They are from
AND
Britannica Concise (online)
AND
Technical Dictionary (online)
Law
civil law
Related: Codes
| as used in this article, a modern legal system based
upon Roman law
, as distinguished from common
law . Civil law is based on written legal codes, a hallmark of the
Roman legal system, in which disputes were settled by reference to a
written legal code arrived at through legislation, edicts, and the like;
common law is based on the precedents created by judicial decisions over
time. The tendency in civil law is to create a unified legal system by
working out with maximum precision the conclusions to be drawn from
basic principles. The civil law judge is bound by the provisions of the
written law. The traditional civil law decision states the applicable
provision from the code or from a relevant statute
, and the judgment is based upon that provision.
With a few exceptions, the countries on the continent of Europe, the
countries that were former colonies of such continental powers (e.g.,
the Latin American countries), and other countries that have recently
adopted Western legal systems (e.g., Japan) follow civil law. It is also
the foundation for the law of Quebec prov. and of Louisiana. Modern
countries that do not adhere to the civil law (this includes Great
Britain and all the United States except Louisiana) for the most part
were colonized by England and apply the system of common law prevailing
there. In general usage, civil law also means the rules that govern private legal affairs; in this sense it contrasts with criminal law and, to a lesser degree, public law. |
civil law
The law that had been in force throughout the Roman Empire
when it controlled most of Europe and the Middle East was to some extent
supplanted by Germanic
laws when Germanic tribes carried out their great conquests. The principle
of personal (as opposed to territorial) law was observed by the invaders,
however, and thus the former Roman subjects and their descendants were permitted
to follow the Roman law ( leges romanorum ) in their affairs with one
another. The great Corpus
Juris Civilis of Justinian, compiled in the 6th cent. AD and in use in the
Byzantine Empire, served also to keep the old law alive. The medieval church,
too, was an important guardian of Roman law, for much of the law used by the
church was based upon Roman principles and concepts. Germanic law, although at
first adequate, did not have legal concepts that suited the commercial
requirements of the late Middle Ages, and there was then heavy borrowing of
Roman ideas.
As part of a concurrent revival of interest in classical
culture, the late 11th and the 12th cent. saw the resumption of systematic study
of Roman law, chiefly in N Italy (notably at Bologna, where Irnerius
gave the first lectures in Roman law), in S France, and in Spain. Extensive
glosses and commentaries on the Corpus Juris Civilis and on other
classical texts were produced. Through the agency of scholars and of judges
trained in Roman law principles, these principles (though strongly modified)
came to be observed in national courts in all classes of legal disputes,
although for a long time courts of local jurisdiction continued to enforce
customary law. Scholars of Roman law enjoyed increasing prestige; by 1500 the Corpus
Juris Civilis had become the basis of legal science throughout Western
Europe. The next step, emulating the systematizing of Justinian, was to state
these principles in exact, ordered form, i.e., as a code
. The Code Napoléon
(1804), the most famous of such works, had many successors.
In England there was some interest in Roman law during the
Renaissance; there, however, the early centralization of the legal system and
the existence of an independent class of lawyers with an interest in the law as
administered in the courts ensured the triumph of the common law. Nevertheless,
civil law influenced the common law in the fields of admiralty law, testamentary
law, and domestic relations, and civil law became part of the basis for the
system of equity .
criminal law
| the branch of law that defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment. A tort
is a civil wrong committed against an individual; a crime, on the other
hand, is regarded as an offense committed against the public, even
though only one individual may have been wronged. The real distinction
lies in the way a remedy for the wrong is pursued. A tort is a wrong for
which the remedy is pursued by, and at the discretion of, the injured
individual or his or her representative, while a crime is a wrong for
which the wrongdoer is prosecuted by the state for the purpose of
punishment. However, the fact that a particular act has been or may be
prosecuted as a crime does not necessarily preclude an injured party
from seeking recovery from the offender in a civil action.
For an account of criminal law in ancient and medieval times, see composition
; vendetta
. See also military
law ; martial
law ; international
law ; piracy
; war crimes
. |
Military law
Court-martial
Military court for hearing charges brought against members of the armed forces or others within its jurisdiction; also, the legal proceeding of such a court. Most countries today have military codes of justice administered by military courts, often subject to civilian appellate review. Courts-martial are generally convened as ad hoc courts to try one or more cases referred by some high military authority. The convening officer chooses officers, and sometimes enlisted personnel, from his or her command to sit on the court, determine guilt or innocence, and hand down sentences. See also military law.
martial law
| temporary government and control by military authorities of a territory or state, when war or overwhelming public disturbance makes the civil authorities of the region unable to enforce its law. Martial law refers to rule by the domestic army only; the rule of occupied territory by an invading army is known as military government . During a war, a nation may invoke martial law in some or all of its territory as part of the war effort. Martial law is also applied in serious cases of internal dissension; the army authorities may take over the administrative and judicial functions, and civil safeguards (e.g., habeas corpus and freedom of speech) may also be suspended. Where the civil courts remain open, even if their orders are executed by the military, martial law is not applicable. In the United States the federal government is limited in applying martial law by the provision of Article 1, Section 9, Subsection 2, of the Constitution, which concerns the suspension of habeas corpus. In most U.S. states, martial law may be proclaimed when deemed necessary for the public's safety. However, the U.S. Supreme Court in ex parte Milligan (1866) ruled that military trial of civilians when the civil courts were functioning was unconstitutional. Martial law, which applies to all persons, civil and military, in the area is to be distinguished from military law , the system of rules of government applying only to those in military service. |
military law
| system of rules established for the government of
persons in the armed forces. In most countries the legislature
establishes the code of military law. It is distinguished from both martial
law (rule by domestic military forces over an area) and military
government (rule by the military over occupied foreign territory).
The scope of military law differs somewhat in peace and in war. In time
of peace it is generally limited to military offenses e.g., absence
without leave, desertion, breach of orders; during war it usually
extends to crimes of a civil nature as well, and the penalties may be
more severe. |
Military law
Law prescribed by statute for governing the armed forces and their civilian employees. It in no way relieves military personnel of their obligations to their country's civil code or to the codes of international law. Mutiny, insubordination, desertion, misconduct, and other offenses injurious to military discipline constitute violations of military law; offenders may be subject to court-martial. Lesser offenses may be penalized summarily by a commanding officer (e.g., through the withdrawal of privileges or the cancellation of liberty)
military law
Regular systems of military law existed in ancient Rome, with severe penalties for such offenses as desertion. In the Middle Ages procedures were less regularized, but written codes began to appear. The origin of much military law is found in the codes and statutes enacted in England in the 17th cent. These were substantially adopted in the United States.
Evidence
evidence
In criminal trials, the prosecution has to prove each
element necessary to its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil trials, on the
other hand, a party has the burden only of proving affirmative contentions by a
preponderance of the evidence. Thus the plaintiff must offer some proof of each
of the elements that combine to constitute the defendant's alleged wrong (see procedure
), while the defendant must prove his or her affirmative defenses, e.g., in a
suit for negligence
, that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury.
Satisfying the burden of proof requires the prosecutor or the
plaintiff to present evidence first. At the close of this presentation the
criminal or civil defendant may move for acquittal or a non-suit if admissible
evidence supporting necessary contentions has not been offered. Proof may be
dispensed with when an adversary formally admits a fact either in the pleadings
or in court, or when the court may take judicial notice of the fact, i.e., when
the fact is universally known or is easily ascertainable by the judge beyond
reasonable dispute.
In recent years the problems of procuring evidence have been
eased somewhat by the introduction of broader discovery (i.e., disclosure)
rules. In civil cases, these rules compel each party to a suit to allow the
other to have access to its witnesses and to certain types of evidence before
the trial. In criminal cases, the judge has the discretionary power to order
discovery; in any event, the prosecutor must release all exculpatory evidence on
request.
Allegedly damaging errors in the admission of evidence are
reviewable on appeal if an objection was made during the trial. In their final
summing up, the attorneys may make any assertion that is supported to some
degree by evidence. British judges and U.S. federal and, in some jurisdictions,
state judges are permitted to comment on the credibility of the witnesses and
the weight of the evidence. However, the judge must tell the jury that they are
not bound by his or her remarks.
See also verdict
.
evidence
Related: Law
| in law, material submitted to a judge or a judicial
body to resolve disputed questions of fact. The rules discussed in this
article were developed in England for use in jury
trials. Today, they are generally observed in all countries having the common
law , although they have been extensively modified by statute in
some jurisdictions. The first juries were not neutral triers of fact;
rather they were convened because of their immediate knowledge of the
dispute before the court. Later, the practice developed of having
witnesses testify before an impartial jury. The groundwork of the rules
of evidence was laid between 1500 and 1700. |
evidence
In criminal trials, the prosecution has to prove each
element necessary to its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil trials, on the
other hand, a party has the burden only of proving affirmative contentions by a
preponderance of the evidence. Thus the plaintiff must offer some proof of each
of the elements that combine to constitute the defendant's alleged wrong (see procedure
), while the defendant must prove his or her affirmative defenses, e.g., in a
suit for negligence
, that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury.
Satisfying the burden of proof requires the prosecutor or the
plaintiff to present evidence first. At the close of this presentation the
criminal or civil defendant may move for acquittal or a nonsuit if admissible
evidence supporting necessary contentions has not been offered. Proof may be
dispensed with when an adversary formally admits a fact either in the pleadings
or in court, or when the court may take judicial notice of the fact, i.e., when
the fact is universally known or is easily ascertainable by the judge beyond
reasonable dispute.
In recent years the problems of procuring evidence have been
eased somewhat by the introduction of broader discovery (i.e., disclosure)
rules. In civil cases, these rules compel each party to a suit to allow the
other to have access to its witnesses and to certain types of evidence before
the trial. In criminal cases, the judge has the discretionary power to order
discovery; in any event, the prosecutor must release all exculpatory evidence on
request.
Allegedly damaging errors in the admission of evidence are
reviewable on appeal if an objection was made during the trial. In their final
summing up, the attorneys may make any assertion that is supported to some
degree by evidence. British judges and U.S. federal and, in some jurisdictions,
state judges are permitted to comment on the credibility of the witnesses and
the weight of the evidence. However, the judge must tell the jury that they are
not bound by his or her remarks.
evidence
Evidence is often presented in a tense, emotional atmosphere in a courtroom long after the event in question took place. The object of the law of evidence is to assure a high probability that questions of fact are resolved correctly. To that end, material introduced at the trial is ordinarily restricted to items of great probative value; that which may arouse unreasoning passion is ordinarily excluded. The nature of the legal controversy and the written pleadings determine what assertions of fact each party must prove or disprove to win the case, and an item of evidence that at best has a remote bearing on the factual issues must be excluded as irrelevant or immaterial. A judge prefers direct evidence (such as an official document or a witness's assertion of immediate knowledge of the question at issue) to indirect or circumstantial evidence, which merely tends to establish the issue by proving surrounding circumstances from which the principal fact may be inferred.
evidence
Section: Witnesses
Related: Law
Most evidence is offered by witnesses who testify before
the court. Here, the question of the witness's personal competency must be
resolved; it must be shown that the witness was able to know, understand, and
remember the matters on which he or she is to be examined. Thus, a witness must
possess the sensory faculties needed to apprehend the facts reported and must
not be considered mentally ill or incompetent. Children offered as witnesses are
examined by the judge to determine their intelligence and understanding.
The witness is first directly examined by the party who
offers him or her, then is cross-examined by the adversary. No witness may
express an opinion on any matter when the jury can draw its own conclusions from
the facts; but on technical questions an expert witness (e.g., a physician) may
state an opinion. Hearsay declarations (e.g., testimony concerning a statement
made out of court by a person not now before the court) usually are excluded on
the grounds that the person who made the statement is not available for
cross-examination or for evaluation by the judge or jury. Only when the
circumstances of the statement afford a high probability of its truth may it be
admitted.
A witness may be excused from testifying about certain
matters if he or she pleads personal privilege. In general, information confided
in the course of the relations of attorney and client, priest and penitent,
physician and patient, and husband and wife is subject to this privilege. In
some jurisdictions such witnesses are incompetent to testify (cannot testify).
Witnesses are further protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege of withholding
evidence that might be self-incriminating. Criminal defendants have the
privilege of refusing to take the witness stand (in which case the jury may make
no negative assumptions concerning the reasons for such a refusal) and, in most
situations, evidence of previous criminal convictions is inadmissible. Under the
common law, parties to a civil suit and the defendant in a criminal action were
not permitted to testify, but these rules have been abandoned.
Papal infallibility, Inquisition
papacy| (pa´pese) , office of
the pope, head of the Roman Catholic Church. He is pope by reason of
being bishop of Rome and thus, according to Roman Catholic belief,
successor in the see of Rome (the Holy See) to its first bishop, St. Peter
. The pope therefore claims to be the shepherd of all Christians and
representative (vicar or vicegerent) of Christ. The claim of Petrine
supremacy and (by virtue of Peter's connection to Rome) Roman supremacy,
is based on Matthew 16:18-19. Papal supremacy is not acknowledged
outside the Roman Catholic Church. That church further holds that God
will not permit the pope to make an error in a solemn official
declaration concerning a matter of faith or morality (see infallibility
). The pope is also patriarch of the West; the great
majority, although not all, of the Christians recognizing his authority
as pope are also under his authority as patriarch
. This question of areas of authority is practical only with regard to
some of the Eastern-rite patriarchs who may, for example, appoint
bishops without papal confirmation. The pope generally lives in Rome, of
which a portion (Vatican City) is politically independent and under his
rule; the pope is thus head of a state and owes no political allegiance
(see Vatican
; Rome ; cardinal
; papal
election ). For a chronological list of popes and antipopes see the table entitled Popes of the Roman Catholic Church . For the ecclesiastical framework, the teaching, the history, and the geographical distribution of the church, see Roman Catholic Church . See also Christianity . |
infallibility
| (infalebil´ete) , in
Christian thought, exemption from the possibility of error, bestowed on
the church as a teaching authority, as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It has
been believed since the earliest times to be guaranteed in such
scriptural passages as John 14.16,17. The analogous attribute of the
Bible is usually called inerrancy. Protestants widely reject
infallibility of the church. The Orthodox Eastern Church holds that only
the church, taken as an integral community and spiritual body guided by
the Holy Spirit, is infallible. Roman Catholics hold that the
infallibility of the church is vested in the pope, when he speaks ex
cathedra (i.e., from the chair of Peter, as the visible head of the
church) on matters of faith and morals. Definitive pronouncements
resulting from an ecumenical council, when ratified by the pope, are
also held to be infallible. The pope speaks ex cathedra only
rarely and after long deliberation. The dogma of papal infallibility was
enunciated by the First Vatican Council (1870). |
Inquisition
| (inkwizish´en) ,
tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church established for the investigation
of heresy. Sections in this article: Introduction The Spanish Inquisition Bibliography |
In the early Middle Ages investigation of heresy was a
duty of the bishops. Alarmed especially by the spread of Albigensianism (see Albigenses
), the popes issued increasingly stringent instructions as to the methods for
dealing with heretics. Finally, in 1233, Pope Gregory IX established the papal
Inquisition, dispatching Dominican friars to S France to conduct inquests.
When an inquisitor arrived, a month of grace was allowed to
all who wished to confess to heresy and to recant; these were given a light
penance, which was intended to confirm their faith. After the period of grace,
persons accused of heresy who had not abjured were brought to trial. The
defendants were not given the names of their accusers, but they could name their
enemies and thus nullify any testimony by these persons. After 1254 the accused
had no right to counsel, but those found guilty could appeal to the pope. The
trials were conducted secretly in the presence of a representative of the bishop
and of a stipulated number of local laymen. Torture of the accused and his
witnesses soon became customary and notorious, despite the long-standing papal
condemnation of torture (e.g., by Nicholas I); Innocent IV ultimately permitted
torture in cases of heresy.
Most trials resulted in a guilty verdict, and the church
handed the condemned over to the secular authorities for punishment. Burning at
the stake was thought to be the fitting punishment for unrecanted heresy,
probably through analogy with the Roman law on treason. However, the burning of
heretics was not common in the Middle Ages; the usual punishments were penance,
fine, and imprisonment. A verdict of guilty also meant the confiscation of
property by the civil ruler, who might turn over part of it to the church. This
practice led to graft, blackmail, and simony and also created suspicion of some
of the inquests. Generally the inquisitors were eager to receive abjurations of
heresy and to avoid trials. Secular rulers came to use the persecution of heresy
as a weapon of state, as in the case of the suppression of the Knights
Templars .
The Inquisition was an emergency device and was employed
mainly in S France, N Italy, and Germany. In 1542, Paul III assigned the
medieval Inquisition to the Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office.
This institution, which became known as the Roman Inquisition, was intended to
combat Protestantism, but it is perhaps best known historically for its
condemnation of Galileo. After the Second Vatican Conference, it was replaced
(1965) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which governs
vigilance in matters of faith.
Inquisition
Section: The Spanish Inquisition
Related: Roman
Catholic
The Spanish Inquisition was independent of the medieval Inquisition. It was established (1478) by Ferdinand and Isabella with the reluctant approval of Sixtus IV. One of the first and most notorious heads was Tomas de Torquemada . It was entirely controlled by the Spanish kings, and the pope's only hold over it was in naming the inquisitor general. The popes were never reconciled to the institution, which they regarded as usurping a church prerogative.
human rights
human rights
Related: International
Law
| universal rights held to belong to individuals by
virtue of their being human, encompassing civil, political, economic,
social, and cultural rights and freedoms, and based on the notion of
personal human dignity and worth. Conceptually derived from the theory
of natural
law and originating in Greco-Roman doctrines, the idea of human
rights appears in some early Christian writers' works and is reflected
in the Magna
Carta (1215). The concept winds as a philosophical thread through
17th- and 18th-century European and American thought, including the Declaration
of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789). The United Nation's
Commission on Human Rights, with Eleanor Roosevelt
as chair, created the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),
which reasserted the concept of human rights after the horrors of World
War II. Human rights have since become a universally espoused yet widely
disregarded concept. Organizations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch promote human rights and
denounce human-rights abuses. In addition, such abuses around the world
are monitored and documented by independent investigators ( “special
rapporteurs” ) appointed by the UN Human Rights Commission, which, in
turn, rebukes cited nations for their human-rights failures. The
charging in 1998 by a Spanish court of former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet
with human-rights violations and the 1999 British ruling that he could
be extradited to Spain, as well as the indictment and arrest (2000) in
Senegal of former Chadian president Hissène Habré for human-rights
violations during his presidency (although charges were later dropped),
were regarded as steps forward in the international protection of human
rights. See also civil rights ; war crimes . |
Declaration
of Independence
Section: The Road to Its Adoption
Related: United
States History
Official acts that colonists considered infringements upon
their rights had previously led to the Stamp Act Congress (1765) and to the
First Continental Congress (1774), but these were predominantly conservative
assemblies that sought redress from the crown and reconciliation, not
independence. The overtures of the First Continental Congress in 1774 came to
nothing, discontent grew, and as the armed skirmishes at Lexington and Concord
(Apr. 19, 1775) developed into the American Revolution, many members of the
Second Continental
Congress of Philadelphia followed the leadership of John Hancock, John
Adams, and Samuel Adams in demanding independence.
The delegates from Virginia and North Carolina were in fact
specifically instructed on independence and on June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee
called for a resolution of independence. On June 11, John Adams, Benjamin
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were
instructed to draft such a declaration; the actual writing was entrusted to
Jefferson. The first draft was revised by Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson before
it was sent to Congress, where it was again changed. That final draft was
adopted July 4, 1776, and Independence Day has been the chief American patriotic
holiday ever since. It is interesting to note, however, that the July 4 document
is merely a fuller statement justifying the resolution of independence adopted
by Congress July 2, 1776.
Declaration
of Independence
Section: The Declaration and Its Importance
Related: United
States History
The Declaration of Independence is the most important of
all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a
justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique
combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a
detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring
power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its
purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed
copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory
of natural rights
, which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean
Jacques Rousseau.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.”
Then follows an indictment of George III for willfully
infringing those rights in order to establish an “absolute Tyranny” over the
colonies. The document states that colonial patience had achieved nothing and
therefore the colonists found themselves forced to declare their independence.
The stirring closing paragraph is the formal pronouncement of independence and
is borrowed from the resolution of July 2.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of
America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of
the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that
they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought
to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full
Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and
to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And
for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes and
our sacred Honor.”
Madison,
James
Section: Master Builder of the Constitution
Related: United
States History Biographies
Madison played important role in bringing about the conference between Maryland and Virginia concerning navigation of the Potomac. The meetings at Alexandria and Mt. Vernon in 1785 led to the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and at that conference he endorsed New Jersey's motion to call a Constitutional Convention for May, 1787. With Alexander Hamilton he became the leading spokesman for a thorough reorganization of the existing government, and his influence on the Virginia plan, which advocated a strong central government, is evident.
Constitutional
Convention
Section: The Road to the Convention
Related: United
States History
The government adopted by the Thirteen Colonies in America (see Confederation, Articles of , and Continental Congress ) soon showed serious faults. Congress, powerless to enforce its legislation, was unable to obtain adequate financial support. Although its achievements were not so inconsiderable as has been commonly thought, Congress was, on the whole, impotent, and federal authority was too weak to be of consequence. The central government also was unable to require fulfillment of any obligations it entered into with foreign nations.
Constitutional
Convention
Section: The Constitution Emerges
Related: United
States History
The convention at Philadelphia drew up one of the most influential documents of Western world history, the Constitution of the United States. All the states except Rhode Island sent representatives. The delegates mainly came from the wealthier and more conservative ranks of society and included, besides Washington and the other proponents already mentioned, such leaders as Edmund Randolph , Gouverneur Morris , Robert Morris, William Paterson , Charles Pinckney , Charles Cotesworth Pinckney , Abraham Baldwin , Luther Martin , and Roger Sherman .
SP and SP Acts
| Def:
"A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology™ or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts. " LRH |
| Comment:
Real Why? The above legal definition of SP is very subjective and sets the 'High Crime' section up for being possibly the "REAL WHY' for a lot of troubles and controversy. In law you have "legally insane" as a narrow, non medical definition. The SP definition here is the "Legally SP" and not clearly based on any technical facts. Thus it is used as a label you can put on opponents and enemies. This sets the stage for a Games Condition. |
| Def:
" SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology™ or a Scientologist and which are listed at length below." LRH |
| Comment:
Why?
Any group has a right to defend itself. Calling opponents ' names' are part of the Game. To make this into unchangeable law - against one's own basic principles - accounts however for much of the troubles CoS has had over the years. LRH was a passionate defender of his teachings. Most trail blazers are. He was at war with powerful opponents and enemies. War may warrant Martial law. To make it permanent, degrades the group into thinking that warrior behavior is normal, and basic principles can be ignored at will. |
| Since Martial law allows for setting aside
Civil rights for as long as it is in force it is used repeatedly
below as a frame of reference. A government also uses 'state of
emergency'. But since that has a Scientology™ meaning it would
confuse the language, thus Martial law:
Martial law (Britannica abbr.) |
| Tech Dictionary:
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS , 1. acts calculated
to impede or destroy Scn or a Scientologist. (HCO PL 23 Dec 65) 2.
actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce
or impede Scn or Scientologists. (HCO PL 23 Dec 65) Tech Dictionary:
|
That's all, folks. Use links for more info.