The Directory was the governing five-member committee in the French First Republic from 2 November 1795 until 9 November 1799, when the Directory was overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte in the Coup of 18 Brumaire, replaced by the Consulate. It gave its name to the final four years of the French Revolution. Mainstream historiography uses the term in reference to the period from the dissolution of the National Convention on 26 October 1795 to Napoleon's coup d’état; the Directory was continually at war with foreign coalitions which at different times included Britain, Prussia, the Kingdom of Naples and the Ottoman Empire. It annexed the left bank of the Rhine, while Bonaparte conquered a large part of Italy; the Directory established 196 short-lived sister republics modelled after France, in Italy and the Netherlands. The conquered cities and states were required to send to France huge amounts of money, as well as art treasures, which were used to fill the new Louvre museum in Paris. An army led by Bonaparte marched as far as Saint-Jean-d'Acre in Syria.
The Directory defeated a resurgence of the War in the Vendée, the royalist-led civil war in the Vendée region, but failed in its venture to support the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and create an Irish Republic. The French economy was in continual crisis during the Directory. At the beginning, the treasury was empty; the Directory stopped printing assignats and restored the value of the money, but this caused a new crisis. In its first two years, the Directory concentrated on ending the excesses of the Jacobin Reign of Terror; the Jacobin political club was closed and the government crushed an armed uprising planned by the Jacobins and an early socialist revolutionary, François-Noël Babeuf, known as "Gracchus Babeuf". However, following the discovery of a royalist conspiracy including a prominent general, Jean-Charles Pichegru, the Jacobins took charge of the new Councils and hardened the measures against the Church and émigrés; the Jacobins took two additional seats in the Directory. In 1799, after several defeats, French victories in the Netherlands and Switzerland restored the French military position, but the Directory had lost the support of all the political factions.
Bonaparte returned from Egypt in October, was engaged by the Abbé Sieyès and others to carry out a parliamentary coup d'état on 8–9 November 1799. The coup abolished the Directory, replaced it with the French Consulate led by Bonaparte. On 27 July 1794, members of the French Convention, the revolutionary parliament of France, rose up against its leader Maximilien Robespierre, in the midst of executing thousands of suspected enemies of the Revolution. Robespierre and his leading followers were declared outside the law, on 28 July were arrested and guillotined the same day; the Revolutionary Tribunal, which had sent thousands to the guillotine, ceased meeting and its head, Fouquier-Tinville, was arrested and imprisoned, after trial was himself sentenced to death. More than five hundred suspected counter-revolutionaries awaiting trial and execution were released. In July 1794, the members of the Convention began planning a new form of government and drafting a new Constitution, which would become the Constitution of the Year III.
An important aim was to prevent too much power from becoming concentrated in the hands of one man. One of the authors of the new Constitution, François Antoine de Boissy d'Anglas, wrote to the Convention: We propose to you to compose an executive power of five members, renewed with one new member each year, called the Directory; this executive will have a force concentrated enough that it will be swift and firm, but divided enough to make it impossible for any member to consider becoming a tyrant. A single chief would be dangerous; each member will preside for three months. By the slow and gradual replacement of members of the Directory, you will preserve the advantages of order and continuity and will have the advantages of unity without the inconveniences; the Constitution of the Year III began with the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and declared that "the Rights of Man in society are liberty, equality and property". It guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of labour, but forbade armed assemblies and public meetings of political societies.
Only individuals or public authorities could tender petitions. The judicial system was reformed, judges were given short terms of office: two years for justices of the peace, five for judges of department tribunals, they were elected, could be re-elected, to assure their independence from the other branches of government. The new legislature had two houses, a Council of Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients with two hundred fifty members. Electoral assemblies in each canton of France, which brought together a total of thirty thousand qualified electors, chose representatives to an electoral assembly in each department, which elected the members of both houses; the members of this legislature had a term of three years, with one-third of the members renewed every year. The Ancients could not initiate new laws, but could veto those proposed by the Council of Five Hundred; the Constitution established a unique kind of executive, a five-man Directory chosen by the legislature. It requir
Suresh v Canada, 1 S. C. R. 3 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians. Suresh had come to Canada from his native Sri Lanka in 1990, had been accepted as a refugee under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees on the basis that his life was in danger in Sri Lanka because of his involvement in the struggle for Tamil independence. In 1995, the government rejected his application for permanent resident status on the basis that he was a security risk, ordered that he be deported; the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had claimed that he was a supporter and fundraiser for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a terrorist group in Sri Lanka.
The Federal Court of Canada upheld the deportation order. Following this the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an opinion that declared him a danger to the security of Canada under section 53 of the Immigration Act and should be deported. Suresh had been given an opportunity to present written and documentary evidence to the Minister, however, he was not provided with a copy of the memorandum of the immigration officer and he was not provided with the opportunity to respond to the memorandum. Due to this inability to respond Suresh applied for judicial review of the decision, he argued that: the Minister's decision was unreasonable. The application was dismissed by the Federal Court. On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Trial Division; the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court was written By the Court; the Court first considered the claim for violation of section 7 of the Charter. The Court agreed, it was further held that deportation to a country where there is a risk of torture deprives the refugee of their right to liberty and security of person.
The primary issue was whether the deprivation was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Court found that section 53 is constitutional but that it may be unconstitutional in application; the constitutionality of the deportation depends on a balancing of the likelihood of torture and the objective of combating terrorism. The Court identified fundamental justice to be "the basic tenets of our legal system" and are determined by a contextual approach that considers the "nature of the decision to be made." Here, the Court must balance between the government's interests in combating terrorism and the refugee's interest in not being deported to torture. The test proposed by the Court was whether the deprivation would "shock the Canadian conscience"; that is, whether "the conduct fundamentally unacceptable to our notions of fair practice and justice". The Court found that the Minister should decline to deport refugees if there is a substantial risk of torture but that it may be constitutional in exceptional cases.
The law is constitutional but administrative decision makers should exercise discretion and weigh in favour of the claimant. The Court considers the "international perspective" and finds that it too is incompatible with the practice of deportation where there is a risk of torture. In conclusion, the Court finds that the deportation order given by the Minister to be unconstitutional but the provisions of the Immigration Act are constitutional; the second ground of appeal was whether terms "danger to the security of Canada" and "terrorism" were unconstitutionally vague. The Court held. Citing R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, the Court observes that a vague law will be unconstitutional where it "fails to give those who might come within the ambit of the provision fair notice of the consequences of their conduct" or where "it fails to adequately limit law enforcement discretion." The phrase "danger to the security of Canada" was found not to be vague. The political nature of the term means.
The Court concludes that "danger to the security of Canada" means: a person constitutes a "danger to the security of Canada" if he or she poses a serious threat to the security of Canada, whether direct or indirect, bearing in mind the fact that the security of one country is dependent on the security of other nations. The threat must be "serious", in the sense that it must be grounded on objectively reasonable suspicion based on evidence and in the sense that the threatened harm must be substantial rather than negligible; as well, the Court finds. Though the word has no clear definition, it is possible to set boundaries to the meaning; the Court adopts the definition from the International Convention for Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which defines it as an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
The court applied the five-question framework from Baker to determine the level of procedural prot
Douglas Arnott is a Scottish former footballer who played as a striker. Arnott's career began at Pollok at the Scottish Junior level, before spending his entire senior football career at Motherwell, spending twelve seasons with the Fir Park club before retiring due to an injury in 1998. In 1990-91, Arnott was part of Motherwell's Scottish Cup-winning side, his only senior honour. On 11 September 2008, Arnott's belated testimonial match went ahead against an Old Firm select. Other players lined up for Arnott's side included former goalkeeper Sieb Dijkstra and defenders Chris McCart and Fraser Wishart, while the Old Firm team included Ally McCoist and Gordon Durie; the Old Firm side won 5-4, in a game which saw Arnott score the first of the match, Ally McCoist net a hat-trick. Since retiring from football, Arnott has purchased a number of pubs, including "The Wee Thackit" in Carluke. Scottish Cup: 11990-91 Dougie Arnott at Soccerbase