based on agreements that are legally binding, the internal borders of the Common Travel Area (CTA) are subject to minimal controls, if any, and can normally be crossed by British and Irish citizens with minimal identity documents with certain exceptions. Under Irish law Manx people and Channel Islanders, who were not entitled to take advantage of the European Union's freedom of movement provisionsare exempt from immigration control and immune from deportation from Ireland.
In May 2019 both the British and Irish government signed a memorandum of understanding in an effort to secure the rights of Irish and British citizens post-Brexit. The document was signed in London before a meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, putting the rights of both countries' citizens, that are already in place under the Common Travel Area, on a more secure footing. The agreement, which is the culmination of over two years' work of both governments, means the rights of both countries' citizens are protected after Brexit while also ensuring that Ireland will continue to meet its obligations under EU law. The agreement took effect on 31 January 2020 when the United Kingdom left the European Union. The maintenance of the CTA involves considerable co-operation on immigration matters between the British and Irish authorities.
Relationship with the EU.
The Crown Dependencies were neither member states nor associate members of the EU when the UK was a member of the EU. The Crown Dependencies were part of the customs territory of the EU. They had free movement of agricultural goods to the EU.
Certain aspects of membership of the European Union applied to the Crown Dependencies, by association of the United Kingdom's former membership. For example, Article 355 (5)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stated:
and by Protocol 3 to the UK's Act of Accession to the Community:
An Act to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar. [17 October 1972]"
Of the Four Freedoms of the EU, the islands took part in that concerning the movement of goods, but not those concerning the movement of persons, services or capital. The Channel Islands were outside the VAT area (as they have no VAT), while the Isle of Man was inside it. Both areas were inside the customs union.
Channel Islanders and Manx people are British citizens and hence were European citizens. However, they were not entitled to take advantage of the freedom of movement of people or services unless they were directly connected (through birth, descent from a parent or grandparent, or five years' residence) with the United Kingdom.
The Common Agricultural Policy of the EU never applied to the Crown Dependencies, and their citizens never took part in elections to the European Parliament.
Brexit.
With the Brexit negotiations, the House of Lords produced a report titled "Brexit: the Crown Dependencies", which stated that the "UK Government must continue to fulfil its constitutional obligations to represent the interests of the Crown Dependencies in international relations, even where these differ from those of the UK, both during the Brexit negotiations and beyond." In the Great Repeal Bill white paper published on 30 March 2017 the UK government stated, "The Government is committed to engaging with the Crown Dependencies, Gibraltar and the other Overseas Territories as we leave the EU."


Texas v. Johnson

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.
Background of the case.
Gregory Lee "Joey" Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, against the Reagan Administration and certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, beer cans, soiled diapers and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.
When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under," and, "Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III." No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended. A spectator, Daniel E. Walker, gathered the remains of the flags and buried them in the backyard of his home in Fort Worth.
Johnson was charged with violating a Texas law that prohibited vandalizing respected objects (desecration of a venerated object). He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.
The court said, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol." The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.
Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision.
The Supreme Court's decision.
The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion being authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. In addition to joining the majority opinion, Kennedy also authored a separate concurrence.
The Court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.
The First Amendment specifically disallows the abridgment of "speech," but the court reiterated its long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was concluded based on the 1931 case "Stromberg v. California", which ruled the display of a red flag as speech, and the 1969 case "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", which ruled the wearing of a black armband as speech.
The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."
The Court found that, under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag "constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment." "Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."
Texas had conceded, however, that Johnson's conduct was expressive in nature. Thus, the key question considered by the Court was "whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression."
At oral argument, the state defended its statute on two grounds: first, that states had a compelling interest in preserving a venerated national symbol; and second, that the state had a compelling interest in preventing breaches of the peace.
As to the "breach of the peace" justification, however, the Court found that "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag," and Texas conceded as much. The Court rejected Texas's claim that flag burning is punishable on the basis that it "tends to incite" breaches of the peace, citing the test from the 1969 case "Brandenburg v. Ohio" that the state may only punish speech that would incite "imminent lawless action," finding that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The Court noted that Texas already punished "breaches of the peace" directly.
Kennedy's concurrence.
Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence with Brennan's opinion. Kennedy wrote:
Rehnquist's dissent.
Brennan's opinion for the court generated two dissents. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor, argued that the "unique position" of the flag "justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here." Rehnquist wrote:
However, the "Johnson" majority found the lack of evidence for flag protection in the Constitution that necessitated the claim of "uniqueness" to counter indicate protection of the flag from free speech. They answered the "uniqueness" claim directly: "We have not recognized an exception to [bedrock First Amendment principles] even where our flag has been involved. ... There is, moreover, no indication—either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it—that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone...We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment."
Rehnquist also argued that flag burning is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" but rather "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others." He goes on to say that he felt the statute in question was a reasonable restriction only on the manner in which Johnson's idea was expressed, leaving Johnson with, "a full panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression to express his deep disapproval of national policy." He quoted the 1984 Supreme Court decision in "City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent", where the majority stated that "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places."
Stevens' dissent.
Justice John Paul Stevens also wrote a dissenting opinion. Stevens argued that the flag "is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations. . . . The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured." Stevens therefore concluded, "The case has nothing to do with 'disagreeable ideas.' It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset," and that Johnson was punished only for the means by which he expressed his opinion, not the opinion itself.
Subsequent developments.
The Court's decision invalidated laws in force in 48 of the 50 states. More than two decades later, the issue remained controversial, with polls suggesting that a majority of Americans still supported a ban on flag burning. Congress did, however, pass a statute in 1989, the Flag Protection Act, making it a federal crime to desecrate the flag. In the 1990 Supreme Court case "United States v. Eichman", that law was struck down by the same five-justice majority as in "Texas v. Johnson" (in an opinion also written by Brennan). Since then, Congress has considered the Flag Desecration Amendment several times. The amendment usually passes the House of Representatives, but has always been defeated in the Senate. The most recent attempt occurred when S.J.Res.12 failed by one vote on June 27, 2006.


Vanuatu vatu

The vatu (sign: VT; ISO 4217: VUV) is the currency of Vanuatu. The vatu has no subdivisions.
History.
The vatu was introduced in 1981, one year after independence, to replace the New Hebrides franc at par. The vatu was issued as a single unit with no subdivision, with the 1 vatu coin being the smallest denomination issued, in a similar vein to the (post-1953) Japanese yen and the Tajikistani ruble (although that had an official if theoretical, subdivision).
The ISO 4217 currency code for the Vanuatu vatu is VUV. Its nationally recognized symbol Vt is the most often used in written format. The vatu's introduction also saw the end of the official circulation of the Australian dollar in Vanuatu.
Coins.
Vanuatu's first post-colonial coin was a 50 vatu coin introduced in 1981 and commemorated independence. It was struck in cupro-nickel like previous issues and was released into circulation, though originally its release was targeted more towards collectors. Shortly thereafter, in 1983, 1, 2, 5, vatu coins were released in aluminum bronze and 10, 20, and 50-vatu coins were introduced in cupro-nickel, replacing the coinage of the New Hebrides Franc as the new circulation currency. This also replaced the Australian currency that was circulating in the British controlled islands. All Vanuatu coins depict the Vanuatu coat of arms, consisting of a native warrior in front of a whorled pig's tusk, a traditional item of value. The reverses depict other traditional items of value.
Due to Vanuatu's French colonial history, the current vatu coins have the same size and coloration of the coins of New Hebrides which are based in part on French units, particularly the 1, 2, and 5 vatu in their similarity in size and composition to the 5, 10, and 20 centimes of the old French Franc. The 10, 20, and 50 vatu bear some similarities to Australian coins but are actually slightly larger with closer approximate size to coins of similar valuation to those in New Caledonia, and French Polynesia. In 1988, a nickel-brass 100 vatu coin was introduced, this coin replaced the 100 vatu note. The coin is of the same size and general thickness of the British 1 pound coin.
In 2011 the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu ceased to issue 1 and 2 vatu coins, which had become infrequently used due to inflation. Prices in Vanuatu stores are now rounded to the nearest 5 vatu.
As part of a coinage reform, new coins were minted in 2015 by the Royal Australian Mint.
These coins are denominated 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 vatu.
Old coinage:
Newer coinage:
Banknotes.
On 22 March 1982, notes were introduced by the Central bank of Vanuatu in denominations of 100, 500, and 1,000 vatu. These officially replaced franc notes of the former New Hebrides. In 1988 the 100 vatu note was withdrawn from circulation and replaced by a 100 vatu coin. In 1989, 5,000 vatu notes were introduced.
In 1993, after a financial restructure, the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu took over paper money issuance and introduced newly designed notes for 500 and 1000 vatu. 200-vatu notes were first introduced in 1995 to cut down on the amount of 100 vatu coins received in change and the need to meet demand by producing more. In 2011, new 5,000 vatu notes were also issued in polymer. Polymer 10,000 notes were issued as a commemorative issue on 28 July 2010. As of 2013, they are no longer in circulation. On 9 June 2014, the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu introduced a new series of notes printed on polymer, among the new series of notes is a new denomination of 2,000 vatu, in addition to regular 10,000 vatu notes.
Dollar.
Local residents sometimes refer to a notional dollar, equal to 100 vatu, without specifying which country's currency they have in mind. This stems from the period 1966–1973, when the New Hebrides franc was pegged to the Australian dollar at a rate of 100 francs = 1 dollar. Although no relationship currently exists, it simplifies thinking in the larger numbers which a low-value unit causes. For example, the Government's budget of 6,000,000,000VT is in fact only about US$50,000,000.
The concept of this notional "dollar" was supported by the size of the former 100 vatu coin: at 23 mm, it was comparable to the Australian dollar (25 mm) and the New Zealand dollar (23 mm) but the thickness is equivalent to the current British pound coin. It has now been replaced by a scalloped version.
Pounds and shillings.
In some Vanuatu languages, in which counting in large numbers is cumbersome and not well known, 10 vatu is colloquially referred to as "one shilling", and 200 vatu is referred to as "one pound". For example, in Apma language, "50 vatu" would be "selen kalim" "five shillings". This roughly reflects the historical exchange rate of the vatu against the pound, although since 2008 the number of vatu to the pound has been significantly lower than this.
Alternative currencies in Vanuatu.
Many communities in Vanuatu continue to conduct ceremonial business such as the paying of fines and bride-prices using traditional items of value, such as pigs, curved boars' tusks and long dyed mats. Vatu is sometimes used as a substitute for traditional valuables in such ceremonies, although the National Council of Chiefs discourages this.
The Tangbunia indigenous bank, based on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu, offers accounts and transfers denominated in livatu, a unit of currency equivalent to the value of a fully curved boar's tusk.