text:
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1972 is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which deleted two subsections that recognised the special position of the Catholic Church and that recognised other named religious denominations. It was approved by referendum on 7 December 1972 and signed into law on 5 January 1973.

Changes to the text
The amendment renumbered Article 44.1.1° as Article 41.1 and deleted the following two subsections from Article 41.1:

Background to the deleted provisions
In drafting the Irish constitution in 1936 and 1937, Éamon de Valera and his advisers chose to reflect what had been a contemporary willingness by constitution drafters and lawmakers in Europe to mention and in some ways recognise religion in explicit detail. This contrasted with many 1920s constitutions, notably the Constitution of the Irish Free State of 1922, which, following the secularism of the initial period after World War I, simply prohibited any discrimination based on religion, or avoided religious issues entirely.

De Valera, his advisers (including John Charles McQuaid, the future Archbishop of Dublin), and the men who put words to de Valera's concepts for the constitution (John Hearne and Mícheál Ó Gríobhtha) faced conflicting demands in drafting of the article on religion.

 * The demand from conservative Roman Catholics that Catholicism be established as the state religion of Ireland;
 * Protestants' fears of discrimination.
 * Prevailing opposition to Judaism.
 * The fact that most people in Ireland belonged to some religion, and that the education system and to a lesser extent the health system were denominational in structure, with Roman Catholicism, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Jewish community, and others running their own schools and non-governmental agencies.

De Valera's solution was Article 44. In contemporary terms, it marked a defeat for conservative Catholics, and Pope Pius XI explicitly withheld his approval from it:

 * Catholicism was not made the state church.
 * Catholicism was given an undefined "special position" on the basis of being the church of the majority. This was not consistent with the stance of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, which claimed the right to legal and political influence on the basis of the claimed objective truth of its teachings rather than the size of its following.
 * Other religions were named and recognised on a lower level. The use of the Church of Ireland's official name antagonised conservative Catholics, who saw Catholicism as being the proper and rightful "church of Ireland".
 * The Jewish community in Ireland was also given recognition. The explicit granting of a right to exist to the Jewish faith in Ireland marked a significant difference to the legal approach to Jewish rights in other European states, though contemporary Irish society was not free of antisemitism.

Though perceived in retrospect as a sectarian article, Article 44 was praised in 1937 by leaders of Irish Protestant churches (notably the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin) and by Jewish groups. Conservative Catholics condemned it as "liberal".

When the contents of Article 44 were put to Pope Pius XI by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (then Cardinal Secretary of State, later Pope Pius XII), the pope stated in diplomatic language: "We do not approve, nor do we not disapprove – we will remain silent." ("Ni approvo ni non disapprovo; taceremo." ) It was said that the pope was privately more appreciative of the constitution, and Pius XII later praised it publicly.

During the 1950s the Catholic Integrist group Maria Duce, led by Irish Catholic priest Denis Fahey, launched a campaign to amend the Article 44 of the Constitution of Ireland. Fahey argued that this was insufficient and that the Constitution should recognise the Catholic Church as being divinely ordained and separate from 'man-made' religions. The campaign succeeded in securing a resolution of support from Westmeath county council in 1950, but no further progress towards the goal of a constitutional amendment was made.

Viewpoint in the 1970s
By 1972, an article once condemned by critics as liberal and indeed by some as offensive to Catholicism, had come to be seen as out of place, dated, and potentially discriminatory to Protestants. The "special position" granted to the Catholic Church, albeit in an undefined manner, was a special status that was out of step with post-Vatican II Catholic thinking on the relationships between the churches. The Protestant churches, though they had declined in adherents, were more outspoken and willing to express their unhappiness than they had been in the Ireland of the 1920s and 1930s, when many were fearful that criticism of the Irish state would be seen as criticism of Irish independence and so implicitly a preference for the British regime that had ruled Ireland before 1922.

In addition, in the rapprochement between Northern Ireland and what was by then known as the Republic of Ireland, many southerners perceived the "special position" as a barrier to an improved north–south relationship, and even a potential source of discrimination against minorities. In addition, the explicit recognition of certain denominations was seen as unnecessary because of the provisions Article 44.2, which contains guarantees of freedom of worship and against religious discrimination.

Oireachtas debate
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1972 was proposed by Fianna Fáil Taoiseach Jack Lynch. It was supported by the opposition parties Fine Gael and the Labour Party and passed final stages in the Dáil on 2 November 1972. It passed all stages in the Seanad on 3 November and proceeded to a referendum on 7 December 1972.

Campaign
The Catholic Church did not voice any objection to the amendment, but it was opposed by some conservative Catholics. Some leading members of the Church of Ireland and the Jewish Community said during the campaign that while they appreciated the Article's recognition of their existence (and in the case of the Jewish Community, their right to exist, in contrast to anti-Jewish laws in other states) in 1937, it was no longer needed in the 1970s and had lost its usefulness.

The referendum on the amendment occurred on the same day as the referendum on the Fourth Amendment which lowered the voting age to eighteen.

After its approval by referendum, the amendment was made to the Constitution after it was signed into law by the President of Ireland, who was then Éamon de Valera, the man who had drafted the original article.


text:
Petiville

Petiville is the name of several communes in France:

 * Petiville, Calvados
 * Petiville, Seine-Maritime

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Petiville


text:
Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution (Adoption) Act 1979 is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland ensured that certain adoption orders would not be found to be unconstitutional because they had not been made by a court. It was approved by referendum on 5 July 1979 and signed into law on 3 August 1979.

Background
In 1977 it came to light that for technical reasons child adoption orders made by An Bord Uchtála (the Adoption Board) might be found to be unconstitutional because they were not made by a court or judge. An amendment was therefore required to put the validity of these orders beyond question.

Changes to the text
The amendment renumbered Article 37 as Article 37.1 and inserted the following section as Article 37.2:

Oireachtas debate
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution (Adoption) Bill 1978 was introduced by Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice Gerry Collins on 13 December 1978. It was supported by opposition parties Fine Gael and the Labour Party and it passed final stages in the Dáil on 28 February 1979. In the Seanad, Labour senators Justin Keating and Mary Robinson and Fine Gael senator Alexis FitzGerald proposed an amendment to include the words "notwithstanding the status of such person", which would allow for the adoption of a child of a marital family. This was not approved, and the Bill passed the Seanad without amendment on 5 April 1979. It was put to a referendum on 5 July, on the same day as the similarly uncontroversial Seventh Amendment which dealt with university constituencies for the election of the Seanad.

Result
The Sixth Amendment was approved almost unanimously with 601,694 (99.0%) votes in favour and 6,265 (1.0%) against. This is the highest support there has been in any referendum for a proposal to amend the Constitution.

Note: For this referendum and the Seventh Amendment held on the same day, the constituencies used were each county and county borough (city), which were deemed under section 2 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act 1979 to be constituencies for the purpose of the poll. Usually in Irish referendums the general election constituencies are used.

Later developments
The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which took effect in 2015, added a new Article 42A on Children. It included a section which allowed for the adoption of any child, allowing for the first time the adoption of children of a marital family, as had been proposed in the amendment rejected in the Seanad in 1979. The new Article 42A.3 provided,


text:
Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Election of Members of Seanad Éireann by Institutions of Higher Education) Act 1979 is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that provides that the procedure for the election of six members of the Senate in the university constituencies could be altered by law. It was approved by referendum on 5 July 1979 and signed into law on 3 August of the same year.

Background
In the new Seanad created by the Constitution adopted in 1937, six seats were elected by universities: three by the National University and three by Dublin University (or Trinity College Dublin). The government in 1979 proposed splitting up the National University of Ireland (NUI) and creating separate universities in Cork, Dublin, and Galway. It was concerned that the outline of seats in the Constitution could act as a bar to this proposal, or that the new proposed universities would lose any representation. The constitutional amendment allowed a redistribution of the six university seats between these universities and any other institutions of higher education in the State. It also ensured that the section could not be invoked to prohibit the dissolution of either of the named universities.

Changes to the text

 * Alterations to Article 18.4 (new text is in bold):

Oireachtas debate
The Seventh amendment was introduced by Minister for Education John Wilson for the Fianna Fáil government. He described the purpose of the bill as: "The purpose of the Bill is to remove an obstacle in the way of legislation to deal with university reorganisation. Article 18 (4) of the Constitution stipulates that three Members each shall be elected to the Seanad by the National University of Ireland and by the University of Dublin. A proposal to establish independent universities at Dublin, Cork and Galway in place of the National University of Ireland involves an alteration in the arrangements for the election of Members to the Seanad. It may be argued that the arrangements for the election of Members to the Seanad in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of section 4 of Article 18 would automatically lapse to the relevant extent if one or both of the named universities ceased to exist. In this connection, the following considerations arise— (i) the alternative arrangement, if any, which should be made for the election of Members in substitution for those Members which would otherwise be elected by the institution which ceased to exist: an amendment of the Constitution would be necessary for the purpose of allowing such an alternative arrangement to be made;

(ii) would it be permissible, in the absence of an appropriate amendment of Article 18 (4) of the Constitution, to enact legislation which would have the effect of altering the provision in that section of Article (18) for the election of Members to the Seanad?

(iii) Could Article 18 of the Constitution be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of a university mentioned in Article 18 (4)?"

It was not opposed by the opposition parties Fine Gael and the Labour Party and the Bill passed final stages in the Dáil on 23 May. It passed all stages in the Seanad on 31 May and proceeded to a referendum on 5 July.

Result
The referendum was held on the same day as the Sixth Amendment, which dealt with the validity of certain child adoption orders, and was approved on a low turnout by 552,600 (92.4%) votes in favour to 45,484 (7.6%) against.

Note: For this referendum and the Sixth Amendment held on the same day, the constituencies used were each county and county borough (city), which were deemed under section 2 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act 1979 to be constituencies for the purpose of the poll. Usually in Irish referendums the Dáil Éireann general election constituencies are used.

Consequential changes
, no change has been made to the distribution or electorate of the six university seats. The NUI was not disbanded, although the Universities Act 1997 upgraded its "constituent colleges" to "constituent universities". Other institutes of higher education have increased in number and status, with the NIHEs and DIT of 1979 gaining university status in 1989 and 2019 respectively; graduation from none of them confers a vote in Seanad elections.

The Fine Gael–Labour government returned after the 2011 election proposed to abolish the Seanad in its entirety. After the proposal was rejected by referendum in 2013, the government agreed instead to consider reforming the Seanad. In February 2014, it published a draft Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill, which would create a single six-seat constituency in which anyone with a degree-level qualification from a recognised institution would be eligible to vote. In 2015, the Working Group on Seanad Reform appointed by the government issued its report (the "Manning report"), which endorsed the 2014 bill but also recommended that 30 of the 43 Vocational panel senators should be directly elected, and that university graduate voters would have to choose between voting in the university constituency or one of the five panel constituencies.

The Fine Gael-led government returned after the 2016 election made implementing the 2015 report a priority. Simon Coveney, answering a Dáil question in July 2016 as Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, said implementation of the 1979 amendment would be "further considered in the context of [the 2015 report] … and having regard to the work of the last government on [the 2014 draft bill]. In February 2018, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar proposed to establish an Oireachtas special committee to meet for eight months and "develop specific proposals to legislate" implementation of the 2015 report; he added, "The university panels should be retained as recommended. They have served us well, although they should be reformed to implement the result of the 1979 referendum and open up the franchise to graduates of all higher level institutions of education."

In 2018, Varadkar established an all-party committee - the Seanad Reform Implementation Group - to examine the 2015 Manning report and make recommendations on implementation of the report. The committee was chaired by former Minister for Justice, Attorney General and Tánaiste Michael McDowell, and reported to the Taoiseach in December 2018. It recommended that 34 senators should be directly elected by the people, 15 senators elected by TDs, senators and members of local authorities, and six elected by graduates of institutions of higher education across the state. The report also carried a proposed bill to implement the recommendations.

In the 2020 general election, the manifestos of Sinn Féin and the Green Party promised to implement the Manning report and the report of the Seanad Reform Implementation Group. Seanad electoral reform was excluded from the resulting Fianna Fáil–Fine Gael–Green coalition's programme for government and the government gave no commitment to reform the Seanad electoral process. Fianna Fáil senators introduced a private member's bill, the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2020, which would create a single university constituency encompassing "All Universities in the State, and Institutions of Higher Education in the State as provided for by the Minister [for Local Government]", with the franchise extended to holders of degrees or diplomas accredited by Quality and Qualifications Ireland. The second stage debate was adjourned in November 2020 at the request of Malcolm Noonan, the Minister of State for electoral reform, who suggested that gaps in the bill's provisions could best be filled in by waiting for the Electoral Commission due by the end of 2021. Attempts by the Civil Engagement Group to include Seanad reform in the Electoral Commission legislation failed and the Fianna Fáil bill came to third stage debate on 5 July 2023. A number of independent senators also introduced a bill in 2020 to expand the Seanad franchise - it was identical to the proposed legislation included in the report of the Seanad Reform Implementation Group.

On 31 March 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Heneghan v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government that the Seventh Amendment provided for the mandatory expansion of the franchise rather than a discretionary government power to extend the franchise. The court suspended its decision to 31 July 2023. At a further hearing in June 2023 the Attorney General argued for a further four-year suspension by the Court. On 26 July 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to suspend the effect of its decision, but for a period of two years only, until 26 May 2025. The case had been dismissed by the High Court in November 2021, however the applicant, Tomás Heneghan, appealed that decision directly to the Supreme Court.

During a debate in the Seanad in September 2023, Varadkar said "I always felt that there would not be consensus on reform and that that was going to be one of the difficulties...There is a case for indirect election of a second Chamber, if we are going to have one. If we have a directly-elected Chamber, there is a case for indirect election to a second Chamber. I would not like to say to our councillors that they will no longer get to elect any Senators. That is what was proposed." Varadkar was interrupted during his statement by McDowell confirming removal of the vote from councillors was not proposed.

The government published a General Scheme for the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill for consultation in May 2024.


text:
Petiville, Calvados

Petiville is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

International relations
Petiville is twinned with Lydford, UK

title: Petiville, Calvados


text:
Honolulu Harbor

Honolulu Harbor, also called Kulolia and Ke Awa O Kou and the Port of Honolulu, is the principal seaport of Honolulu and the State of Hawaii in the United States. From the harbor, the City & County of Honolulu was developed and urbanized, in an outward fashion, over the course of the modern history of the island of Oahu. It includes Matson, Inc. harbors on Sand Island.

History
Archaeological surveys show that the area around Honolulu Harbor was bustling with human activity prior to 1100. The first European vessel to enter Honolulu Harbor was a long-boat from the British merchant ship King George. The boat rowed into the harbor on December 12, 1786, commanded by a Mr. Hayward and piloted by Towanooha, servant of a friendly Hawaiian priest. In 1794, Butterworth, a British ship commanded by Captain William Brown, entered the harbor by "warping" in. The crew dubbed it "Brown's Harbor" to their captain's dismay. Captain Brown insisted that the harbor be called "Fair Haven", which is synonymous with the Hawaiian name Honolulu.

In 1850, Kamehameha III declared Honolulu to be the official capital of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. With the proclamation came a series of investments to further develop the harbor to accommodate more vessels. Honolulu Harbor quickly became the chief port of call for the trans-Pacific sandalwood, fur and whaling industries. Foreign vessels that docked at Honolulu Harbor poured vast amounts of wealth into the kingdom's coffers and provided for the well-being of native Hawaiians. The British subsequently built a fort to protect the entrance to the harbor.

In 1997, the largest and most crucial of Oahu’s and the State’s commercial harbors was Honolulu Harbor. Honolulu has become a historical Hawaiian town and transformed into the state’s capital city mainly due to its status as the world-famous port. The city title was taken from the harbor, which serves as the center of the state’s corporate and commercial operations as well as the major tourist attraction for the island’s 884,000 citizens.

The harbor was dredged to allow the easy passage of trans-Pacific deepwater sailing vessels. The sediment was dumped in tidelands and marshes, forming new land. As the downtown waterfront was developed and the many high-rises along the waterfront were constructed, early artifacts such as poi pounders, fishing lures and even human remains were unearthed along the current waterfront and along the docks near the Aloha Tower adjacent to Alakea Street and Nimitz Highway.

Statistics
Honolulu Harbor is administered by the Hawaii Department of Transportation Harbors Division. Honolulu Harbor handles over 11 million tons of cargo annually. The services that the harbor provides are crucial as Hawaii imports over eighty percent of its required goods.

Modernization Plans
Costs of completed projects

 * $13 million Honolulu Piers 12 & 15
 * $20 million Honolulu Pier 35 (UH SOEST)
 * $1 million Honolulu Pier 39 Shed

Costs & ongoing projects

 * $6 million improvements to the Honolulu Piers 24-28 utilities

Overall spending for staff

 * $7 million, or 5% of total costs

Relocations of Honolulu Harbor tenants (Related to the HMP)

 * Marine Spill Response Corp./Clean Islands Council from Pier 35 to Pier 12 and 15
 * University of Hawaii, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology from Snug Harbor to Pier 35
 * Pacific Shipyards International and Atlantis from Pier 41 to Pier 24

Aloha Tower
On September 11, 1926, after five years of construction, the Aloha Tower was officially dedicated at Pier 9 of Honolulu Harbor. The tallest building in Hawaii at that time, the Aloha Tower became a guiding beacon for vessels. Just as the Statue of Liberty greeted thousands of immigrants each year to New York City, the Aloha Tower greeted thousands of immigrants to Honolulu. By the time the Aloha Tower was dedicated, Honolulu was already a popular vacation destination for wealthy American and European families. They traveled on Matson steamers that docked at the Aloha Tower and were greeted by Hawaiian music, hula performers and leis.

Aloha Tower
In 1982, the Hawaii Maritime Center was opened near the Aloha Tower in an old royal pier to present the history of Honolulu Harbor and the relative industries it served. Falls of Clyde, a historic merchant ship, is docked at the royal pier. In 2002, the Hawaii Maritime Center became an incorporated institution of the Bishop Museum. The Center closed in 2009. In 1994, the Aloha Tower Marketplace opened.

Future Skyline Rail
The Honolulu Harbor will be served by five Skyline stations: Mokauea (Kalihi), Niuhelewai (Kapalama), Kūwili (Iwilei), Hōlau (Chinatown), and Kuloloia (Downtown) once it opens its city center phase in 2031.

title: Honolulu Harbor


text:
USS Dale (1839)

USS Dale (later Oriole) was a sloop-of-war in the United States Navy commissioned on 11 December 1839. Dale was involved in the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, operations along Africa to suppress slave trade, and was used by the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and later the U.S. Coast Guard, among other activities. Dale was placed into ordinary (naval reserve) numerous times.

Construction and commissioning
Dale was one of six warships authorized to be constructed by The Congressional Act of 3 April 1837. The first of this group was Princeton, the Navy's first screw steamer. The other five became the third-class sloops Dale, USS Yorktown (1839), USS Preble (1839), USS Marion (1839), and USS Decatur (1839) and were built to the design of John Lenthall. Dale was the only one of the five built at the Philadelphia Naval Yard and was fastest of the five. She was built under the supervision of Charles Stewart, Commandant, of the navy yard at the time

Dale was launched on 8 November 1839, commissioned on 11 December 1839 with Commander John Gwinn in command and was taken to Norfolk Navy Yard to be readied for sea. She was named in memorial of Richard Dale (6 November 1756 – 26 February 1826) who was a prisoner of war three times during the American Revolutionary War, an officer upon the founding of the United States Navy and commodore of the Tripoli blockade during the First Barbary War in North Africa. Dale was the first of five ships named for Richard Dale.

First and second cruise
Dale's first cruise, which she sailed from Norfolk on 13 December 1840, took her around Cape Horn to the Pacific Station. Based at Valparaíso, Chile, she patrolled the eastern waters of the Pacific Ocean to protect American commerce and the whaling industry. During the late summer of 1842 Dale Commanded by Dornin was part of the Pacific fleet under Commodore Thomas Jones. Commodore Jones, while stationed with his fleet in Callao, Peru understood, incorrectly, from local news papers that war had broken out between Mexico and the United States, prompting Commodore Jones to capture the Mexican town of Monterey, California. Dale was not present for the capture of Monterey as Dornin had been directed by Thomas to Panama with a dispatch to Washington, D.C., stating his intention to capture Mexican towns along the Pacific coast. Shortly after capturing Monterey Thomas realized that a state of war did not exist and regressed from Monterey.

Upon Dale's return to the east coast in October 1843, she went into ordinary at New York City until early in 1846, when she was refitted for a second cruise in the Pacific. Sailing from New York on 6 June 1846, Dale arrived at Valparaiso on 8 September, and cruised the coast of South America.

Mexican–American War
With the outbreak of the Mexican–American War Dale, under Commander Thomas O. Selfridge, was ordered north. The sloop arrived off Monterey, California, in January 1847, and through the remaining year of the war, cruised the coasts of Mexico and California. Not only did she capture several Mexican privateers and merchantmen, but landing parties she sent ashore raised the U.S. flag over the towns of Guaymas on the main land and Mulege on the Baja California Peninsula.

Dale arrived in San José del Cabo on 19 September 1847 with USS Congress. Dale was assigned the duty of preventing traffic between Guaymas and Mulege. On 27 September Dale stopped at Loreto while heading north and it was learned that approximately 200 men had been landed at Mulege from Guaymas. On 30 September she arrived in the port of Mulege under a flag of truce. The party led by Lt. Tunis A.M. Craven asking the local government to pledge support for the United States as the United States considered the area to be part of the United States. The Mexican Privateer Magdelina was confiscated from the port. On 2 October after the refusal by local leaders, fifty sailors plus marines were landed at Mulege, but they were faced by artillery and significant opposition. Using the excuse of encroaching nightfall at a later date to justify their sudden departure, in truth the Battle of Mulege was a substantial victory for the Mexican forces, hence the current official appellation for the town, i.e., "Heroica Mulege".

Another account of the Battle of Mulege provides a different perspective. USS Dale commanded by Selfridge on way to Guaymas learned of enemy forces in Mulege with an estimated force of 150 men. Four boats from Dale commanded by Lt. Craven, under the protective cover of Dale commandeered a Mexican schooner without resistance. The following day, 1 October 1847, Lt. Craven with 50 sailors plus marines landed. Under barrage of round shell and shot from Dale the Mexican forces abandoned the village and were pursued up the valley by Lt. Craven's forces. Craven's forces scoured the valley for a distance of about three miles coming under occasional light assault from ambush. Craven, fearing the possibility than his men were being led into an ambush, returned with his men to Dale. Lt. Craven when patrolling later off Mulege on the Liberta gathered intelligence that actually only 100 fighters were in the Mulege area on 2 Oct.

Dale arrived in Guaymas on 8 November 1847 relieving USS Portsmouth from guarding the port. Commander Selfridge, under cover fire from Dale, captured the town of Guaymas. The only American injury was a serious musket shot in Commander Selfridge's foot. Dale remained off Guaymas until 23 December when she was relieved by USS Southampton. Following the ending of the war in February 1848, Dale continued to patrol until the summer of 1849, when she sailed for the east coast, arriving at New York on 22 August 1849. Dale was placed in ordinary at New York from August 1849 – August 1850.

African anti-slavery
Dale made three extended cruises along the African coast as part of the Africa Squadron and Atlantic Anti-Slavery Operations of the United States to suppress the slave trade. In August 1850 she was recommissioned and left for the Cape Verde Islands to relieve the USS Yorktown. On 8 October 1850, upon arriving in the Cape Verde Islands, Dale picked up the survivors of the Yorktown on Maio Island. The Yorktown sunk, without loss of life, on an unmarked reef one mile north of Maio Island 33 days previous. The Yorktown's crew were transported by Dale to Porto Praya where the USS John Adams transported them back to the United States. Near the end of this tour Dale bombarded the small Kingdom of Johanna, in August 1851. While part of the African Squadron in 1851 she sailed 28313 mi and 252 days averaging 112 mi per day. Dale reportedly captured the slave ship W.G. Lewis 6 November 1857 off the coast of Kongo. Dale went out of commission in May 1859

American Civil War
Dale was recommissioned on 30 June 1861 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, and sailed to join the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, capturing two schooners on her passage to Port Royal, South Carolina. Here she served as store and guard ship until sailing north for repairs on 30 September 1862. After repairs Dale arrived at Key West on 10 December for duty as ordnance store ship until 3 July 1865.

End of career in the Navy
Dale was decommissioned again at Philadelphia on 20 July 1865, and was in ordinary at Norfolk until recommissioned on 29 May 1867. While at Norfolk on 22 January 1886, Landsman Joseph H. Davis rescued a fellow sailor from drowning, for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor. Dale was recommissioned to serve as a training ship at the United States Naval Academy Annapolis, MD, until 1884. After leaving Annapolis Dale served as a receiving ship at Washington Navy Yard until 1894.

Other service
Dale was transferred to the Maryland Naval Militia in 1895, and renamed Oriole on 30 November 1904. Dale was struck from the Navy List 27 February 1906 and on 23 July 1906 she was transferred to the United States Revenue Cutter Service at Baltimore, Maryland. She, along with the Salmon P. Chase, served as a dormitory-barracks ship for the cadets in the School of Instruction at Arundel Cove, Maryland. Due to open seams in the hull, Oriole required almost constant operation of her bilge pump, or she would sink at the dock. Finally, on 17 September 1921, almost 82 years since her launch, Oriole was returned to the U.S. Navy and sold as a hulk to Mr. William Mattson of Baltimore.

title: USS Dale (1839)


text:
Pierrefitte-en-Auge

Pierrefitte-en-Auge (, literally Pierrefitte in Auge) is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

title: Pierrefitte-en-Auge


text:
Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 was an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which inserted a subsection recognising "the equal right to life of the pregnant woman and the unborn". Abortion had been subject to criminal penalty in Ireland since at least 1861; the amendment ensured that legislation or judicial interpretation would be restricted to allowing abortion in circumstances where the life of a pregnant woman was at risk. It was approved by referendum on 7 September 1983 and signed into law on 7 October 1983. In 2018, it was repealed by referendum.

The amendment was adopted during the Fine Gael–Labour Party coalition government led by Garret FitzGerald, but was drafted and first suggested by the previous Fianna Fáil government of Charles Haughey. The amendment was supported by Fianna Fáil and some of Fine Gael, and was opposed by the political left. Most of those opposed to the amendment insisted that they were not in favour of legalising abortion. The Catholic hierarchy and many lay Catholics supported the amendment, but it was opposed by the authorities of other mainstream churches. After a bitter referendum campaign, the amendment was passed by 67% voting in favour to 33% voting against.

In 2018, a referendum was passed, known as the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which repealed the Eighth Amendment.

Changes to the text
The Amendment inserted a new sub-section after section 3 of Article 40. The resulting Article 40.3.3° read:

Background
As per sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, abortion was already illegal in Ireland. However, anti-abortion campaigners feared the possibility of a judicial ruling in favour of allowing abortion. In McGee v. Attorney General (1973), the Supreme Court of Ireland had ruled against provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 prohibiting the sale and importation of contraception on the grounds that the reference in Article 41 to the "imprescriptable rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law" of the family conferred upon spouses a broad right to privacy in marital affairs.

The Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC) was founded in 1981 to campaign against a ruling in Ireland similar to Roe v. Wade. Prior to the 1981 general election, PLAC lobbied the major Irish political parties – Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party – to urge the introduction of a Bill to allow the amendment to the constitution to prevent the Irish Supreme Court so interpreting the constitution as giving a right to abortion. The leaders of the three parties – respectively Charles Haughey, Garret FitzGerald and Frank Cluskey – agreed although there was little consultation with any of their parties' ordinary members. All three parties were in government over the following eighteen months, but it was only in late 1982, just before the collapse of a Fianna Fáil minority government, that a proposed wording for the amendment was produced.

Oireachtas debate
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1982 was introduced on 2 November 1982 by Minister for Health Michael Woods. The bill introduced by the Fianna Fáil minority government proposed to add Article 40.3.3° to the Constitution, with the wording shown above.

On 4 November, the Fianna Fáil government led by Charles Haughey as Taoiseach lost a motion of confidence in the Dáil, leading to the November 1982 general election. After the election, a coalition government of Fine Gael and the Labour Party was formed, with Garret FitzGerald as Taoiseach. Minister for Health Barry Desmond declined to reintroduce the amendment; instead, it was Minister for Justice Michael Noonan who on 2 February moved to restore the Eighth Amendment to the Order Paper.

Attorney General Peter Sutherland advised that the wording as proposed was dangerously flawed. Speaking against the original wording during the Dáil debate Alan Shatter argued: "The irony is that I have no doubt, not merely from the interpretation the Attorney General has given but from the other interpretations that can be validly taken from the amendment, that if it in its present form becomes part of our Constitution it will essentially secure a constitutional judgment in the not too distant future requiring the House to enact legislation to permit women to have abortions."

To remedy the perceived weaknesses in the original wording of the amendment bill, the government proposed an amendment to the bill during the committee stage with the following alternative wording:

This alternative wording was criticised by the opposition for not being "pro-life". Speaking against the alternative wording Michael Woods said: "The amendment proposed by Fine Gael would not protect the constitutional right to life of the mother against attack by any future legislation which sought to prohibit abortion in all circumstances even when the life of the mother was at risk. This is a defect which could be important in the future. Such legislation could not be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it ignored a mother's right to life because the Fine Gael wording provides that nothing in the Constitution may be invoked to invalidate any law which prohibits abortion."

A number of backbench Fine Gael TDs supported the Fianna Fáil wording, and voted against the government amendment, which was defeated by 87 to 65. The majority of Fine Gael TDs then abstained in subsequent votes. The original wording proposed by Fianna Fáil was then approved by 85 votes to 11 votes in the Dáil, and by 14 votes to 6 in the Seanad, and put to a referendum.

Referendum campaign
The referendum was supported by PLAC, Fianna Fáil, some members of Fine Gael, the Catholic hierarchy, and opposed by various groups under the umbrella name of the Anti-Amendment Campaign (AAC), including Labour senator (and future President of Ireland) Mary Robinson, feminist campaigners, and trade unions. Few in Fine Gael or Labour campaigned against the referendum, and before the vote, Garret FitzGerald declared that he would vote against it. Sinn Féin and the Workers' Party opposed the amendment, and the Irish Council of Churches (representing the main Protestant churches) campaigned against it.

Anti-Amendment campaigners warned the vague nature of the amendment, the sectarian nature of it, the possible risk to the health treatment to pregnant women, and to the possible legal consequences for contraception, which the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign denied.

The Amendment passed on 7 September 1983 endorsed by 67% of those who voted.

Judicial interpretation
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court had held that this provision of the Constitution prohibited information within the state on the availability of abortion services outside of the state. In AG (SPUC) v Open Door Counselling Ltd. (1988), the courts injunction restraining two counseling agencies from assisting women to travel abroad to obtain abortions or informing them of the methods of communications with such clinics, and in SPUC v Grogan (1989), the courts granted an injunction restraining three students' unions from distributing information in relation to abortion available outside the state. These rulings were overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment in 1992, which explicitly gave people the right to travel abroad for an abortion, and to receive information in Ireland about abortion available abroad.

In Attorney General v. X (the X Case) in early 1992, the High Court granted an injunction to the Attorney General restraining a fourteen-year-old girl who had been raped from obtaining an abortion in England. On appeal, Supreme Court found that as the girl had shown a risk of suicide, to safeguard "the equal right to life of the mother" in Article 40.3.3°, abortion was permissible in this instance.

The Pro Life Campaign, a successor to PLAC, accused the Supreme Court of misinterpreting both the law and the will of the people. The Government and former Attorney-General Peter Sutherland dismissed such claims, arguing that, as they had claimed in 1983, the 'Pro-Life Amendment' was so poorly worded and ambiguous that it could facilitate either pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion interpretations in different circumstances. The Amendment was not reinterpreted by the Supreme Court on the grounds originally voiced by Peter Sutherland that it would lead to abortion prior to viability or kill women by refusing standard treatments for ectopic pregnancies, cancerous wombs, etc. There was no medical evidence called during the X case hearings.

In PP v. HSE (2014), the High Court held that the constitution did not require a woman who was medically brain dead to be kept on life support to keep the foetus within her alive, because the chance of the foetus being born alive were "virtually non-existent". It is unclear how the case would have been decided if the pregnancy was further along.

In HSE v. B. (2016), the High Court declined to grant an order sought by the Health Service Executive permitting it to carry out a caesarean section against the will of a pregnant mother.

In an application for leave seeking judicial review of an order for deportation of a Nigerian man, Humphreys J held for the High Court in August 2016 that leave should be granted, in part on the family rights of the unborn child at the time of the deportation. The state appealed this decision. On 7 March 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court and dismissed the state's appeal in a unanimous decision that the Minister is obliged to take into account the fact of pregnancy; however, it reversed other sections of the High Court and ruled the Minister is accordingly not obliged to treat the unborn as having constitutional rights other than the rights contained in Article 40.3.3°.

Later referendums
Three referendums were held in November 1992. The Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 sought to exclude "a risk of self-destruction" as grounds for abortion, to overturn the central element of the decision in the X Case. This was rejected by 65% to 35%. The Thirteenth Amendment, permitting travel to obtain abortion in another jurisdiction, was approved by 62% to 38%. The Fourteenth Amendment, permitting information about services in other countries, was approved by 60% to 40%.

After these amendments, which became law on 23 December 1992, Article 40.3.3° read,

A further referendum which proposed to insert legislation into the Constitution which would permit abortion where there was a threat to life but not where there was a risk of suicide, the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001, was narrowly defeated by 50.4% to 49.6%.

Maastricht protocol
The Treaty on European Union, or the Maastricht Treaty, was signed on 7 February 1992. To assuage fears that free movement of services would lead to access in Ireland to abortion services, the government secured a protocol to the Treaty protecting the constitutional provision. The Maastricht Treaty was approved in a referendum in June 1992 by 69% to 31%. Following amendments to the Treaty on European Union affected by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, this provision now reads:

Legislation
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 replaced the abortion offences in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and made statutory provision for the limited right to abortion established by the X Case. It replaced the offence of "unlawfully procuring a miscarriage" punishable to life imprisonment with the offence of "destruction of unborn human life", punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment.

Campaign to Repeal the Eighth Amendment
The Campaign to Repeal the Eighth Amendment has its roots in the unsuccessful Anti-Amendment Campaign in 1983. There was a campaign to Repeal the Eight Amendment after the X Case in 1992, and the three abortion referendums which followed it (the 12th, 13th and 14th). The campaign lay dormant for more than 20 years until the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012. The Abortion Rights Campaign was founded in 2012. The #RepealThe8th hashtag was started on Twitter in 2012. The use of a social media to campaign to #RepealThe8th was an effective way to gain momentum leading up to the 2018 referendum. Twitter is recognised as 'one of the primary tools' for social justice, and in Ireland's case, allowed women to connect for collaborative social change despite the physical distance between them.

This campaign is led by a coalition of pro-abortion rights groups, including the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services (AIMS) Ireland, the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth, the Abortion Rights Campaign, Doctors for Choice, the Termination for Medical Reasons group, etc., and has support from a number of legal academics and members of the medical profession, including the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In the run up to the 2016 general election, a number of parties committed to a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment (Labour, Green Party, Social Democrats, Sinn Féin and Workers' Party) as well as a group of feminist law academics published model legislation to show what a post-Eighth Amendment abortion law could look like. In June 2016, Minister for Health Simon Harris stated his support for a referendum on repealing the 8th.

On 27 July 2016, the government appointed Supreme Court judge Mary Laffoy as chair of a Citizens' Assembly to consider a number of topics, including the Eighth Amendment. The Assembly recommended a referendum to remove and replace the 8th Amendment. In September 2017, the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th Amendment began its work considering how to give effect to this recommendation.

The 5th Annual March for Choice, organised by the Abortion Rights Campaign, took place in Dublin on Saturday 24 September 2016 marking the Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion. The theme of the rally was Rise and Repeal. The attendance was estimated to be around 20,000. The 2017 March for Choice attracted 40,000 marchers, according to organisers.

On Saturday 21 July 2017, the Rally for Life was organised by prominent anti-abortion groups including the Life Institute, Youth Defence, and the Northern Ireland group Precious Life, in opposition to the campaign. A march held on 10 March 2018 at Merrion Square was estimated to have had a turnout of 15,000, although organisers claim up to 100,000 attended.

On 14 June 2017, the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced his government's intention to bring forward legislation to facilitate the holding of a referendum on abortion in 2018. On 9 March 2018, debate began in the Dáil on the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018, which would replace the current provisions on Article 40.3.3° with the following clause:

On 25 May 2018, the Irish people voted by 66.4% to remove the Eighth Amendment, choosing to replace it with the above text as a part of the Thirty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution, permitting the Oireachtas (parliament) to legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy. When it was signed in to law by the President of Ireland, it superseded the 8th, 13th and 14th amendments. 39 of the 40 Constituencies voted in favour, the constituency of Donegal being the only one to vote against.


text:
Muhsin al-Hakim

Muhsin al-Tabataba'i al-Hakim (محسن الطباطبائي الحكيم; 31 May 1889 – 2 June 1970) was an Iraqi Shia religious authority. He became the leading marja' of Najaf in 1946 after the death of Abu al-Hasan al-Isfahani, and of the majority of the Shia world in 1961, after the death of Hossein Borujerdi. He died in 1970.

title: Muhsin al-Hakim


text:
Talk:Taxation in Canada

Dividends
Dividends are indeed taxed in Canada, when the receivor is an individual. Inter-corporate dividends on the other hand are not taxed. Loomis51 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Corporation Tax
Article says taxes on income and dividends. I know little about Canada but that would be highly unusual (in comparison with UK, SA, USA, French, German, Australian, NZ tax codes). Company/corporation tax is usually on profits. If any tax is paid on dividends it is a withholding tax (i.e. not a tax paid by the company but collected by the company and passed on to the tax man) so that the dividend is paid to shareholders with the personal tax on the dividend already (partly) paid. Paul Beardsell 19:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

GST/HST
(Disucssion transferred from User talk:Ground Zero.)

GST/HST are not sales taxes. You will have to change this and please put back my other changes, which have nothing to do with your assertion. May I enquire what education and exprience you have in the Canadian tax industry, if any. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I have worked in the tax industry for many years, although not in the sales tax/GST area. I understand that the GST is commonly called a sales tax, although I will verify that. The section of the article in question covers the GST, the HST and provincial retail sales taxes, so "GST/HST" is not appropriate. As well, acronyms should not generally be used in headings because they are of no use to those who don't already know what the acronym means. If "Sales taxes" is not an appropriate heading, then let's put our heads together and come up with a heading that covers all of the taxes discussed in the section. With regard to your other changes, the further explanation that your provided on HST was a useful addition to the article that I deleted in error. My apologies. I have restored it with some elaboration. I have not restored the links to the years because the Manual of Style discourages links to ncomplete dates, i.e., it is okay to link October 23, 1988, because that allows a user to see the date formatted according to his/her preferences, but not October, or 1988, or October 23. This is not my rule, by the Manual of Style that says this. Ground Zero | t 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Consumption tax Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Consumption tax" is a term that people in the tax biz use. I think that "sales tax" is the more common term, and therefore more appropriate for Wikipedia. On what basis do you say that the GST is not a sales tax? I ask you to consider the following points: Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The HST is called the "Harmonized Sales Tax" in three provinces.
 * 2) Michael Wilson's 1987 White Paper on Tax Reform proposed a value-added tax as one of the options for "multi-stage sales tax".
 * 3) The part of the Department of FInance that deals with the GST is the "Sales Tax Division of the Tax Policy Branch".
 * 4) The Wikipedia article on Consumption tax, which admittedly is not very good, says: "A Consumption tax is a tax on the purchase of a good or service. Usually a consumption tax is no different than a sales tax."
 * 5) The Wikipedia article on Sales taxes in Canada includes a discussion on the GST and the HST.

 * Hello, if your interested in the tax industry and tax laws, please go to school as there is to much to teach here. You can start by doing searches here 1 this is my final word on the matter.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not cordial at all. You seem to be saying that GST is isn't a sales tax because you say it isn't. I have provided good reasons for saying it is, so I will make the change back, and post this conversation on thetalk page so that others can comment if they wish. Ground Zero | t 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Ground Zero on this issue. Although GST/HST falls into the supposed 'definition' of a Consumption Tax, GST/HST IS a Sales Tax due to the fact that it is charged at time of sale, not on a consumer's paycheque, as defined by the article of Consumption Tax (by implying the US Income Tax). As well, GST/HST is NOT a mandatory tax, GST/HST is not charged on all goods, and the retailer/wholesaler does not need charge the consumer if they were to collect GST/HST, or even PST, under a certain amount as defined by CRA. Also, consumers can be exempt from said tax in the fact that said goods would be in turn used for resale later on. All of this is defined via the CRA website, and more than clearly states that GST/HST is a SALES TAX. Income Taxes / Consumption Taxes are mandatory, and although not applicable in all circumstances, are negated through deductions and claims, as where Sales Taxes cannot.

--DaisukeNiwa 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Healthcare
Healthcmatter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That's not cordial at all. You seem to be saying that GST is isn't a sales tax because you say it isn't. I have provided good reasons for saying it is, so I will make the change back, and post this conversation on thetalk page so that others can comment if they wish. Ground Zero | t 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I would havematter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That's not cordial at all. You seem to be saying that GST is isn't a sales tax because you say it isn't. I have provided good reasons for saying it is, so I will make the change back, and post this conversation on thetalk page so that others can comment if they wish. Ground Zero | t 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I would have to agree with Ground Zero on this issue. Although GST/HST falls into the supposed 'definition' of a Consumption Tax, GST/HST IS a Smatter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That's not cordial at all. You seem to be saying that GST is isn't a sales tax because you say it isn't. I have provided good reasons for saying it is, so I will make the change back, and post this conversation on thetalk page so that others can comment if they wish. Ground Zero | t 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I would have to agree with Ground Zero on this issue. Although GST/HST falls into the supposed 'definition' of a Consumption Tax, GST/HST IS a Sales Tax due to the fact that it is charged at time of sale, not on a consumer's paycheque, as defined by the article of Consumption Tax (by implying the US Income Tax). As well, GST/HST is NOT a mandatory tax, GST/HST is not charged on all goods, and the retailer/wholesaler does not need charge the consumer if they were to collect GST/HST, or even PST, under a certain amount as defined by CRA. Also, consumers can be exempt from said tax in the fact that said goods would be in turn used for resale later on. All of this is defined via the CRA website, and more than clearly states that GST/HST is a SALES TAX. Income Taxes / Consumption Taxes are mandatory, and although not applicable in all circumstances, are negated through deductions and claims, as where Sales Taxes cannot. --DaisukeNiwa 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)ales Tax due to the fact that it is charged at time of sale, not on a consumer's paycheque, as defined by the article of Consumption Tax (by implying the US Income Tax). As well, GST/HST is NOT a mandatory tax, GST/HST is not charged on all goods, and the retailer/wholesaler does not need charge the consumer if they were to collect GST/HST, or even PST, under a certain amount as defined by CRA. Also, consumers can be exempt from said tax in the fact that said goods would be in turn used for resale later on. All of this is defined via the CRA website, and more than clearly states that GST/HST is a SALES TAX. Income Taxes / Consumption Taxes are mandatory, and although not applicable in all circumstances, are negated through deductions and claims, as where Sales Taxes cannot. --DaisukeNiwa 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) to agree with Ground Zero on this issue. Although GST/HST falls into the supposed 'definition' of a Consumption Tax, GST/HST IS a Sales Tax due to the fact that it is charged at time of sale, not on a consumer's paycheque, as defined by the article of Consumption Tax (by implying the US Income Tax). As well, GST/HST is NOT a mandatory tax, GST/HST is not charged on all goods, and the retailer/wholesaler does not need charge the consumer if they were to collect GST/HST, or even PST, under a certain amount as defined by CRA. Also, consumers can be exempt from said tax in the fact that said goods would be in turn used for resale later on. All of this is defined via the CRA website, and more than clearly states that GST/HST is a SALES TAX. Income Taxes / Consumption Taxes are mandatory, and although not applicable in all circumstances, are negated through deductions and claims, as where Sales Taxes cannot. --DaisukeNiwa 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)are taxation has changed in Ontario. As of 2004, OHIP is now paid by the employee. This should be more clearly defined, as originally, the taxation was paid by the employer, not the employee.

Anyone earning under $20,000 does not have to pay OHIP Premiums, but anyone over this amount does, with the $20k-25k range being $300 a year, and increasing in similar blocks. Costs involved are available on the Provincial Worksheet for the appropriate Province, in this case, Ontario.

Although, most medical expenses not covered by OHIP are marginally tax-deductable depending on their nature. (All information is available via OHIP and CRA websites) --DaisukeNiwa 05:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OHIP premiums that were paid until the 1990s were very different from the Ontario Health Premium, which is actually a tax, not a premium. OHIP premiums were commonly paid by employers according to union contracts or employment agreements, but this was not required. The OHP is a new component of personal income tax introduced in 2004. It is collected through the personal income tax system along with the existing income tax rates and surtaxes. I'll check the article ro make sure that it indicates this. There is no need to refer to OHIP Premiums, however, since they were eliminated during either the Peterson or Rae governments. Ground Zero | t 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The calculation of the Ontario Health Premium is really odd. Basically it's flat for large stretches of income; most likely you pay one of the following amounts exactly: $0, $300, $450, $600, $750, or $900. Except if your taxable income falls between the upper cutoff for one figure and the lower cutoff for the next higher one; in that case you may be paying a marginal rate as high as 25%. Now that marginal rate is only on a few hundred dollars, so the effect doesn't come out blatantly irrational, but it still strikes me as strange. --Trovatore 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As of 2004, OHIP is now paid by the employee.
 * Actually this is not correct... the Employer Health Tax still exists... CraigBurley

Part-year residents
IF I've understood correctly (which no one else should rely on!), Section 114 of the Tax Act is supposed to say that if you become a resident of Canada during the year, you're not supposed to be taxed on income earned prior to becoming a resident (and vice-versa if you start out a resident and become a non-resident). However I simply can't find in the forms or instructions where it allows you to make this claim. Do you just silently omit the income earned as a non-resident, or what?

By the way, as I read the material on the foreign tax credit, you *cannot* claim a foreign tax credit for taxes paid on income earned when you were a nonresident (oversimplified but I think that's what it comes down to). It seems to me that wouldn't make any sense if you were taxed in Canada on that income; while it might not result in double taxation strictly speaking (because you might be able to claim a credit against the Canadian taxes in the other country), it would be saying that Canada would have *extra* claim on that income, that it wouldn't have had if you'd been a Canadian resident at the time. That seems to fail the minimum rationality test. --69.158.27.235 16:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I found it. See Publication T4055, "Newcomers to Canada", pages 11 and 12, available here --69.158.8.124 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
The Tax in Canada is listed as 36.8% of the GDP, compared to the 35.7% for the US, but also qualified as "significantly higher". Given Industrialised European nations are around 49%, is this really "significantly higher"? I'm going to put the actual numbers there, which I obtained from the Tax article, and if there's disagreement about that, please tell me off. WilyD 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sales taxes
It is incorrect to say that sales taxes in Prince Edward Island are 10% + 6% = 16%. PST is applied to price + GST, therefore the total tax is 6% + [10% x (1+6%)] = 16.6%.

The same is true for Quebec: PST is applied to price + GST, so the total tax is 6% + [7.5% x (1+6%)] = 13.95%, not 13.5%. Ground Zero | t 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this why is it not corrected in the main wiki page ? The Quebec rate is adjusted but others not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.207.78 (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to include Saskatchewan in footnote 5 on the discussion on Sales taxes. The Sales tax in Saskatchewan is calculated based on the pre-tax amount as is the GST. For that reason, the combined GST/PST tax rate in Saskatchewan is 10%. "Vendors who show the GST separately on their receipts or invoices must apply the Provincial Sales Tax on the selling price before calculating the GST." - http://finance.gov.sk.ca/revenue/pst/bulletins/PST-5%20General%20Information.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.229.176 (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph again
I have removed this mess from the opening paragraph so that we can work on it here and try to turn it into something that look like it belongs in an encyclopedia article:

 * In total in 2006, $532 billion combined federal and provincial taxes / $1,417 B$ GDP (CDN) = 37.6% Canadian GDP goes to government expenditures, which can be compared to: $1,464 billion state and local taxes + $2,567 billion federal expenditures  / $12,907 billion GDP ) = 31.2% of the United States GDP in 2006 going to government expenditures. Individual state and local taxes plus federal taxes range from 27.9% in Alaska to 35.9% in Connecticut.  Canadians get essentially all their medical insurance paid out of their taxes whereas in the U.S. only slightly more than half is paid by taxes. (Approximately 16% of US GDP goes to medical expenses )

To begin with, it looks like expenditures and revenues are confused here. they are not the same thing. Secondly, most of this belongs in a technical footnote, not the first paragrph of the article. Ground Zero | t 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to branch article
I moved the section on "income not taxed in Canada" to income taxes in canada because it applied only personal income taxes, and not to taxes generally. Ground Zero | t 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Income Trust taxes
The section on income trust doesn't mention that, at the time Flaherty made the 31 Oct tax decision, there was also a lot of concern that the income trust structure discourages investment by large corporations. Flaherty said the purpose of the new taxes was not just to close the revenue hole, but also to discourage large corporations like BCE from turning into trusts (I think some economists said that, as a trust, BCE would invest less in infrastructure, r&d and stuff than if it continued to be a corporation). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.30.237 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

We need to work to improve this article
There is no mention of what federal and provincial tax rates are; how they compare internationally; etc. Yet there is room for a big whine about income trust taxation. We need to start at the top; the basics; and prioritize the subjects.Deet 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the income trust point, and have removed most of that discussion. I think it was inserted by an aggressive pro-income trust campaigner. Keep in mind that there are main articles on most of the taxes -- those might be the more appropriate places to put in detail like rates. Ground Zero | t 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template
It seems there may be enough Canada articles to consider a taxation template such as UStaxation and UKtaxation. Thoughts... Morphh  (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead
The lead states that "Currently, approximately 70% of the Canadian government's income comes from taxation, the rest from tariffs, fees, and investments." I could see how investment is not taxation, but how is a tariff and fees not taxation. The definition of tariff is a tax on goods upon importation. Perhaps this is meant to state taxation on Canadian citizens? The lead should also be expanded to about 2-3 paragraphs that summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Morphh  (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the statistic comes from this release:. Hopefully you can find what makes up the remaining 30% in the tables somewhere there and clear it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.46.74 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Did the writer of this opening have a high level of insecurity?
 * The level of Taxation in Canada is average among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

Why is this a good thing to begin the article with? -- timc  talk   20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Inheritance Tax
The following is very confusing:

 * estates have been treated as sales upon death, and are subject to the same capital gains taxation as, for example, the sale of nonresidential properties or securities in the final personal income tax return the executor of the estate files on behalf of the deceased.

..and no one else on the web clearly explains this either, everyone is copying and pasting the same half-an-answer-with-confusing-structure, or only answering one fragment of all the possibilities. The above snippet could be saying that only the estate pays taxes, but that it pays only capital gains rates, OR it could be saying that someone that is inheriting money must pay capital gains on the inheritance (or parts of it, who knows) just like the capital gains that the estate pays on some things, but that it's not called an inheritance tax.

Which is it?

Take a look at the following and tell me what I have right and wrong, and then I can clarify (or add another paragraph) the section so that it's clear for the case that I'm interested in as well as a number of others.

An estate has no surviving spouse or dependent children, and it has:

 * 1) GICs and cash
 * 2) a primary residence
 * 3) a non primary residence
 * 4) equity
 * 5) Registered GICs (RRSP and/or RIF)
 * 6) RRSP equity

The executor files a final tax return, and pays the following taxes for the corresponding cases:

 * 1) capital gains rate on all interest not yet taxed in the deceased person's prior tax returns?
 * 2) capital gains rate on the capital gains of the primary residence?
 * 3) capital gains rate on the capital gains of the non-primary residence?
 * 4) capital gains rate on the realized and/or unrealized capital gains on the equity?
 * 5) capital gains rate on the entirety of the registered GICs?
 * 6) capital gains rate on the entirety of the registered equity instruments, whether disposed of or transfered in name

The beneficiaries do not pay any tax, except for interest or increases in value (capital gains) that have accumulated after the date of the final estate tax return?

Correct? What do I have wrong? Thanks. 71.17.193.5 (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you should be getting advice from a tax professional, not from the Internet, and definitely not from Wikipedia. See also the CRA website. These are complex issues. I see a couple of mistakes in your notes above, and I point out that I am not an expert in estate taxation:
 * 1. accrued interest and other investment income other than capital gains is taxed at the normal personal income tax rate on the final tax return of the deceased, not at the capital gains rate, and it is not taxed again in the estate's return
 * 5. and 6. the total of withdrawals from an RRSP or RRIF are taxed at the normal tax rate - there is no reduction for capital gains

And it is the estate that pays the tax. The beneficiary pays not tax on amounts or assets transferred from the estate, other than, as you note, interest or capital gains that have accumulated after the date of the final estate tax return. Ground Zero | t 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
There is a line regarding tax rates that says "However, a study conducted by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and released on November 8, 2007, found that the richest pay the lowest rates of all income groups." I took a skim through the paper and it doesn't seem to say that at all. Can someone elaborate on this claim? LexLata (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That sentence appears in the section "Personal income taxes", but the cited CCPA paper (for example Figure 5) shows the rich pay a higher rate in that category. See also http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/01/12/william-watson-lets-hear-it-for-the-1/. The sentence is false. I'm removing it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Taxation in Canada


text:
Pierrefitte-sur-Seine

Pierrefitte-sur-Seine (, literally Pierrefitte on Seine) is a commune in the Seine-Saint-Denis department and Île-de-France region of France. Today forming part of the northern suburbs of Paris, Pierrefitte lies 12.4 km from the centre of the French capital.

It is set to merge into Saint-Denis on 1 January 2025, following a vote of both municipal councils on 30 May 2024. The new commune will be the second most populated in Île-de-France after Paris.

History
In December 2005, Pierrefitte became Europe's first "Mediation Town".

Transport
The town is served by Pierrefitte – Stains railway station on line D of the RER regional suburban rail network.

The south of the commune, where the National Archives of France relocated in 2013, is also served by Saint-Denis – Université station on Paris Métro Line 13. This station lies on the border between the communes of Pierrefitte-sur-Seine and Saint-Denis.

Education
Primary and secondary schools in the commune include: Collège intercommunal Lucie-Aubrac in Villetaneuse also serves Pierrefitte students, as does Lycée Polyvalent Maurice-Utrillo, a senior high school/sixth-form college in Stains.
 * Nine preschools (maternelles)
 * Eight elementary schools
 * Two junior high schools: Collège Gustave-Courbet and Collège Pablo-Neruda

Paris 8 University and Paris 13 University serve area students.

In the arts
Pierrefitte was where comedian and filmmaker Kheiron was raised, and the setting for his award-winning film All Three of Us.

Personalities

 * The actor and playwright Frédérick Lemaître lived in Pierrefitte between 1830 and 1845.
 * The naturalist Alcide d'Orbigny died in Pierrefitte in 1857 and is buried in the municipal cemetery.

Twin towns
Pierrefitte is twinned with
 * Braintree in the United Kingdom
 * Rüdersdorf bei Berlin in Germany.

title: Pierrefitte-sur-Seine


text:
Pierrefitte

Pierrefitte is the name of several communes in France:

 * Pierrefitte, Corrèze
 * Pierrefitte, Creuse
 * Pierrefitte, Deux-Sèvres
 * Pierrefitte, Vosges

It is also part of the name of several communes:

 * Pierrefitte-en-Auge, in the Calvados département
 * Pierrefitte-en-Beauvaisis, in the Oise département
 * Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais, in the Calvados département
 * Pierrefitte-ès-Bois, in the Loiret département
 * Pierrefitte-Nestalas, in the Hautes-Pyrénées département
 * Pierrefitte-sur-Aire, in the Meuse département
 * Pierrefitte-sur-Loire, in the Allier département
 * Pierrefitte-sur-Sauldre, in the Loir-et-Cher département
 * Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, in the Seine-Saint-Denis département
 * Pierrefitte–Stains station

title: Pierrefitte


text:
Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais

Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

Geography
The commune is part of the area known as Suisse Normande.

The commune is made up of the following collection of villages and hamlets, La Boissaye, Le Tilleul and Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais.

The commune has six streams running through it The Langot, The Grand Etang, The Orival, The Val la Here, La Mesliere and La Vallee des Vaux.

The town lies 13 miles from the foot of the hill St. Clair, which rises to 306 meters.

title: Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais


text:
Pierrepont

Pierrepont is the name or part of the name of several communes in northern France:

 * Pierrepont, Aisne, in the Aisne département
 * Pierrepont, Calvados, in the Calvados département
 * Pierrepont, Meurthe-et-Moselle, in the Meurthe-et-Moselle département
 * Pierrepont-sur-Avre, in the Somme département
 * Pierrepont-sur-l'Arentèle, in the Vosges département
 * Bucy-lès-Pierrepont, Aisne département
 * Missy-lès-Pierrepont, commune française de l'Aisne
 * Goudelancourt-lès-Pierrepont, commune française de l'Aisne
 * Saint-Nicolas-de-Pierrepont, commune française de la Manche département
 * Saint-Sauveur-de-Pierrepont, commune française de la Manche département

title: Pierrepont


text:
San Carlos Fortress

The San Carlos Fortress (in Spanish: Fortaleza de San Carlos) is an 18th-century fortress in the city of Perote, in the Mexican state of Veracruz. It is also known as the Fort of San Carlos, Perote Castle, the Castle of San Carlos, Perote Prison, San Carlos de Perote Fortress, and San Carlos de Perote Castle.

The fortress was built from 1770 to 1776 by Manuel de Santisteban as a guard post and repository for treasure prior to shipment to Spain. After the Mexican War of Independence, the remaining Spanish colonial troops were garrisoned in the neighboring castle of San Juan de Ulúa, prompting General Guadalupe Victoria to create, on 11 October 1823, the first military college in the new country: the Perote Military College.

Between 1841 and 1844, soldiers from the Republic of Texas, survivors of the Texan Santa Fe Expedition, the Dawson Massacre, and the Mier Expedition, were imprisoned here. 300 or so members of the failed Santa Fe expedition were held in the fortress during the winter of 1841–42. Then in December 1842, about fifty men who had been captured in San Antonio by General Adrián Woll, including fifteen from Dawson's company, were confined. The following year, approximately 160 survivors of the 1842–43 Mier Expedition, an offshoot of the Somervell Expedition, after being used through the summer as laborers to work on roads near Mexico City, were taken to the Perote Prison in September 1843. The last of all these Texan prisoners, numbering by then about 105, were not released until a year later, in September 1844. Many had died from wounds, disease, or starvation; and several prisoners had managed to escape, or were released earlier in response to U.S. diplomatic efforts.)

In March 1843, Guadalupe Victoria, who had served as Mexico's first President in the 1820s, died in the San Carlos Fortress complex. He suffered from epilepsy and was receiving medical treatment in Perote.

During the Mexican–American War of 1846–48, American forces captured the fortress on April 22, 1847. They garrisoned it as a post to protect their line of communications between Veracruz and Mexico City from guerrillas.

At the very end of the Second World War, after Mexico declared war against the Axis alliance, the facility served as a prison for German and Italian citizens.

Then the fortress became a state prison, from 1949 to March 2007, after which it was opened to the public.

title: San Carlos Fortress


text:
Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1984 (previously bill no. 11 of 1984) is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that allowed for the extension of the right to vote in elections to Dáil Éireann (the house of representatives of the Oireachtas) to non-Irish citizens. It was approved by referendum on 14 June 1984, the same day as the European Parliament election, and signed into law on 2 August of the same year.

Background
Article 16 of the Constitution of Ireland as approved in 1937, and amended in 1972 to lower the voting age, provided that the franchise for elections to Dáil Éireann would be citizens who have reached the age of 18. The Electoral Amendment Bill 1983, proposed by the Fine Gael–Labour Party government led by Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald, would have amended the Electoral Act 1963 to allow British citizens as defined by the British Nationality Act 1981 to vote in elections to Dáil Éireann. This was to reciprocate the Representation of the People Act 1949, a British statute, which among other provisions had granted Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom the right to vote in elections to the British parliament.

The Bill was referred by President Patrick Hillery to the Supreme Court under Article 26 of the Constitution. In a judgment delivered on 8 February 1984, they found the bill to be unconstitutional.

In response, the government then proposed a constitutional amendment which would specifically allow the franchise in elections to Dáil Éireann to be extended to non-Irish citizens. This did not affect presidential elections or referendums, where the text of the Constitution continued to specify citizens only.

Changes to the text
Deletion of the entirety of Article 16.1.2°:

Substitution of new Article 16.1.2°:

Amendment to Article 16.1.3° by the addition of the text in bold:

Oireachtas debates
The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1984 was proposed by Minister for the Environment Liam Kavanagh on 11 April 1984. It had the support of opposition party Fianna Fáil and passed all stages of the Dáil without amendment on that day. It passed all stages of the Seanad on the same day.

Information to voters
Under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1984, the changes was described on the polling card sent to voters as:

Result
Note: For this referendum, the constituencies used were each county and county borough (city), which were deemed under section 2 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act 1984 to be constituencies for the purpose of the poll. Usually in Irish referendums the Dáil Éireann general election constituencies are used.

Aftermath
The Electoral (Amendment) Act 1985 was passed the following year. This amended the Electoral Act 1963 to grant the vote to British citizens. It also allowed the Minister for the Environment to extend the franchise to citizens of a member of the European Communities on a reciprocal basis. To date, no such order has been made for any other country.


text:
Tomrefjord

Tomra or Tomrefjord is a village located in Vestnes Municipality in Møre og Romsdal county, Norway. It is located just south of the village of Vik at the end of the Tomrefjorden. The village of Fiksdal lies 8 km to the northwest.

The 1.5 km2 village has a population (2018) of 1,147 and a population density of 765 PD/km2.

Businessman Bjørn Rune Gjelsten is from Tomrefjord, and footballer Kjetil Rekdal went to school there. Also situated in Tomrefjord is the shipyard VARD Langsten, which is the quintessential cornerstone of the community.

title: Tomrefjord


text:
Pete Hamill

William Peter Hamill (June 24, 1935 –August 5, 2020) was an American journalist, novelist, essayist and editor. During his career as a New York City journalist, he was described as "the author of columns that sought to capture the particular flavors of New York City's politics and sports and the particular pathos of its crime." Hamill was a columnist and editor for the New York Post and the New York Daily News.

Early life and education
The eldest of seven children of Catholic immigrants from Belfast, Northern Ireland, Hamill was born in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn. His father, Billy Hamill, lost a leg as the result of an injury during a semi-professional soccer game in Brooklyn. Hamill's mother, Anne Devlin Hamill, a high school graduate, arrived in New York on the day the stock market crashed in 1929. Billy Hamill was introduced to Anne Devlin in 1933 and they married the following year. Billy Hamill had jobs as a grocery clerk, in a war plant, and later in a factory producing lighting fixtures. Anne Hamill was employed in Wanamaker's department store, and she also worked as a domestic, a nurses' aide, and a cashier in the RKO movie chain. Hamill's younger brother, Denis, also became a columnist for the Daily News.

Hamill attended Holy Name of Jesus grammar school and delivered the Brooklyn Daily Eagle when he was 11. In 1949, Hamill attended the prestigious Regis High School in Manhattan, but he left school when he was 15 to work as an apprentice sheet metal worker in the Brooklyn Navy Yard; 59 years later, in June 2010, Regis awarded him an honorary diploma. Inspired especially by the work of Milton Caniff, he was set on becoming a comic book artist. Hamill attended night classes at the School of Visual Arts (then called the Cartoonists and Illustrators School), with the goal of becoming a painter. He also took courses at Pratt Institute, which awarded him an honorary doctorate in 1980. In the fall of 1952, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Following his discharge, in 1956–57, he was a student at Mexico City College on the G.I. Bill.

Journalism
In 1958, while serving as the art director for a Greek-language newspaper the Atlantis, Hamill talked his way into writing his first piece about his friend, Puerto Rican professional boxer José Torres, then a neophyte middleweight and Olympic champion. This led Hamill to pursue writing a few letters to the editor for the New York Post of which two were printed. Hamill eventually attracted enough attention and was hired as a reporter for the New York Post in 1960. The 1962–63 New York City newspaper strike led Hamill to start writing magazine articles. By the fall of 1963 he was a correspondent for The Saturday Evening Post, stationed in Europe. Hamill spent six months in Barcelona and five months in Dublin, and traveled Europe interviewing actors, movie directors, and authors, as well as ordinary citizens. In August 1964 he returned to New York, reported on the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, and was briefly employed as a feature writer at the New York Herald Tribune. He began writing a column for the New York Post in late 1965, and, by the end of that year, was reporting from Vietnam.

For more than four decades, he worked at the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the Village Voice, and New York Newsday. He served briefly as editor of the Post, and later as editor-in-chief of the Daily News. His resignation from the latter position after eight months prompted a letter of protest signed by more than a hundred of the paper's writers. Hamill's more extensive journalistic pieces have been published in New York, The New Yorker, Esquire, Playboy, Rolling Stone, and other periodicals. He wrote about wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Lebanon and Northern Ireland, and reported on America's urban riots of the 1960s.

Hamill wrote about the New York underclass and racial division, most notably in an essay for Esquire magazine, "Breaking the Silence". He also wrote about boxing, baseball, art, and contemporary music, winning a Grammy Award in 1975 for the liner notes to Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks. However, while at the New York Post, Hamill defamatorally wrote of the later exonerated Central Park Five that the teens hailed “from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference and ignorance…a land with no fathers…to smash, hurt, rob, stomp, rape. The enemies were rich. The enemies were white.”

Two collections of his selected journalism have been published: Irrational Ravings and Piecework (1996). For the Library of America he edited two volumes of the journalism of A.J. Liebling. In 1998, he published an extended essay on contemporary journalism titled News is a Verb: Journalism at the End of the Twentieth Century.

Fiction
Hamill also wrote fiction, producing ten novels and two collections of short stories. His first novel, a thriller called A Killing for Christ, about a plot to assassinate the Pope on Easter Sunday in Rome, was published in 1968. Drawing on his youth in Brooklyn he next wrote a semi-autobiographical novel called The Gift. Most of his fiction is set in New York City, including Snow in August (1997), Forever (2003), North River (2007), and Tabloid City (2011).

His 1971 column Going Home, about a released prisoner on his way home by bus, inspired the smash 1973 hit song Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Ole Oak Tree.

Hamill published more than 100 short stories in newspapers, including those that were part of a series called The Eight Million in the New York Post; in the Daily News, his stories ran under the title Tales of New York. He published two volumes of short stories: The Invisible City: A New York Sketchbook (1980) and Tokyo Sketches (1992).

Nonfiction
Hamill's 1994 memoir, A Drinking Life, chronicled his journey from childhood into his thirties, his embrace of drinking and the decision to abandon it. According to Hamill, Frank McCourt was inspired by the book to complete his own memoir, Angela's Ashes. Hamill's memoir Downtown: My Manhattan includes his reporting for the New York Daily News on the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, at which he was present.

Hamill's book on the Mexican muralist Diego Rivera was inspired by time spent in Mexico City in 1957 and his presence at Rivera's funeral. In Tools as Art (1995), Hamill surveys the Hechinger Collection and the incorporation of utilitarian objects for aesthetic ends. His biographical essay on the artist was featured in Underground Together: The Art and Life of Harvey Dinnerstein (2008), whose work, like Hamill's, often focuses on the people and cultural life of Brooklyn.

Hamill's interest in photography informed his later essays in nonfiction. New York: City of Islands (2007), celebrates the photography of Jake Rajs. New York Exposed: Photographs from the Daily News (2001) contains an extended essay about the New York Daily News and its role in American photojournalism. In his introduction to Mexico: The Revolution and Beyond (2003), Hamill writes about Agustin Victor Casasola, whose photographs recorded the Revolution of 1910–1920. In his introduction to A Living Lens: Photographs of Jewish Life from the Pages of the Forward (2007), Hamill evokes the heyday of American Yiddish journalism. His text for The Times Square Gym (1996) enhances John Goodman's photographs of prizefighters, while his introduction to Garden of Dreams: Madison Square Garden (2004) offers a context for the sports photography of George Kalinski. Hamill's Irish heritage informs the text for The Irish Face in America (2004), as seen by the photographer Jim Smith.

Hamill also wrote about comic strips, of which he was a collector. Among his writings on the subject are an introduction to Terry and the Pirates: Volume Two by Milton Caniff (2007), and an introductory text for a revised version of Al Hirschfeld's The Speakeasies of 1932 (2003). He also contributed an introduction to Jerry Robinson: Ambassador of Comics (2010).

Television and film
Hamill penned a handful of teleplays and screenplays, including adaptations of his own novels, and had a few minor film roles, usually playing a generic "reporter," or himself. According to Robert Rosen, the Producer on French Connection II, he re-wrote all of the dialogue in the film, working nearly non-stop for three days, for which he did not receive screen credit. He appeared as a commentator in several documentaries, including Ric Burns' New York: A Documentary Film, and Ken Burns' Prohibition. He also appeared as a speaker in the 2018, 4-part Netflix documentary titled Bobby Kennedy for President.

Personal life
Hamill married his first wife, Ramona Negron, in 1962. Together, they had two daughters, Adrienne and Deirdre. They divorced in 1970. Seventeen years later, he married Fukiko Aoki, a fellow journalist from Japan. His work meant that he resided for long periods of time in Spain, Ireland, Saigon, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Rome, Los Angeles, and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A friend of Robert F. Kennedy, Hamill helped persuade the senator to run for the United States presidency. He subsequently worked for Kennedy's campaign and covered it as a journalist. He was one of four men who disarmed Sirhan Sirhan of his gun in the immediate aftermath of the senator's assassination.

Hamill died on August 5, 2020, at NewYork–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. He was 85, and suffered from heart and kidney failure at the time of his death, in addition to having fractured his right hip in a fall.

Honors
Hamill received the Ernie Pyle Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists in 2005. In 2010 Hamill received an Honorary Doctor of Letters Degree from St. John's University. In 2010 he was presented the Louis Auchincloss Prize from the Museum of the City of New York. In 2014 Hamill received the George Polk Career Award.

Hamill was a Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University.

Hamill and Jimmy Breslin were interviewed for the 2019 HBO documentary Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists, which details both the friendship and competition between New York City's two most read columnists of their era.

A stretch of Seventh Avenue between 11th Street and 12th Street in Park Slope, Brooklyn, is named "Pete Hamill Way."

Fiction

 * A Killing for Christ (1968) ISBN 978-1617755781
 * The Gift (1973) ISBN 978-0316011891
 * Dirty Laundry (1978) ISBN 978-0553114157
 * Flesh and Blood (1977) ISBN 978-0553118971
 * The Deadly Piece (1979) ISBN 978-0553120738
 * The Guns of Heaven (1984) ISBN 978-0843955958
 * Loving Women (1989) ISBN 978-0394575285
 * Tokyo Sketches : Short Stories (1992) ISBN 978-4770016973
 * Snow in August (1998) ISBN 978-0316242820
 * Forever (2003) ISBN 978-0316735698
 * North River (2007) ISBN 978-0316007993
 * Tabloid City (2011) ISBN 978-0316020763
 * The Christmas Kid And Other Brooklyn Stories (2012) ISBN 978-0316232739

Non-fiction

 * Irrational Ravings (1971) LCCN 77163410
 * The Invisible City : Short Stories (1980) ISBN 978-0394503776 - though subtitled "Short Stories" it is a collection of magazine journalism
 * A Drinking Life : A Memoir (1995) ISBN 978-0316341028
 * Piecework (1996) ISBN 978-0316340984
 * News is a Verb (1998) ISBN 978-0739402795
 * Why Sinatra Matters (1999) ISBN 978-0316347174
 * Diego Rivera (1999) ISBN 978-3836568975
 * Downtown : My Manhattan (2004) ISBN 978-0316734516
 * News is a Verb: Journalism at the End of the Twentieth Century (2011)
 * They Are Us: A Plea for Common Sense about Immigration (2011)

title: Pete Hamill


text:
Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1987 (previously bill no. 8 of 1987) is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permitted the state to ratify the Single European Act. It was approved by referendum on 26 May 1987 and signed into law on 22 June of the same year.

Background
The Single European Act (SEA) was signed in February 1986 by the member states of the European Economic Community. It amended the Treaty of Rome and established the European Single Market. The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 was passed to allow provisions of the SEA to become part of domestic Irish law. On 22 December 1986, Raymond Crotty sought an injunction preventing Minister for Foreign Affairs Peter Barry from ratifying the Treaty on behalf of the state. He was refused relief by Donal Barrington in the High Court but was successful in part in the Supreme Court. In a majority judgment delivered in Crotty v. An Taoiseach, the Court held that Title III of the SEA would bind the State to concede part of its sovereignty in a manner not permitted by the Constitution under the amendment made in 1972 to allow accession to the European Communities. In response, the newly elected government of Taoiseach Charles Haughey proposed an amendment to the constitution.

Changes to the text
Amendment to Article 29.4.3° by the addition of the text in bold (emphasis added):

Oireachtas debates
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1987 was proposed in the Dáil by Taoiseach Charles Haughey on 22 April 1987 on behalf of the minority Fianna Fáil government. It was also supported by Fine Gael, who had negotiated the SEA during the previous government. At Second Stage, it passed by 108 votes to 29, where was opposed by the Progressive Democrats, the Labour Party, the Workers' Party, and independent TDs Neil Blaney and Tony Gregory. It passed Final Stages in the Dáil on 24 April by 123 votes to 17, on this occasion with the Progressive Democrats supporting its passage. It passed the Seanad on 25 April and proceeded to a referendum.

Campaign
As well as the parties above, the SEA was also supported by employers' and farmers' organisations.

Aftermath
The Single European Act came into effect on 1 July 1987 after Ireland had ratified it.

Because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Crotty v An Taoiseach, the constitution would need to be amended on every further occasion before a treaty could be ratified that would transfer sovereignty from the Irish government to a supranational authority. This has since occurred on the following occasions:

 * Maastricht Treaty
 * Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 1992
 * Amsterdam Treaty
 * Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 1998
 * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
 * Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 2001
 * Nice Treaty
 * Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001 rejected by referendum in 2001
 * Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 2002
 * Lisbon Treaty
 * Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 rejected by referendum in 2008
 * Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 2009
 * European Fiscal Compact
 * Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland approved by referendum in 2012


text:
Pierres

There are works that are named Pierres, pronounced like Pierre:

 * Pierres (novel), a novel of Victor Hugo
 * Pierres (poems), a collection of poems of Roger Caillois

Pierres is the name of several communes in France:

 * Pierres, Calvados, in the Calvados département
 * Pierres, Eure-et-Loir, in the Eure-et-Loir département

title: Pierres