Daniel Webster (Florida politician)

David Berkowitz

David Berg

David Berg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

David Brandt Berg
Born	18 February 1919(1919-02-18) Oakland, California, U.S.
Died	1 October 1994 (aged 75) Costa de Caparica , Portugal
Occupation	Founder, Children of God

David Brandt Berg (born 18 February 1919 in Oakland, California, United States and died 1 October 1994 in Portugal), frequently known by the pseudonym Moses David, was the founder and leader of the New Religious Movement formerly called Children of God, now called “The Family International“.

Contents [show] 1 Life 1.1 Early years (1919 – 1968) 1.2 The Children of God/The Family (1968 – 1994) 1.2.1 Death 2 Controversy 3 Personal family 4 Sociological views 5 References 6 External links

[edit] Life

[edit] Early years (1919 – 1968)

Berg was born to Hjalmer Emmanuel Berg and Rev. Virginia Lee Brandt, the youngest of three children. Virginia Brandt, a Christian evangelist, was the daughter of Rev. John Lincoln Brandt (1860–1946), a Disciples of ChristMuskogee, Oklahoma. David Berg graduated from Monterey High School (in California) in 1935 and later attended Elliott School of Business Administration. minister, author, and lecturer of

Berg often said that his rich heritage played a key role in shaping his character and religious convictions. Many of his forefathers, as well as both of his parents, were deeply committed Christians. His maternal forefathers were German Jews who converted to Christianity in the mid-eighteenth century. They subsequently joined the Dunkards, a conservative offshoot of the Church of the Brethren. State persecution of the sect soon drove the Brandt family to America, where they settled in Pennsylvania and Ohio around 1750.

Dr. John Lincoln Brandt, Berg’s grandfather, had a dramatic conversion in his mid-twenties and immediately entered full-time Christian service. For years he was a Methodist circuit rider. He later became a leader of the Alexander Campbell movement of the Disciples of Christ, a restoration movement that developed into the current Protestant denomination Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Virginia Brandt Berg, David Berg’s mother, is the individual whom he credits for influencing him the most. Although raised in a Christian home, Virginia became an atheist and wild society girl during her college years. However, shortly after the birth of her first child, she broke her back in an accident and spent the next five years as a bedridden invalid, often hovering near death. Eventually she recovered and spent the rest of her life with her husband, Hjalmer, in active Christian service as a pastor and evangelist. Virginia and Hjalmer were no strangers to controversy. They were expelled from the Christian Church after publicly testifying of her “divine healing”, which was contrary to church doctrine. They subsequently joined a new denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, shortly before David Berg’s birth. In later years, their missionary zeal and disdain for denominational politicking often set them at variance with the conservative faction of that church’s hierarchy, causing them to work largely as independent pastors and evangelists.

Berg spent his early years traveling with his parents, who pursued their evangelical mission with a passion. In 1924, they settled in Miami, Florida, after Virginia successfully led a series of large revivals at the Miami Gospel Tabernacle. This became Berg’s home for the next 14 years, while his mother and father were pastors a number of Miami churches.

As is the case with many pastors and their dependents, the Berg family depended entirely on the generosity of their parishioners for their support, and often had difficulty making ends meet. This instilled in Berg a lifelong habit of frugality, which he encouraged his followers to adopt.

In the late 1930s, Virginia Berg returned to her favorite ministry, that of a traveling evangelist. David Berg accompanied her, and for most of the next 10 years acted as her chauffeur, song leader, and general assistant.

Like his father, Berg became a minister in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and was placed at Valley Farms, Arizona. Berg was eventually expelled from the organization for differences in teachings and for alleged sexual misconduct with a church employee. In Berg’s writings he claimed the expulsion was due to his support for greater racial diversity among his congregation.

Fred Jordan, Berg’s friend and boss, allowed Berg and his personal family to open a branch of his Soul Clinic in Miami, Florida as a missionary training school. After running into trouble with local authorities for his aggressive disapproval with evolution being taught as fact in public schools, Berg moved his family to Fred Jordan’s Texas Soul Clinic, in Western Texas.

[edit] The Children of God/The Family (1968 – 1994)

David Berg (also known as King David, Mo, Moses David, Father David, Dad, or Grandpa to members of the Children of God) founded the organization known as the Children of God, later known as “The Family of Love” or “The Family” and currently “The Family International”, in 1968.

Berg called on his followers to devote their full time to spreading the message of Jesus‘ love and salvation as far and wide as possible, unfettered by convention or tradition, and to teach others to do the same.

Berg also decried the de-Christianization and decay in moral values of Western society. He viewed the trend towards a New World Order as setting the stage for the rise of the Antichrist.

Berg lived in seclusion, communicating with his followers and the public via nearly 3,000 “Mo Letters”^[1] that he wrote on a wide variety of subjects. His writings were often extreme and uncompromising in their denunciation of evil, yet he always admonished the reader to “love the sinner but hate the sin”. He espoused doctrines that some mainstream Christians denounce as heretical. However, his followers argue that his writings are permeated with a love of God.

[edit] Death

Berg died in 1994 and was buried in Costa de Caparica, Portugal. (His remains have since been cremated.) His organization is currently led by his widow Karen Zerby(whom he took as a soi-disant “second-wife” in August 1969; known as Katherine Rianna Smith, Mama Maria or Queen Maria in the Children of God) and Steven Douglas Kelly (an American also known as Christopher Smith, Peter Amsterdam, or King Peter to the Children of God).

[edit] Controversy

He lived in total seclusion and secrecy from his followers and, along with Karen Zerby is thought to have used a fake Australian passport when traveling.

He was also outspoken, and widely reputed to be an anti-Semite and a pedophile.^[2][3][4][5]

In a child-custody case in the United Kingdom Berg’s granddaughter, Merry Berg, testified that Berg sexually molested her when she was a young teenager. Another of Berg’s granddaughters, Joyanne Treadwell Berg, spoke on American television about being sexually abused by David Berg. Berg’s adopted son, Ricky Rodriguez, wrote an article on the Web site MovingOn.org in which he describes Berg’s deviant sexual activity involving a number of women and children. Davida Kelley, the daughter of Rodriguez’s nanny, Sarah Kelley, accused Berg of molesting her in a June 2005 Rolling Stone article.^[6] In the same article, a woman identified as Armendria alleged that David Berg sexually abused her when she was thirteen years old.

Berg predicted several apocalyptic events that did not occur. His most well-known prediction was that comet Kohoutek (1974) would cause much havoc and possible destruction (Letter No.283). This prediction was shared by others outside The Family such as Joseph F. Goodavage in the January 1974 issue of SAGA magazine. He also predicted that California would imminently fall into the ocean, the tribulation would begin in 1989 and that the second coming of Jesus would happen in 1993.

Berg wrote or dictated nearly 3,000 “Mo Letters”^[1] (“Mo” being abbreviated from his pseudonym “Moses David”), which typically covered spiritual or practical subjects and were used as a way of disseminating and introducing policy and religious doctrine to his followers. Due to his obsession with secrecy, until his death, any photos of him appearing in the group’s publications had his face covered with rudimentary pencil drawings, often depicting him as an anthropomorphic lion.

[edit] Personal family

David Berg married his first wife, Jane Miller (known as “Mother Eve” in the Children of God), on 22 July 1944 in Glendale, California. They had four children together: Linda, known as “Deborah” in the Children of God); Paul, d. April 1973, known as “Aaron” in the Children of God); Jonathan Emanuel, known as “Hosea” in the Children of God); and Faith.

Berg also informally adopted Ricky Rodriguez, the son of his second wife Karen Zerby (who continues to be a leader of the Children of God). In the 1970s and 1980s sexually suggestive photographic depictions of Rodriguez (aka “Davidito”) with adult caretakers were disseminated throughout the group by Berg and Zerby in a child rearing handbook known as “The Story of Davidito”.^[7] In January 2005, Ricky Rodriguez murdered one of the female caretakers (also shown in the handbook) before taking his own life several hours later.

[edit] Sociological views

The sociologist Dr. Thomas Robbins argued that Berg’s leadership of the Children of God was based on charismatic authority.^[8]

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b} xFamily.org Publications Database — contains the entire text of “Mo Letters” written by David Berg
2. ^ Berg and Anti-Semitism on xFamily.org
3. ^ Berg on Pedophilia – xFamily – Children of God
4. ^ David Berg – xFamily – Children of God
5. ^ Kent SA (2000). “Lustful Prophet: A Psychosexual Historical Study of the Children of God’s Leader, David Berg”. http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~skent/Linkedfiles/lustfulprophet.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-20. 
6. ^ Rolling Stone: The Life and Death of the Chosen One
7. ^ Story of Davidito on xFamily.org
8. ^ Robbins, Thomas. Charisma in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos (February 1998) ISBN 0-7619-8956-0

[edit] External links

• TheFamily.org – Biography of David Berg on The Family’s official website
• David Berg on xFamily.org, a wiki about the Children of God
• Brandt, John Lincoln (1910-10-19). “The Evangelization of the World”. Centennial Convention Report. Carnegie Hall: The Standard Publishing Company. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR19B.HTM. Retrieved 2008-11-09. 
• Jones, Paul (1998). “The Family (The Children of God)” New Religious Movements

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was a milestone in the process of decolonization. Also known as the United Nations Resolution 1514, it was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1960.^[1]

Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States.^{[citation needed]} These nine included all the major colonial powers.

In 2000, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Resolution 1514, UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 55/146 that declared 2001–2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.^[2] This follows on from 1990-2000 having been the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.^[3]

---

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
The General Assembly ,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,

Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,

Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non- Self- Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependentterritories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland [1]

Defense of Marriage Act [syntax]

Deception

Deception

For other uses of “deception” and “deceit,” see Deception (disambiguation) and Deceit (disambiguation). For other uses of “mystification” and “mystify,” see Mystify (disambiguation)

Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, sleight of hand. It can employ distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception.

Deception is a major relational transgression that often leads to feelings of betrayal and distrust between relational partners. Deception violates relational rules and is considered to be a negative violation of expectations. Most people expect friends, relational partners, and even strangers to be truthful most of the time. If people expected most conversations to be untruthful, talking and communicating with others would require distraction and misdirection to acquire reliable information. On a given day, it is likely that most human beings will either deceive or be deceived by another person. A significant amount of deception occurs between romantic and relational partners.^[1]

Contents [show] 1 Types 2 Motives 3 Detection 3.1 Truth bias 4 Camouflage 5 Disguise appearance 5.1 Dazzle 6 Simulation 6.1 Mimicry 6.2 Fabrication 6.3 Distraction 7 In social research 8 In psychological research 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References 12 Further reading

[edit] Types

Deception includes several types of communications or omissions that serve to distort or omit the complete truth. Deception itself is intentionally managing verbal and/or nonverbal messages so that the message receiver will believe in a way that the message sender knows is false. Intent is critical with regard to deception. Intent differentiates between deception and an honest mistake. The Interpersonal Deception Theory explores the interrelation between communicative context and sender and receiver cognitions and behaviors in deceptive exchanges.

The five primary forms of deception are:

1. lies: making up information or giving
   information that is the opposite or very different from the truth.
2. equivocations: making an indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement.
3. concealments: omitting information that is important or relevant to the given context, or engaging in behavior that helps hide relevant information.
4. exaggeration: overstatement or stretching the truth to a degree.
5. understatement: minimization or downplaying aspects of the truth.^[1]

[edit] Motives

There are three primary motivations for deceptions in close relationships.

• Partner-focused motives: using deception to avoid hurting the partner, helping the partner to enhance or maintain his/her self-esteem, avoid worrying the partner, and protecting the partner’s relationship with a third party. Partner-motivated deception can sometimes be viewed as socially polite and relationally beneficial.
• Self-focused motives: using deception to enhance or protect their self-image, wanting to shield themselves from anger, embarrassment, or criticism. Self-focused deception is generally perceived as a more serious transgression than partner-focused deception because the deceiver is acting for self reasons than for the good of the relationship.
• Relationship-focused motives: using deception to limit relationship harm by avoiding conflict or relational trauma. Relationally motivated deception can be beneficial to a relationship, and other times it can be harmful by further complicating matters.^[1]

[edit] Detection

Deception detection between relational partners is extremely difficult, unless a partner tells a blatant or obvious lie or contradicts something the other partner knows to be true. While it is difficult to deceive a partner over a long period of time, deception often occurs in day-to-day conversations between relational partners.^[1] Detecting deception is difficult because there are no known completely reliable indicators of deception. Deception, however, places a significant cognitive load on the deceiver. He or she must recall previous statements so that his or her story remains consistent and believable. As a result, deceivers often leak important information both verbally and nonverbally.

Deception and its detection is a complex, fluid, and cognitive process that is based on the context of the message exchange. The Interpersonal Deception Theory posits that interpersonal deception is a dynamic, iterative process of mutual influence between a sender, who manipulates information to depart from the truth, and a receiver, who attempts to establish the validity of the message.^[2] A deceiver’s actions are interrelated to the message receiver’s actions. It is during this exchange that the deceiver will reveal verbal and nonverbal information about deceit.^[3] Some research has found that there are some cues that may be correlated with deceptive communication, but scholars frequently disagree about the effectiveness of many of these cues to serve as reliable indicators. Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that is no nonverbal behavior that is uniquely associated with deception.^[4] As previously stated, a specific behavioral indicator of deception does not exist. There are, however, some nonverbal behaviors that have been found to be correlated with deception. Vrij found that examining a “cluster” of these cues was a significantly more reliable indicator of deception than examining a single cue.^[4]

In terms of perceptions about the significance of deceiving a partner, women and men typically differ in their beliefs about deception. Women view deception as a much more profound relational transgression than men. Additionally, women rate lying in general as a less acceptable behavior than men. Finally, women are much more likely to view any act of lying as significant (regardless of the subject matter) and more likely to report negative emotional reactions to lying.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Truth bias

The truth bias significantly impairs the ability of relational partners to detect deception. In term of deception, a truth bias reflects a tendency to judge more messages as truths than lies, independent of their actual veracity.^[5] When judging message veracity, the truth bias contributes to an overestimate of the actual number of truths relative to the base rate of actual truths. The truth bias is especially strong within close relationships. People are highly inclined to trust the communications of others and are unlikely to question the relational partner unless faced with a major deviation of behavior that forces a reevaluation. When attempting to detect deceit from a familiar person or relational partner, a large amount of information about the partner is brought to mind. This information essentially overwhelms the receiver’s cognitive ability to detect and process any cues to deception. It is somewhat easier to detect deception in strangers, when less information about that person is brought to mind.^[6]

[edit] Camouflage

See also: Theory of camouflage

This wallaby has adaptive colouration which allows it to blend with its environment

The camouflage of a physical object often works by breaking up the visual boundary of that object. This usually involves colouring the camouflaged object with the same colours as the background against which the object will be hidden. In the realm of deceptive half-truths camouflage is realized by ‘hiding’ some of the truths.

Example:

• Camouflage as a form of visual deception is an essential part of military deception.

[edit] Disguise appearance

Main article: Disguise

A disguise is an appearance to create the impression of being somebody or something else; for a well-known person this is also called incognito.

Example:

• The fictional Sherlock Holmes often disguised himself as somebody else to avoid being recognized.

In a more abstract sense, ‘disguise’ may refer to the act of disguising the nature of a particular proposal in order to hide an unpopular motivation or effect associated with that proposal. This is a form of political spin or propaganda. See also: rationalisation and transfer within the techniques of propaganda generation.

Example:

• Depicting an act of war as a “peace” mission.

[edit] Dazzle

Example:

• The defensive mechanisms of most octopuses to eject black ink in a large cloud to aid in escape from predators.

[edit] Simulation

Simulation consists of exhibiting false information. There are three simulation techniques: mimicry (copying another model), fab

rication (making up a new model), and distraction (offering an alternative model)

[edit] Mimicry

In the biological world, mimicry involves unconscious deception by similarity to another organism, or to a natural object. Animals for example may deceive predators or prey by visual, auditory or other means.

[edit] Fabrication

To make something that in reality is not what it appears to be. For example, in World War II, it was common for the Allies to use hollow tanks made out of cardboard to fool German reconnaissance planes into thinking a large armor unit was on the move in one area while the real tanks were well hidden and on the move in a location far from the fabricated “dummy” tanks.

[edit] Distraction

To get someone’s attention from the truth by offering bait or something else more tempting to divert attention away from the object being concealed. For example, a security company publicly announces that it will ship a large gold shipment down one route, while in reality take a different route.

[edit] In social research

Some methodologies in social research, especially in psychology involve deception. The researchers purposely mislead or misinform the participants about the true nature of the experiment.

In an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1963 the researchers told participants that they would be participating in a scientific study of memory and learning. In reality the study looked at the participants’ willingness to obey commands, even when that involved inflicting pain upon another person.

Use of deception raises many problems of research ethics and it is strictly regulated by professional bodies such as the American Psychological Association.

[edit] In psychological research

Psychological research often needs to deceive the participants (former term: subjects)as to its actual purpose. The rationale for such deception is that humans are sensitive to how they appear to others (and to themselves) and this self-consciousness might interfere with or distort from how they actually behave outside of a research context (where they would not feel they were being scrutinized). For example, if a psychologist is interested in learning the conditions under which students cheat on tests, directly asking them, “how often do you cheat?,” might result in a high percent of “socially desirable” answers and the researcher would in any case be unable to verify the accuracy of these responses. What researchers could learn from this “ask the subject” procedure is what the students “say” they do, not necessarily what they actually do. In general, then, when it is unfeasible or naive to simply ask people directly why or how often they do what they do, researchers turn to the use of deception to distract their participants from the true behavior of interest. So, for example, in a study of cheating, the participants may be told that the study has to do with how intuitive they are and during the process they might be given the opportunity to look at (secretly, they think) another participant’s [presumably highly intuitively correct] answers before handing in their own. At the conclusion of this or any research involving deception, all participants must be told of the true nature of the study and why deception was necessary (this is called debriefing). Moreover, it is customary to offer to provide a summary of the results to all participants at the conclusion of the research.

Though commonly used and allowed by the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association, APA.org there has been debate about whether or not the use of deception should be permitted in psychological research experiments.

Those against deception object to the ethical and methodological issues involved in its use. Dresser (1981) notes that, ethically, researchers are only to use subjects in an experiment after the subject has given informed consent. However, because of its very nature, a researcher conducting a deception experiment cannot reveal its true purpose to the subject, thereby making any consent given by a subject misinformed (p. 3). BaumrindMilgram (1963) obedience experiment, argues that deception experiments inappropriately take advantage of the implicit t

rust and obedience given by the subject when the subject volunteers to participate (p. 421). (1964), criticizing the use of deception in the

From a practical perspective, there are also methodological objections to deception. Ortmann and Hertwig (1998) note that “deception can strongly affect the reputation of individual labs and the profession, thus contaminating the participant pool” (p. 806). If the subjects in the experiment are suspicious of the researcher, they are unlikely to behave as they normally would, and the researcher’s control of the experiment is then compromised (p. 807).

Those who do not object to the use of deception note that there is always a constant struggle in balancing “the need for conducting research that may solve social problems and the necessity for preserving the dignity and rights of the research participant” (Christensen, 1988, p. 670). They also note that, in some cases, using deception is the only way to obtain certain kinds of information, and that prohibiting all deception in research would “have the egregious consequence of preventing researchers from carrying out a wide range of important studies” (Kimmel, 1998, p. 805).

Additionally, findings suggest that deception is not harmful to subjects. Christensen’s (1988) review of the literature found “that research participants do not perceive that they are harmed and do not seem to mind being misled” (p. 668). Furthermore, those participating in experiments involving deception “reported having enjoyed the experience more and perceived more educational benefit” than those who participated in non-deceptive experiments (p. 668).

Lastly, it has also been suggested that an unpleasant treatment used in a deception study or the unpleasant implications of the outcome of a deception study may be the underlying reason that a study using deception is perceived as unethical in nature, rather than the actual deception itself (Broder, 1998, p. 806; Christensen, 1988, p. 671).

Definite description

Definite description

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Definite descriptions)

Jump to: navigation, search

A definite description is a denoting phrase in the form of “the X” where X is a noun-phrase or a singular common noun. The definite description is proper if X applies to a unique individual or object. For example: “the first person in space” and “the 42nd President of the United States of America”, are proper. The definite descriptions “the person in space” and “the Senator from Ohio” are improper because the noun phrase X applies to more than one thing, and the definite descriptions “the first man on Mars” and “the Senator from Washington D.C.” are improper because X applies to nothing. Improper descriptions raise some difficult questions about the law of excluded middle, denotation, modality, and mental content.

Contents [show] 1 Russell’s analysis 2 Symbolic form 3 References 4 See also 5 External links

[edit] Russell’s analysis

Main article: Theory of descriptions

France is presently a republic, and has no king. Consider the statement “The present King of France is bald.” Bertrand Russell wished to answer the question: Is this statement true, false, or is it meaningless?

It does not seem to be true, for there is no present King of France. But if it is false, then one would suppose that the negation of the statement, that is, “It is not the case that the present King of France is bald,” or its logical equivalent, “The present King of France is not bald,” is true. But that seems no more true than the original statement.

Is it meaningless, then? One might suppose so (and some philosophers have; see below) because it certainly does fail to refer, but on the other hand it seems to mean something that we can quite clearly understand.

Russell, extending the work of Gottlob Frege, proposed according to his theory of descriptions that when we say “the present King of France is bald”, we are implicitly making three separate existential assertions:

1. there is an x such that x is a present King of France (∃x(Fx))
2. for every x that is a present King of France and every y that is a present King of France, x is y (i.e., there is at most one present King of France) (∀x(Fx → ∀y(Fy → y=x)))
3. for every x that is a present King of France, x is bald. (∀x(Fx → Bx))

Taken together, these say that the present King of France is bald, which is usually expressed like so (there is some x such that x is the present King of France, and if anything happens to be the present King of France, it is x, and x is bald):

∃x(Fx & ∀y(Fy → y=x) & Bx)

This is false, since there is nothing that fulfills the existential clause (that “there is some x such that…”).
The negation of this definite description is ambiguous. When we say “the present King of France is not bald,” do we mean that he’s not bald because there is no King of France? If so we would render the sentence thus:

~∃x(Fx & ∀y(Fy → y=x) & Bx)

That is to say, there is nothing that fulfills the conditions of being the present King of France, and being the only present King of France, and being bald. This is true.
But now suppose that when we say “the present King of France is not bald,” we mean that the thing that is the present King of France isn’t bald (perhaps we mistakenly believe that there is a King of France). This would be rendered like so:

∃x(Fx & ∀y(Fy → y=x) & ~Bx)

This says, there is something that is the King of France, and anything that is the present King of France is that thing, and that thing is not bald. This is false.

Thus, “the present King of France is not bald” is both true and false, breaking the law of the excluded middle, though not at the level of logical rendering. In neither case is it meaningless or lacking in truth value, though there be no King of France.

Russell’s analysis has been attacked by P.F. Strawson, Keith Donnellan and others, and it has been defended and refined by Stephen Neale.

[edit] Symbolic form

Main article: Uniqueness quantification

When using the definite descriptor in a formal logic context, it can be symbolized by , so that

ιx(φx)

means “the such that “, and

ψ(ιx(φx))

is equivalent to “There is exactly one and it has the property “:

[edit] References

• Donnellan, Keith, “Reference and Definite Descriptions,” in Philosophical Review 75 (1966): 281-304.
• Neale, Stephen, Descriptions, MIT Press, 1990.
• Ostertag, Gary (ed.). (1998) Definite Descriptions: A Reader Bradford, MIT Press. (Includes Donnellan (1966), Chapter 3 of Neale (1990), Russell (1905), and Strawson (1950).)
• Reimer, Marga and Bezuidenhout, Anne (eds.) (2004), Descriptions and Beyond, Clarendon Press, Oxford
• Russell, Bertrand, “On Denoting,” in Mind 14 (1905): 479-493. Online text
• Strawson, P. F., “On Referring,” in Mind 59 (1950): 320-344.

[edit] See also

• Philosophy of language
• Analytic philosophy
• Bertrand Russell
• John Searle

[edit] External links

• Definite description entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[hide] v • d • e Analytic philosophy Contemporary philosophy ( analytic · continental ) Related articles Ordinary language philosophy · Philosophical logic · Philosophy of language · Philosophy of science · Postanalytic philosophy · more… Concepts in analytic philosophy Analysis · Analytic-synthetic distinction · Denotation · Defin ite description · Description · Meaning · Sense data · Sense and Reference · Paradox of analysis Theories in analytic philosophy Deflationism · Direct reference theory · Empiricism · Holism · Logical atomism · Logical positivism · Naturalism · Naturalized epistemology · Neutral monism · Particularism · Pragmatism · Reductionism · Scientism · Skepticism · Verificationism · more… Analytic philosophers J. L. Austin · Australian Realists · Alfred Ayer · Berlin Circle · G. E. M. Anscombe · C. D. Broad · Rudolf Carnap · Patricia Churchland · Daniel Dennett · Michael Dummett · Gottlob Frege · Paul Grice · Saul Kripke · Carl Hempel · G. E. Moore · Hilary Putnam · W.V.O. Quine · Bertrand Russell · Gilbert Ryle · Peter Singer · Peter Strawson · Vienna Circle · John Wisdom · Ludwig Wittgenstein · more … Portal · Category · Task Force · Stubs · Discussion

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description“

Categories: Syntactic entities | Bertrand Russell

Definition of torture

United Nations Convention Against Torture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Convention against Torture
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Type of treaty	Human rights convention
Drafted	10 December 1984[1]
Signed Location	10 December 1984 New York
Effective Condition	26 June 1987[1] 20 ratifications[2]
Signatories	77[1]
Parties	147[1]
Depositary	UN Secretary-General[3]
Languages	Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish[4]
Convention against Torture at Wikisource

Map of the world with parties to the Convention against Torture      signed and ratified      signed but not ratified      not signed and not ratified

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations, that aims to prevent torture around the world.
The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.
The text of the Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984^[1][2] it came into force on 26 June 1987.^[1] 26 June is now recognised as the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, in honour of the Convention. As of September 2010, the Convention had 147 parties.^[1] and, following ratification by the 20th state party,

Contents [show] 1 Summary 2 Main provisions 2.1 Definition of torture 2.2 Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment 2.3 Ban on refoulement 2.4 Signatories of CAT 3 Optional Protocol 3.1 Signatories of the Optional Protocol 4 Committee against Torture 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Summary

The Covenant follows the structure of the UDHR, ICCPR and the ICESCR, with a preamble and 33 articles, divided into three parts:
Part I (Articles 1-16) defines torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offence (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party’s citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offence (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 & 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).
Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).
Part II (articles 17 – 24) governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Articles 21) and allows parties to recognise the competence of the Committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention by a party (Article 22).
Part III (Articles 25 – 33) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Convention. It also includes an optional arbitration mechanism for disputes between parties (Article 30).

[edit] Main provisions

[edit] Definition of torture

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

[edit] Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever”^[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.^[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.^[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.^[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party’s effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.^[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.^[6]
Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16’s prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.^[6]
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.^[6]

[edit] Ban on refoulement

Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”.^[8] The Committee against Torture has held that this danger must be assessed not just for the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.^[9]

[edit] Signatories of CAT

Participant	Signature	Ratification, Accession (a), Succession (d)
Afghanistan	4 Feb 1985	1 Apr 1987
Albania	.	11 May 1994 a
Algeria	26 Nov 1985	12 Sep 1989
Andorra	5 Aug 2002	22-Sep-06
Antigua and Barbuda	.	19 Jul 1993 a
Argentina	4 Feb 1985	24 Sep 1986
Armenia	.	13 Sep 1993 a
Australia	10 Dec 1985	8 Aug 1989
Austria	14 Mar 1985	29 Jul 1987
Azerbaijan	.	16 Aug 1996 a
Bahamas	16-Dec-08
Bahrain	.	6 Mar 1998 a
Bangladesh	.	5 Oct 1998 a
Belarus	19 Dec 1985	13 Mar 1987
Belgium	4 Feb 1985	25 Jun 1999
Belize	.	17 Mar 1986 a
Benin	.	12 Mar 1992 a
Bolivia	4 Feb 1985	12 Apr 1999
Bosnia and Herzegovina	.	1 Sep 1993 d
Botswana	8 Sep 2000	8 Sep 2000
Brazil	23 Sep 1985	28 Sep 1989
Bulgaria	10 Jun 1986	16 Dec 1986
Burkina Faso	.	4 Jan 1999 a
Burundi	.	18 Feb 1993 a
Cambodia	.	15 Oct 1992 a
Cameroon	.	19 Dec 1986 a
Canada	23 Aug 1985	24 Jun 1987
Cape Verde	.	4 Jun 1992 a
Chad	.	9 Jun 1995 a
Chile	23 Sep 1987	30 Sep 1988
China	12 Dec 1986	4 Oct 1988
Colombia	10 Apr 1985	8 Dec 1987
Comoros	22 Sep 2000	.
Congo	.	30 Jul 2003 a
Costa Rica	4 Feb 1985	11 Nov 1993
Côte d’Ivoire	.	18 Dec 1995 a
Croatia	.	12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba	27 Jan 1986	17 May 1995
Cyprus	9 Oct 1985	18 Jul 1991
Czech Republic	.	22 Feb 1993 d
Democratic Republic of the Congo	.	18 Mar 1996 a
Denmark	4 Feb 1985	27 May 1987
Djibouti	.	5 Nov 2002 a
Dominican Republic	4 Feb 1985	.
Ecuador	4 Feb 1985	30 Mar 1988
Egypt	.	25 Jun 1986 a
El Salvador	.	17 Jun 1996 a
Equatorial Guinea	.	8 Oct 2002 a
Estonia	.	21 Oct 1991 a
Ethiopia	.	14 Mar 1994 a
Finland	4 Feb 1985	30 Aug 1989
France	4 Feb 1985	18 Feb 1986
Gabon	21 Jan 1986	8 Sep 2000
Gambia	23 Oct 1985	.
Georgia	.	26 Oct 1994 a
Germany	13 Oct 1986	1 Oct 1990
Ghana	7 Sep 2000	7 Sep 2000
Greece	4 Feb 1985	6 Oct 1988
Guatemala	.	5 Jan 1990 a
Guinea	30 May 1986	10 Oct 1989
Guinea-Bissau	12 Sep 2000	.
Guyana	25 Jan 1988	19 May 1988
Holy See	.	26 Jun 2002 a
Honduras	.	5 Dec 1996 a
Hungary	28 Nov 1986	15 Apr 1987
Iceland	4 Feb 1985	23 Oct 1996
India	14 Oct 1997	.
Indonesia	23 Oct 1985	28 Oct 1998
Ireland	28 Sep 1992	11 Apr 2002
Israel	22 Oct 1986	3 Oct 1991
Italy	4 Feb 1985	12 Jan 1989
Japan	.	29 Jun 1999 a
Jordan	.	13 Nov 1991 a
Kazakhstan	.	26 Aug 1998 a
Kenya	.	21 Feb 1997 a
Kuwait	.	8 Mar 1996 a
Kyrgyzstan	.	5 Sep 1997 a
Latvia	.	14 Apr 1992 a
Lebanon	.	5 Oct 2000 a
Lesotho	.	12 Nov 2001 a
Liberia	.	22 Sep 2004 a
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	.	16 May 1989 a
Liechtenstein	27 Jun 1985	2 Nov 1990
Lithuania	.	1 Feb 1996 a
Luxembourg	22 Feb 1985	29 Sep 1987
Madagascar	1 Oct 2001	13 Dec 2005
Malawi	.	11 Jun 1996 a
Maldives	.	20 Apr 2004 a
Mali	.	26 Feb 1999 a
Malta	.	13 Sep 1990 a
Mauritania	.	17 Nov 2004 a
Mauritius	.	9 Dec 1992 a
Mexico	18 Mar 1985	23 Jan 1986
Monaco	.	6 Dec 1991 a
Mongolia	.	24 Jan 2002 a
Montenegro	.	23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco	8 Jan 1986	21 Jun 1993
Mozambique	.	14 Sep 1999 a
Namibia	.	28 Nov 1994 a
Nauru	12 Nov 2001	.
Nepal	.	14 May 1991 a
Netherlands	4 Feb 1985	21 Dec 1988
New Zealand	14 Jan 1986	10 Dec 1989
Nicaragua	15 Apr 1985	5 Jul 2005
Niger	.	5 Oct 1998 a
Nigeria	28 Jul 1988	28 Jun 2001
Norway	4 Feb 1985	9 Jul 1986
Pakistan	17-Apr-08	3June 2010
Panama	22 Feb 1985	24 Aug 1987
Paraguay	23 Oct 1989	12 Mar 1990
Peru	29 May 1985	7 Jul 1988
Philippines	.	18 Jun 1986 a
Poland	13 Jan 1986	26 Jul 1989
Portugal	4 Feb 1985	9 Feb 1989
Qatar	.	11 Jan 2000 a
Republic of Korea [South]	.	9 Jan 1995 a
Republic of Moldova	.	28 Nov 1995 a
Romania	.	18 Dec 1990 a
Russian Federation	10 Dec 1985	3 Mar 1987
Rwanda		15 Dec 2008 a
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	.	1 Aug 2001 a
San Marino	18 Sep 2002	27 Nov 2006
São Tomé and Príncipe	6 Sep 2000	.
Saudi Arabia	.	23 Sep 1997 a
Senegal	4 Feb 1985	21 Aug 1986
Serbia	.	12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles	.	5 May 1992 a
Sierra Leone	18 Mar 1985	25 Apr 2001
Slovakia	.	28 May 1993 d
Slovenia	.	16 Jul 1993 a
Somalia	.	24 Jan 1990 a
South Africa	29 Jan 1993	10 Dec 1998
Spain	4 Feb 1985	21 Oct 1987
Sri Lanka	.	3 Jan 1994 a
Sudan	4 Jun 1986	.
Swaziland	.	26 Mar 2004 a
Sweden	4 Feb 1985	8 Jan 1986
Switzerland	4 Feb 1985	2 Dec 1986
Syrian Arab Republic	.	19 Aug 2004 a
Tajikistan	.	11 Jan 1995 a
Thailand	.	2 Oct 2007 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	.	12 Dec 1994 d
Timor-Leste	.	16 Apr 2003 a
Togo	25 Mar 1987	18 Nov 1987
Tunisia	26 Aug 1987	23 Sep 1988
Turkey	25 Jan 1988	2 Aug 1988
Turkmenistan	.	25 Jun 1999 a
Uganda	.	3 Nov 1986 a
Ukraine	27 Feb 1986	24 Feb 1987
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	15 Mar 1985	8 Dec 1988
United States of America	18 Apr 1988	21 Oct 1994
Uruguay	4 Feb 1985	24 Oct 1986
Uzbekistan	.	28 Sep 1995 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	15 Feb 1985	29 Jul 1991
Yemen	.	5 Nov 1991 a
Zambia	.	7 Oct 1998 a

[edit] Optional Protocol

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2002 and in force since 22 June 2006, provides for the establishment of “a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,”^[10] to be overseen by a Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[edit] Signatories of the Optional Protocol

As of September 2010 the Protocol has 66 signatories and 55 parties.^[11]

[edit] Committee against Torture

The Committee against Torture (CAT) is a body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the Convention by State parties. The Committee is one of eight UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. All state parties are obliged under the Convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented. Upon ratifying the Convention, states must submit a report within one year, after which they are obliged to report every four years. The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations.” Under certain circumstances, the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the Convention have been violated.
The CAT usually meets in April/May and November each year in Geneva.
The current membership of the CAT:^[12]

• Chairperson – Claudio Grossman – term expires in 2011
• Vice Chairperson – Nora Sveaass – term expires in 2013
• Vice Chairperson – Xuexian Wang – term expires in 2013
• Vice Chairperson – Essadia Belmir – term expires in 2013
• Rapporteur – Myrna Y. Kleopas – term expires in 2011
• Alessio Bruni – term expires in 2013
• Luis Gallegos Chiriboga – term expires in 2011
• Felice D. Gaer – term expires in 2011
• Abdoulaye Gaye – term expires in 2011
• Fernando Mariño Menéndez – term expires in 2013

[edit] See also

• Uses of torture in recent times

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} United Nations Treaty Collection: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved on 16 January 2010.
2. ^ ^{a b} Convention Against Torture, Article 27. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
3. ^ Convention Against Torture, Article 25. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
4. ^ Convention Against Torture, Article 33. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
5. ^ Convention Against Torture, Article 2.2. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
6. ^ ^{a b c d e f} “CAT General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties” (PDF). Committee against Torture. 2007-11-23. pp. 2. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.GC.2.CRP.1.Rev.4_en.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-16. 
7. ^ Convention Against Torture, Article 2.3. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
8. ^ Convention Against Torture, Article 3.1. Retrieved on 30 December 2008.
9. ^ “CAT General Comment No. 01: Implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22”. UN OHCHR. 1997-11-21. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/13719f169a8a4ff78025672b0050eba1?Opendocument. Retrieved 2008-06-15. 
10. ^ OPCAT, Article 1.
11. ^ “Parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. United Nations Treaty Collection. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-5&chapter=4&lang=en. Retrieved 2009-10-04. 
12. ^ “Committee Against Torture – Membership”. United Nations OHCHR. 2009. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/members.htm. Retrieved 2010-01-29. 

[edit] External links

• Official text of the Convention
• List of parties
• Optional Protocol
• U.N. Committee against Torture
• Human Rights Watch summary of the Convention
• List of links to other related documents
• Human Rights First; Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects (2008)
• Human Rights First; Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality

[show] v • d • e International human rights legal instruments [show]   Declarations Cairo Declaration of Human Rights · Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man · Paris Principles [show]   International law UN Convention Against Torture · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination · Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Convention on the Rights of the Child · Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families · International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid · International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance · International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights · International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [show]   Regional law African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights · European (Convention on Human Rights · Convention for the Prevention of Torture · Convention for the Protection of National Minorities · Social Charter) · American Convention on Human Rights · Inter-American Convention (on Forced Disappearance of Persons · to Prevent and Punish Torture · on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women · on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities) [show]   International humanitarian law Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide · Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees · Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees · Geneva Conventions · Hague Conventions · Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture“

Categories: Human rights instruments | Anti-torture laws | Laws of war | United Nations co

nventions and covenants | Treaties concluded in 1984 | Treaties entered into force in 1987

Democratic Kampuchea

Democratic Kampuchea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Democratic Kampuchea ← 1975–1979 → Flag Coat of arms Anthem Dap Prampi Mesa Chokchey Capital Phnom Penh Language(s) Khmer language Government Authoritarian Single-party Communist state Dictatorship President of the State Presidium  – 1975–1976 Norodom Sihanouk (as Prince of Cambodia)  – 1976–1982 Khieu Samphan  – 1982–1992 Norodom Sihanouk Head of Government  – 1975–1976 Samdech Penn Nouth  – 1976 Khieu Samphan  – 1976–1982 Pol Pot (also party leader from April 17, 1975 to January 7, 1979)  – 1982–1992 Son Sann Legislature Representative Assembly Historical era Cold War  – Civil War 1967–1975  – Established April 17, 1975  – Fall of Phnom Penh January 7, 1979  – CGDK formed June 22, 1982  – Vietnamese troops redrawn 1989  – Renamed to Cambodia 1990  – UNTAC established February 1979 Currency None, as money was abolished.

Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer: ) was a communist^[1] regime that between 1975 and 1979 ruled the Southeast Asia country of Cambodia. It was founded when the Khmer Rouge forces defeated the Lon Nol-led Khmer Republic. After losing control of most of Cambodian territory to Vietnamese occupation, it survived as a shadow state supported by China. In June 1982, the Khmer Rouge formed the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea with two non-communist guerilla factions, keeping the international recognition.^[2]The state was renamed back to Cambodia in 1990 in the run up to the UN-sponsored Paris Peace Agreement conference of 1991.
The Khmer Rouge were heavily influenced by Maoism,^[3] the Stalinist French Communist Party, and the writings of Marx and Lenin,^[4] as well as the ideas of Khmer racial superiority.^[1] This resulted in the drive to create both ethnically pure and classless Khmer society,^[5][1] which made the Khmer Rouge regime reminiscent of both radical Communism and national socialism, or fascism, according to some scholars.^[6][5] Others reject the notion that the regime was fascist.^[7] The governing body was referred to as “Angkar Loeu” (upper organization).^[8] The Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) leadership referred to themselves as “Angkar Padevat” during this period.^[9] Its constitution defined it as a “State of the people, workers, peasants, and all other Kampuchean labourers”^[10]
Under the leadership of Pol Pot, cities were emptied, organized religion was abolished, and private property, money and markets were eliminated.^[11] An unprecedented genocide campaign ensued that lead to annihilation of about 20% of the country’s population, with much of the killing being motivated by Khmer Rouge ideology which urged “disproportionate revenge” against rich and powerful “oppressors.”^[12][13] Victims included such class enemies as rich “capitalists,” professionals, intellectuals, police and government employees (including most of Lon Nol’s leadership),^[14] along with ethnic minorities such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Lao, Cham.^[5]
The genocide was essentially stopped only in 1979 by invasion of Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation and People’s Army of Vietnam troops, following which the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) was installed. The PRK had a pro-Soviet government, which started to recreate the totally devastated country. This process was significantly hampered by defeated Khmer Rouge forces, which regrouped along the border with Thailand and retained the structure of the DK state in the regions they controlled. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the People’s Republic of China, the Khmer Rouge’s strongest supporter,^[15] and most Western nations continued to recognize DK as the legitimate government of the country.

Contents [show] 1 History 2 Armed Forces of Democratic Kampuchea 3 Administrative divisions 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links

[edit] History

Main article: Khmer Rouge period (1975–1979)

Flag of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), the political arm of the Khmer Rouge.^[15]

In 1970, Premier Lon Nol and the National Assembly deposed Norodom Sihanouk as the head of state. Sihanouk, opposing the new government, entered into an alliance with the Khmer Rouge against them. Taking advantage of Vietnamese occupation of eastern Cambodia, massive U.S. carpet bombing ranging across the country, and Sihanouk’s reputation, the Khmer Rouge were able to present themselves as a peace-oriented party in a coalition that represented the majority of the people.
With large popular support in the countryside, they were able to take the capital Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975. They continued to use King Norodom Sihanouk as a figurehead for the government until 2 April 1976 when Sihanouk resigned as head of state. Sihanouk remained under comfortable, but insecure, house arrest in Phnom Penh, until late in the war with Vietnam he departed for the United States where he made Democratic Kampuchea’s case before the Security Council. He eventually relocated to China.
In January 1976 the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) promulgated the “Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea”. The Constitution provided for a “Kampuchean People’s Representative Assembly” (“KPRA”) to be elected by secret ballot in direct general elections and a State Praesidium to be selected and appointed every five years by the KPRA. The KPRA met only once in April 1976. The members of the KPRA, however, were never elected; the Central Committee of CPK appointed the chairman and other high officials both to it and to the State Praesidium. Plans for elections of members were discussed, but the 250 members of the KPRA were in fact appointed by the upper echelon of CPK.
Actually all power belonged to the Standing Committee of CPK, the membership of which comprised the Secretary and Prime Minister Pol Pot, his Deputy Secretary Nuon Chea and seven others. Its daily work was conducted from Office 870 in Phnom Penh. Office 870 and the Standing Committee were known also as the “Centre”, the “Organization,” or “Angkar”.
The Khmer Rouge destroyed the legal and judicial structures of the Khmer Republic. There were no courts, judges, laws or trials in Democratic Kampuchea. The “people’s courts” stipulated in A

rticle 9 of the Constitution were never established. The old legal structures were replaced by re-education, interrogation and security centres where former Khmer Republic officials and supporters, as well as others were detained and executed.^[16]
Immediately after the fall of Phnom Penh, the Khmer Rouge evacuated the city, spreading rumours that American soldiers were planning to bomb the city. The roads out of the city were clogged with evacuees. Phnom Penh —the population of which, numbering 2.5 million people, included as many as 1.5 million wartime refugees living with relatives or in urban center—was soon nearly empty. Similar evacuations occurred at Battambang, Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, and in other towns.
The Khmer Rouge justified the evacuations in terms of the impossibility of transporting sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people. Lack of adequate transportation meant that, instead of bringing food to the people, the people had to be brought to the food. The Khmer Rouge was determined to turn the country into a nation of peasants in which the corruption and “parasitism” of city life would be completely uprooted. Communalization was implemented by putting men, women and children to work in the fields, which disrupted family life. The regime claimed to have “liberated” women through this process, and according to Zal Karkaria, “appeared to have implemented Engels’s doctrine in its purest form: women produced, therefore they had been freed.”^[15] On the surface, society in Democratic Kampuchea was strictly egalitarian. This was not the case in practice however. Members and candidate members of the CPK, local-level leaders of poor peasant background who collaborated with the Angkar, and members of the armed forces had a higher standard of living than the rest of the population.^{[citation needed]}
Ironic considering the intensity of their revolutionary ideology, the Khmer Rouge leadership practiced nepotism to a level that nearly matched that of the Sihanouk-era elite. Family ties were important, both because of the culture and because of the leadership’s intense secretiveness and distrust of outsiders, especially of pro-Vietnamese communists. Greed was also a motive. Different ministries, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Industry, were controlled and exploited by powerful Khmer Rouge families. Administering the diplomatic corps was regarded as an especially profitable fiefdom.
Immediately following the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975, there were skirmishes between their troops and Vietnamese forces. A number of incidents occurred in May 1975. The following month, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary visited Hanoi. They proposed a friendship treaty between the two countries, an idea that met with a cool reception from Vietnam’s leaders.
Faced with growing Khmer Rouge belligerence, the Vietnamese leadership decided in early 1978 to support internal resistance to the Pol Pot regime, with the result that the Eastern Zone became a focus of insurrection. War hysteria reached bizarre levels within Democratic Kampuchea. In May 1978, on the eve of So Phim‘s Eastern Zone uprising, Radio Phnom Penh declared that if each Cambodian soldier killed thirty Vietnamese, only 2 million troops would be needed to eliminate the entire Vietnamese population of 50 million. It appears that the leadership in Phnom Penh was seized with immense territorial ambitions, i.e., to recover the Mekong Delta region, which they regarded as Khmer territory.
Massacres of ethnic Vietnamese and of their sympathizers by the Khmer Rouge intensified in the Eastern Zone after the May revolt. In November, Vorn Vet led an unsuccessful coup d’état. There were now tens of thousands of Cambodian and Vietnamese exiles on Vietnamese territory. On December 3, 1978, Radio Hanoi announced the formation of the Kampuchean National United Front for National Salvation (KNUFNS). This was a heterogeneous group of communist and non-communist exiles who shared an antipathy to the Pol Pot regime and a near total dependence on Vietnamese backing and protection. The KNUFNS provided the semblance, if not the reality, of legitimacy for Vietnam’s invasion of Democratic Kampuchea and for its subsequent establishment of a satellite regime in Phnom Penh.
In the meantime, as 1978 wore on, Cambodian bellicosity in the border areas surpassed Hanoi’s threshold of tolerance. Vietnamese policy makers opted for a military solution and, on December 22, Vietnam launched its offensive with the intent of overthrowing ‘Democratic Kampuchea’. An invasion force of 120,000, consisting of combined armor and infantry units with strong artillery support, drove west into the level countryside of Cambodia’s southeastern provinces. After a seventeen-day blitzkrieg, Phnom Penh fell to the advancing Vietnamese on January 7, 1979.^[17] The new administration was supported by a substantial Vietnamese military force and civilian advisory effort. As events in the 1980s progressed, the main preoccupations of the new regime were survival, restoring the economy, and combating the Khmer Rouge insurgency by military and political means.

[edit] Armed Forces of Democratic Kampuchea

Aircraft roundel of the RAK, 1975 to 1979.

As the Armed Forces of Democratic Kampuchea, the 68,000-member Khmer Rouge-dominated CPNLAF (Cambodian People’s National Liberation Armed Forces) force that completed its conquest of Cambodia in April 1975^[18] was renamed the RAK (Revolutionary Army of Kampuchea). This name was dating back to the peasant uprising that broke out in the Samlot district of Batdambang Province in 1967.
Under its long-time commander and then Minister of Defense Son Sen, the RAK had 230 battalions in 35 to 40 regiments and in 12 to 14 brigades. The command structure in units was based on three-person committees in which the political commissar ranked higher than the military commander and his deputy.
Cambodia was divided into zones and special sectors by the RAK, the boundaries of which changed slightly over the years. Within these areas, the RAK’s first task upon “liberation,” as a calculated policy, was the peremptory execution of former FANK officers and of their families, without trial or fanfare.
The next priority was to consolidate into a national army the separate forces that were operating more or less autonomously in the various zones. The Khmer Rouge units were commanded by zonal secretaries who were simultaneously party and military officers, some of whom were said to have manifested “warlord characteristics.” Troops from one zone frequently were sent to another zone to enforce discipline. It was such efforts to discipline zonal secretaries and their dissident or ideologically impure cadres that gave rise to the purges that were to decimate RAK ranks, to undermine the morale of the victorious army, and to generate the seeds of rebellion.^[19]

[edit] Administrative divisions

In 1975 the Khmer Rouge government did away with all former Cambodian traditional administrative divisions. Instead of provinces, Democratic Kampuchea was divided into seven geographic zones: The Northwest, the North, the Northeast, the East, the Southwest, the West and the Center, plus two “Special Regions”: The Kratie Special Region no 505 and (before mid-1977) the Siemreap Special Region no 106.^[20]
The regions were subdivided into smaller areas or damban. These were known by numbers, which were assigned without a seemingly coherent pattern.
These zones were derived from divisions established by the Khmer Rouge when they fought against the ill-fated Khmer Republic led by general Lon Nol.^[21]
Also during the Khmer Rouge years villages were subdivided into ‘groups’ (krom) of 15–20 households who were led by a group leader (Meh Krom). This practice continued after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Presently it is no longer part of the official administrative system and is now unevenly applied.

[edit] See also

• Agrarian socialism
• History of Cambodia
• French Indochina
• First Indochina War
• Vietnam War (Second Indochina War)
• Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia (1975–1979)
• People’s Republic of Kampuchea (Vietnamese occupation, 1979–1989)
• The Killing Fields (film)

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c} David Chandler & Ben Kiernan, ed (1983). Revolution and its Aftermath. New Haven. 
2. ^ “COALITION GOVERNMENT OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA”. countrystudies.us. http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/72.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
3. ^ Jackson, Karl D. Cambodia, 1975–1978: Rendezvous with Death. Princeton University Press. p. 219. ISBN 069102541X. 
4. ^ Ervin Staub. The roots of evil: the origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge University Press, 1989. p. 202
5. ^ ^{a b c} Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796–823
6. ^ Becker, Elizabeth. 1986. When the War Was Over. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986, p.136.
7. ^ Cyprian Blamires, Paul Jackson. World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1 ABC-CLIO, 2006. ISBN 1576079406 p. 363
8. ^ “Cambodia Since April 1975”. Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. http://www.seasite.niu.edu/khmer/Ledgerwood/Part2.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-26. 
9. ^ “A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1979)”. monument-books.com. Archived from the original on 2007-10-18. http://web.archive.org/web/20071018180334/http://monument-books.com/shop/local-publication/a-history-of-democratic-kampuchea-1975-1979.html. Retrieved 2007-11-26. 
10. ^ “Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea”. Dccam.org. http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-27. 
11. ^ Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century Cornell University Press, 2004. ISBN 0801439655 p. 127.
12. ^ Nicholas A. Robins, Adam Jones. Genocides by the oppressed: subaltern genocide in theory and practice. Indiana University Press, 2009. p. 98
13. ^ Alexander Laban Hinton. A Head for an Eye: Revenge in the Cambodian Genocide. American Ethnologist, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 352–377
14. ^ Nicholas A. Robins, Adam Jones. Genocides by the oppressed: subaltern genocide in theory and practice. Indiana University Press, 2009. p. 97
15. ^ ^{a b c} Zal Karkaria. Failure Through Neglect: The Women’s Policies of the Khmer Rouge in Comparative Perspective. Concordia University Department of History.
16. ^ Judgement of the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
17. ^ “”. “A video on Vietnamese invasion”. Youtube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_A1pzHJb-0. Retrieved 2010-07-27. 
18. ^ a video of a 1975 Khmer Rouge parade is available here [1]
19. ^ Becker, Elizabeth (1986). When the War Was over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0671417878. 
20. ^ Vickery, Michael (1984). Cambodia : 1975–1982. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0896081893. 
21. ^ Tyner, James A. (2008). The Killing of Cambodia: Geopolitics, Genocide, and the Unmaking of Space. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 9780754670964. 

[edit] Further reading

• Beang, Pivoine, and Wynne Cougill. Vanished Stories from Cambodia’s New People Under Democratic Kampuchea. Phnom Penh: Documentation Center of Cambodia, 2006. ISBN 9995060078
• Dy, Khamboly. A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1979). Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Documentation Center of Cambodia, 2007. ISBN 9995060043 Foreword
• Etcheson, Craig. The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea. Westview special studies on South and Southeast Asia. Boulder, Colo: Westview, 1984. ISBN 0865316503

definition-Copyright

Copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Copyrighting” redirects here. For the use of words to promote or advertise something, see Copywriting.

“Copyrights” redirects here. For Wikipedia policy about copyright issues, see Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Intellectual property law
Primary rights
Copyright • Patent • Trademark • Industrial design right • Utility model  • Geographical indication • Trade secret • Authors’ rights • Related rights • Moral rights
Sui generis rights
Database right • Mask work  • Plant breeders’ rights  • Supplementary protection certificate  • Indigenous intellectual property
Related topics
Criticism • Orphan works • Public domain  • more

Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation. In most jurisdictions copyright arises upon fixation and does not need to be registered. Copyright owners have the exclusive statutory right to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time, after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Uses which are covered under limitations and exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, do not require permission from the copyright owner. All other uses require permission and copyright owners can license or permanently transfer or assign their exclusive rights to others.
Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, dramatic works, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs. The British Statute of Anne 1709, full title “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned”, was the first copyright statute.
Today copyright laws have been standardized to some extent through international and regional agreements such as the Berne Convention and the European copyright directives. Although there are consistencies among nations’ copyright laws, each jurisdiction has separate and distinct laws and regulations about copyright. National copyright laws on licensing, transfer and assignment of copyright still vary greatly between countries and copyrighted works are licensed on territorial basis. Some jurisdictions also recognize moral rights of creators, such as the right to be credited for the work.

Contents [show]

[edit] Justification

Main article: Philosophy of copyright

The British Statute of Anne was the first act to directly protect the rights of authors.^[1] Under US copyright law, the justification appears in Article I, Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause. It empowers the United States Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”^[2]
According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation the purpose of copyright is twofold:

“To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public.”^[3]