title: Maluku (province)

text: Other musical instruments is the Sawat. Sawat is a blend of Maluku culture and Middle Eastern culture. In a few centuries ago, the Arabs came to spread Islam in Maluku, then there was a mixture of cultures including music. It is evident in several Sawat musical instruments, such as Tambourines and Flutes that characterize Arabian music instruments.


title: Maluku (province)

text: Outside of the variety of musical instruments, Moluccan people are famous for being good at singing. Since long ago they have often sung in accompanying traditional dances. There are many famous Moluccan singers in both Indonesia and the Netherlands, such as Broery Pesulima, Daniel Sahuleka, Ruth Sahanaya, Eric Papilaya, Glen Fredly, etc.


title: Maluku (province)

text: The famous dance from the Moluccas is the Cakalele which describes the might of the Moluccas. This dance is usually performed by adult men while holding Parang and Salawaku (Shield).


title: Maluku (province)

text: There are also other dances like Saureka-Reka that use the sago palm fronds. The dances performed by six women really need accuracy and speed while accompanied by a very interesting musical rhythm.


title: Maluku (province)

text: The dance which is a depiction of youth association is Katreji. Katreji dance is played in pairs between women and men with varied energetic and interesting movements. This dance is almost the same as European dances in general because Katreji is also an acculturation of European (Portuguese and Dutch) culture with Maluku culture. This is more evident in every signal in changing floor patterns and movements which still use Portuguese and Dutch as a process of bilingualism. This dance is accompanied by a violin instrument, bamboo flute, ukulele, karakas, guitar, tifa, and bass guitar with a more prominent western (European) musical pattern. This dance is still performed by the people of Maluku until now.


title: Maluku (province)

text: In addition to Katreji, the famous European influence is Polonaise, which is usually carried out by Moluccans at the time of marriage by each party member in pairs, forming a circle formation and carrying out light movements that can be followed by everyone, both young and old.


title: Maluku (province)

text: In addition, there is also a Crazy Bamboo Dance. Crazy bamboo dance is a special dance that is magical, originating from Suli Village. The uniqueness of this dance is that the dancers are burdened by bamboo which can move uncontrollably and this dance can be followed by anyone.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: Minsk is an aircraft carrier (heavy aircraft cruiser in Russian classification) that served the Soviet Navy and the Russian Navy from 1978 to 1994. She was the second vessel to be built.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: Named after the capital city of Belarus, "Minsk" was laid down in 1972, launched on 30 September 1975, completed on 27 September 1978, and decommissioned on 30 June 1993.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: "Minsk" operated with the Pacific Fleet. Shortly after the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, "Minsk" was deployed to the South China Sea, making a port of call at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, in September 1980. She visited Vietnam again in 1982 during her second deployment before sailing onto the Indian Ocean. In 1984, "Minsk", the landing ship "Aleksandr Nikolayev", and Vietnam forces conducted the Soviet Navy's first amphibious landing in Vietnam.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: Soviet cosmonaut Oleg Grigoriyevich Kononenko survived an aircraft ejection on the "Minsk" in 1979. On September 8, 1980, he was killed in the crash of a Yakovlev Yak-38 VTOL fighter on the "Minsk".


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: The carrier was retired as a result of a major accident (details not known) which required the facilities at the Chernomorskiy yard, in Mykolayiv, located in the newly independent Ukraine (the reasons for not attempting a repair are not known).


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: In 1995 "Minsk" was sold for scrap to a South Korean company. Due to protests from South Korean environmentalists, the ship was resold to the Chinese state-owned Guangdong Ship Dismantling Company. The ship was again saved from the scrapyard when a group of Chinese video-game arcade owners formed the Shenzhen Minsk Investment Company to buy the ship for $4.3 million.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: "Minsk" became the centerpiece of a military theme park in Yantian district, Shatoujiao (沙头角) sub-district, Shenzhen called Minsk World. However, the Shenzhen Minsk company went bankrupt in 2006, and the carrier was put up for auction on 22 March 2006. On 31 May 2006, the carrier was sold in Shenzhen for 128 million RMB to CITIC Shenzhen.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: The ship was again sold to Dalian Yongjia Group, a real estate company in Dalian in North China, on 1 January 2013. On 3 April 2016, Chinese news reported the aircraft carrier had been towed to a new destination, Zhoushan for refit, because of the decline of the number of tourists after 2006.


title: Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk

text: After the refit is completed, the ship is to be taken to Nantong on the Yangtse River in Jiangsu Province and moored to the west of Sutong Yangtze River Bridge as part of a new theme park which was planned to open in 2017. As of 2018, the project is delayed.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: In economics, hyperbolic discounting is a time-"inconsistent" model of delay discounting. It is one of the cornerstones of behavioral economics and its brain-basis is actively being studied by neuroeconomics researchers.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: According to the discounted utility approach, intertemporal choices are no different from other choices, except that some consequences are delayed and hence must be anticipated and discounted (i.e., reweighted to take into account the delay).


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Given two similar rewards, humans show a preference for one that arrives sooner rather than later. Humans are said to "discount" the value of the later reward, by a factor that increases with the length of the delay. In the financial world, this process is normally modeled in the form of exponential discounting, a time-"consistent" model of discounting. Many psychological studies have since demonstrated deviations in instinctive preference from the constant discount rate assumed in exponential discounting. Hyperbolic discounting is an alternative mathematical model that agrees more closely with these findings.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: According to hyperbolic discounting, valuations fall relatively rapidly for earlier delay periods (as in, from now to one week), but then fall more slowly for longer delay periods (for instance, more than a few days). For example, in an early study subjects said they would be indifferent between receiving $15 immediately or $30 after 3 months, $60 after 1 year, or $100 after 3 years. These indifferences reflect annual discount rates that declined from 277% to 139% to 63% as delays got longer. This contrasts with exponential discounting, in which valuation falls by a constant factor per unit delay and the discount rate stays the same.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The standard experiment used to reveal a test subject's hyperbolic discounting curve is to compare short-term preferences with long-term preferences. For instance: "Would you prefer a dollar today or three dollars tomorrow?" or "Would you prefer a dollar in one year or three dollars in one year and one day?" It has been claimed that a significant fraction of subjects will take the lesser amount today, but will gladly wait one extra day in a year in order to receive the higher amount instead. Individuals with such preferences are described as "present-biased".


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The most important consequence of hyperbolic discounting is that it creates temporary preferences for small rewards that occur sooner over larger, later ones. Individuals using hyperbolic discounting reveal a strong tendency to make choices that are inconsistent over time – they make choices today that their future self would prefer not to have made, despite knowing the same information. This dynamic inconsistency happens because hyperbolas distort the relative value of options with a fixed difference in delays in proportion to how far the choice-maker is from those options.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The phenomenon of hyperbolic discounting is implicit in Richard Herrnstein's "matching law", which states that when dividing their time or effort between two non-exclusive, ongoing sources of reward, most subjects allocate in direct proportion to the rate and size of rewards from the two sources, and in inverse proportion to their delays. That is, subjects' choices "match" these parameters.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: After the report of this effect in the case of delay, George Ainslie pointed out that in a single choice between a larger, later and a smaller, sooner reward, inverse proportionality to delay would be described by a plot of value by delay that had a hyperbolic shape, and that when the smaller, sooner reward is preferred, this preference can be reversed by increasing both rewards' delays by the same absolute amount. Ainslie's research showed that a substantial number of subjects reported that they would prefer $50 immediately rather than $100 in six months, but would NOT prefer $50 in 3 months rather than $100 in nine months, even though this was the same choice seen at 3 months’ greater distance. More significantly, those subjects who said they preferred $50 in 3 months to $100 in 9 months said they would NOT prefer $50 in 12 months to $100 in 18 months—again, the same pair of options at a different distance—showing that the preference-reversal effect did not depend on the excitement of getting an immediate reward. Nor does it depend on human culture; the first preference reversal findings were in rats and pigeons.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Many subsequent experiments have confirmed that spontaneous preferences by both human and nonhuman subjects follow a hyperbolic curve rather than the conventional, exponential curve that would produce consistent choice over time. For instance, when offered the choice between $50 now and $100 a year from now, many people will choose the immediate $50. However, given the choice between $50 in five years or $100 in six years almost everyone will choose $100 in six years, even though that is the same choice seen at five years' greater distance.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Hyperbolic discounting has also been found to relate to real-world examples of self-control. Indeed, a variety of studies have used measures of hyperbolic discounting to find that drug-dependent individuals discount delayed consequences more than matched nondependent controls, suggesting that extreme delay discounting is a fundamental behavioral process in drug dependence. Some evidence suggests pathological gamblers also discount delayed outcomes at higher rates than matched controls. Whether high rates of hyperbolic discounting precede addictions or vice versa is currently unknown, although some studies have reported that high-rate discounters are more likely to consume alcohol and cocaine than lower-rate discounters. Likewise, some have suggested that high-rate hyperbolic discounting makes unpredictable (gambling) outcomes more satisfying.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The degree of discounting is vitally important in describing hyperbolic discounting, especially in the discounting of specific rewards such as money. The discounting of monetary rewards varies across age groups due to the varying discount rate. The rate depends on a variety of factors, including the species being observed, age, experience, and the amount of time needed to consume the reward.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Suppose that in a study, participants are offered the choice between taking "x" dollars immediately or taking "y" dollars "n" days later. Suppose further that one participant in that study employs exponential discounting and another employs hyperbolic discounting. Both participants know that they can invest the money they receive today in a savings plan that gives them an interest of "r". Both of them realize that they should take "x" dollars immediately if the future value of the savings plan will yield more than "y" dollars "n" days later. Each participant correctly understands the fundamental question being asked: "For any given value of "y" dollars and "n" days, what is the minimum amount "x" of dollars, that I should be willing to accept? In other words, how many dollars would I need to invest today to get "y" dollars "n" days from now?" Each will take "x" dollars if "x" is greater than the answer that they calculate, and each will take "y" dollars "n" days from now if "x" is smaller than that answer. However, the methods that they use to calculate that amount and the answers that they get will be different, and only the exponential discounter will use the correct method and get a reliably correct result:


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: As "n" becomes very large, the value of (1 + "r")"" becomes much larger than the value of [1 + "n"×"r"], with the effect that the value of "y" / (1 + "r")"" becomes much smaller than the value of "y"/["1 + n×r"]. Therefore, the minimum value of "x" (the number of dollars in the immediate choice) that suffices to be greater than that amount will be much smaller than the hyperbolic discounter thinks, with the result that they will perceive "x"-values in the range from "y"/(1 + "r" )"" to "y"/["1 + n×r"] inclusive as being too small and, as a result, irrationally turn those alternatives down when they are in fact the better investment.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: where "g"("D") is the discount factor that multiplies the value of the reward, "D" is the delay in the reward, and "k" is a parameter governing the degree of discounting (for example, the interest rate). This is compared with the formula for exponential discounting:


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: If formula_3 is an exponential discounting function and formula_4 a hyperbolic function (with "D" the number of weeks of delay), then the exponential discounting a week later from "now" ("D"=0) is formula_5, and the exponential discounting a week from week "D" is formula_6, which means they are the same. For "g"("D"), formula_7, which is the same as for "f", while formula_8. From this one can see that the two types of discounting are the same "now", but when "D" is much greater than 1, for instance 52 (one year), formula_9 will tend to go to 1, so that the hyperbolic discounting of a week in the far future is virtually zero, while the exponential discount factor is still 1/2, so there is still substantial discounting in the far future.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The "quasi-hyperbolic" discount function, proposed by Laibson (1997), approximates the hyperbolic discount function above in discrete time by


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: where "β" and "δ" are constants between 0 and 1; and again "D" is the delay in the reward, and "f"("D") is the discount factor. The condition "f"(0) = 1 is stating that rewards taken at the present time are not discounted.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Quasi-hyperbolic time preferences are also referred to as "beta-delta" preferences. They retain much of the analytical tractability of exponential discounting while capturing the key qualitative feature of discounting with true hyperbolas.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Whether discounting future gains is rational or not—and at what rate such gains should be discounted—depends greatly on circumstances. Many examples exist in the financial world, for example, where it is reasonable to assume that there is an implicit risk that the reward will not be available at the future date, and furthermore that this risk increases with time. Consider paying $50 for dinner today or delaying payment for sixty years but paying $100,000. In this case, the restaurateur would be reasonable to discount the promised future value as there is significant risk that it might not be paid (e.g. due to the death of the restaurateur or the diner).


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Uncertainty of this type can be quantified with Bayesian analysis. For example, suppose that the probability for the reward to be available after time "t" is, for known hazard rate λ,


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: which is exactly the hyperbolic discount rate. Similar conclusions can be obtained from other plausible distributions for λ.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: More recently these observations about discount functions have been used to study saving for retirement, personal income to drug addiction., borrowing on credit cards, and procrastination.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Hyperbolic discounting has also been offered as an explanation of the divergence between privacy attitudes and behaviour.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: where "V" is the present value, "P" is the annual cash flow, "D" is the number of annual payments and "k" is the factor governing the discounting.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Several alternative explanations of non-exponential discounting have been proposed. An article from 2003 noted that this pattern might be better explained by a similarity heuristic than by hyperbolic discounting. Subjects have also reported changing relative preferences as they see more details of what they are choosing—a “temporal construal” effect.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: A study by Daniel Read introduces "subadditive discounting": the fact that discounting over a delay increases if the delay is divided into smaller intervals. This hypothesis may explain the main finding of many studies in support of hyperbolic discounting—the observation that impatience declines with time–while also accounting for observations not predicted by hyperbolic discounting. However, although these observations depart from exponential discounting, they do not entail preference reversal as time from the choice to the earlier reward increases.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: Arousal of appetite or emotion does sometimes lead to preference reversal, and this has been the most widely accepted alternative to a simply hyperbolic function: hyperboloid or quasi-hyperbolic discounting fuses exponential curves with an arousal bump as a visceral reward becomes imminent. Such cases are obviously important, but still do not account for cases where either both or neither choice is made during arousal.


title: Hyperbolic discounting

text: The most obvious objection to hyperbolic discounting is that many or most people learn to choose consistently over time in most situations. Similarly, a 2014 paper criticized the existing studies for mostly using data collected from university students and being too quick to conclude that the hyperbolic model of discounting is correct. Human experiments have frequently reported wide between-subject variations. If overcoming the tendency to temporary preference takes learning, the next obvious task for experimenters is to test theories of how and when this learning occurs (e.g. Ainslie, 2012).


title: Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

text: It has been estimated that prior to the end of the Pacific War in August 1945, 10 million members of the Imperial Japanese military were captured alive or surrendered to Western Allied forces. Also, Soviet troops seized and imprisoned more than half a million Japanese troops and civilians in China and other places. The number of Japanese soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who surrendered was limited by the Japanese military indoctrinating its personnel to fight to the death, Allied combat personnel often being unwilling to take prisoners, and many Japanese soldiers believing that those who surrendered would be killed by their captors.


text: Western Allied governments and senior military commanders directed that Japanese POWs be treated in accordance with relevant international conventions. In practice though, many Allied soldiers were unwilling to accept the surrender of Japanese troops because of atrocities committed by the Japanese. A campaign launched in 1944 to encourage prisoner-taking was partially successful, and the number of prisoners taken increased significantly in the last year of the war.


text: Japanese POWs often believed that by surrendering they had broken all ties with Japan, and many provided military intelligence to the Allies. The prisoners taken by the Western Allies were held in generally good conditions in camps located in Australia, New Zealand, India and the United States. Those taken by the Soviet Union were treated harshly in work camps located in Siberia. Following the war the prisoners were repatriated to Japan, though the United States and Britain retained thousands until 1946 and 1947 respectively and the Soviet Union continued to hold as many as hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs until the early 1950s. The Soviet Union gradually released some POWs throughout the next few decades, but some did not return until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, while others who had settled and started families in the Soviet Union opted to remain.


text: During the 1920s and 1930s, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) adopted an ethos which required soldiers to fight to the death rather than surrender. This policy reflected the practices of Japanese warfare in the pre-modern era. During the Meiji period the Japanese government adopted western policies towards POWs, and few of the Japanese personnel who surrendered in the Russo-Japanese War were punished at the end of the war. Prisoners captured by Japanese forces during this and the First Sino-Japanese War and World War I were also treated in accordance with international standards. The relatively good treatment that prisoners in Japan received was used as a propaganda tool, exuding a sense of "chivalry" in comparison to the more barbaric perception of Asia that the Meiji government wished to avoid. Attitudes towards surrender hardened after World War I. While Japan signed the 1929 Geneva Convention covering treatment of POWs, it did not ratify the agreement, claiming that surrender was contrary to the beliefs of Japanese soldiers. This attitude was reinforced by the indoctrination of young people.


text: The Japanese military's attitude towards surrender was institutionalized in the 1941 "Code of Battlefield Conduct" ("Senjinkun"), which was issued to all Japanese soldiers. This document sought to establish standards of behavior for Japanese troops and improve discipline and morale within the Army, and included a prohibition against being taken prisoner. The Japanese Government accompanied the "Senjinkun"'s implementation with a propaganda campaign which celebrated people who had fought to the death rather than surrender during Japan's wars. While the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) did not issue a document equivalent to the "Senjinkun", naval personnel were expected to exhibit similar behavior and not surrender. Most Japanese military personnel were told that they would be killed or tortured by the Allies if they were taken prisoner. The Army's Field Service Regulations were also modified in 1940 to replace a provision which stated that seriously wounded personnel in field hospitals came under the protection of the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Sick and Wounded Armies in the Field with a requirement that the wounded not fall into enemy hands. During the war, this led to wounded personnel being either killed by medical officers or given grenades to commit suicide. Aircrew from Japanese aircraft which crashed over Allied-held territory also typically committed suicide rather than allow themselves to be captured.


text: While scholars disagree over whether the "Senjinkun" was legally binding on Japanese soldiers, the document reflected Japan's societal norms and had great force over both military personnel and civilians. In 1942 the Army amended its criminal code to specify that officers who surrendered soldiers under their command faced at least six months imprisonment, regardless of the circumstances in which the surrender took place. This change attracted little attention, however, as the "Senjinkun" imposed more severe consequences and had greater moral force.


text: The indoctrination of Japanese military personnel to have little respect for the act of surrendering led to conduct which Allied soldiers found deceptive. During the Pacific War, there were incidents where Japanese soldiers feigned surrender in order to lure Allied troops into ambushes. In addition, wounded Japanese soldiers sometimes tried to use hand grenades to kill Allied troops attempting to assist them. Japanese attitudes towards surrender also contributed to the harsh treatment which was inflicted on the Allied personnel they captured.


text: Not all Japanese military personnel chose to follow the precepts set out on the "Senjinkun". Those who chose to surrender did so for a range of reasons including not believing that suicide was appropriate or lacking the will to commit the act, bitterness towards officers, and Allied propaganda promising good treatment. During the later years of the war Japanese troops' morale deteriorated as a result of Allied victories, leading to an increase in the number who were prepared to surrender or desert. During the Battle of Okinawa, 11,250 Japanese military personnel (including 3,581 unarmed labourers) surrendered between April and July 1945, representing 12 percent of the force deployed for the defense of the island. Many of these men were recently conscripted members of "Boeitai" home guard units who had not received the same indoctrination as regular Army personnel, but substantial numbers of IJA soldiers also surrendered.


text: Japanese soldiers' reluctance to surrender was also influenced by a perception that Allied forces would kill them if they did surrender, and historian Niall Ferguson has argued that this had a more important influence in discouraging surrenders than the fear of disciplinary action or dishonor. In addition, the Japanese public was aware that US troops sometimes mutilated Japanese casualties and sent trophies made out of body-parts home from media reports of two high-profile incidents in 1944 in which a letter-opener carved from a bone of a Japanese soldier was presented to President Roosevelt and a photo of the skull of a Japanese soldier which had been sent home by a US soldier was published in the magazine "Life". In these reports Americans were portrayed as "deranged, primitive, racist and inhuman". Hoyt in "Japan’s war: the great Pacific conflict" argues that the Allied practice of taking bones from Japanese corpses home as souvenirs was exploited by Japanese propaganda very effectively, and "contributed to a preference to death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings".


text: The causes of the phenomenon that Japanese often continued to fight even in hopeless situations has been traced to a combination of Shinto, messhi hōkō (self-sacrifice for the sake of group), and Bushido. However, a factor equally strong or even stronger to those, was the fear of torture after capture. This fear grew out of years of battle experiences in China, where the Chinese guerrillas were considered expert torturers, and this fear was projected onto the American soldiers who also were expected to torture and kill surrendered Japanese. During the Pacific War the majority of Japanese military personnel did not believe that the Allies treated prisoners correctly, and even a majority of those who surrendered expected to be killed.


text: The Western Allies sought to treat captured Japanese in accordance with international agreements which governed the treatment of POWs. Shortly after the outbreak of Pacific War in December 1941, the British and United States governments transmitted a message to the Japanese government through Swiss intermediaries asking if Japan would abide by the 1929 Geneva Convention. The Japanese Government responded stating that while it had not signed the convention, Japan would treat POWs in accordance with its terms; in effect though, Japan had willfully ignored the convention's requirements. While the Western Allies notified the Japanese government of the identities of Japanese POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention's requirements, this information was not passed onto the families of the captured men as the Japanese government wished to maintain that none of its soldiers had been taken prisoner.


text: Allied combatants were reluctant to take Japanese prisoners at the start of the Pacific War. During the first two years following the US entry into the war, US combatants were generally unwilling to accept the surrender of Japanese soldiers due to a combination of racist attitudes and anger at Japan's war crimes committed against US and Allied nationals such as its widespread mistreatment or summary execution of Allied POWs. Australian soldiers were also reluctant to take Japanese prisoners for similar reasons. Incidents in which Japanese soldiers booby-trapped their dead and wounded or pretended to surrender in order to lure Allied combatants into ambushes were well known within the Allied militaries and also hardened attitudes against seeking the surrender of Japanese on the battlefield. As a result, Allied troops believed that their Japanese opponents would not surrender and that any attempts to surrender were deceptive; for instance, the Australian jungle warfare school advised soldiers to shoot any Japanese troops who had their hands closed while surrendering. Furthermore, in many instances, Japanese soldiers who had surrendered were killed on the front line or while being taken to POW compounds. The nature of jungle warfare also contributed to prisoners not being taken, as many battles were fought at close ranges where participants "often had no choice but to shoot first and ask questions later".


text: Despite the attitudes of combat troops and nature of the fighting, Allied militaries made systematic efforts to take Japanese prisoners throughout the war. Each US Army division was assigned a team of Japanese Americans whose duties included attempting to persuade Japanese personnel to surrender. Allied forces mounted an extensive psychological warfare campaign against their Japanese opponents to lower their morale and encourage surrender. This included dropping copies of the Geneva Conventions and 'surrender passes' on Japanese positions. This campaign was undermined by Allied troops' reluctance to take prisoners, however. As a result, from May 1944, senior US Army commanders authorized and endorsed educational programs which aimed to change the attitudes of front line troops. These programs highlighted the intelligence which could be gained from Japanese POWs, the need to honor surrender leaflets, and the benefits which could be gained by encouraging Japanese forces to not fight to the last man. The programs were partially successful, and contributed to US troops taking more prisoners. In addition, soldiers who witnessed Japanese troops surrender were more willing to take prisoners themselves.


text: Survivors of ships sunk by Allied submarines frequently refused to surrender, and many of the prisoners who were captured by submariners were taken by force. US Navy submarines were occasionally ordered to obtain prisoners for intelligence purposes, and formed special teams of personnel for this purpose. Overall, however, Allied submariners usually did not attempt to take prisoners, and the number of Japanese personnel they captured was relatively small. The submarines which took prisoners normally did so towards the end of their patrols so that they did not have to be guarded for a long time.


text: Allied forces continued to kill many Japanese personnel who were attempting to surrender throughout the war. It is likely that more Japanese soldiers would have surrendered if they had not believed that they would be killed by the Allies while trying to do so. Fear of being killed after surrendering was one of the main factors which influenced Japanese troops to fight to the death, and a wartime US Office of Wartime Information report stated that it may have been more important than fear of disgrace and a desire to die for Japan. Instances of Japanese personnel being killed while attempting to surrender are not well documented, though anecdotal accounts provide evidence that this occurred.


text: Estimates of the numbers of Japanese personnel taken prisoner during the Pacific War differ. Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata states that up to 50,000 Japanese became POWs before Japan's surrender. The Japanese Government's wartime POW Information Bureau believed that 42,543 Japanese surrendered during the war; a figure also used by Niall Ferguson who states that it refers to prisoners taken by United States and Australian forces. Ulrich Straus states that about 35,000 were captured by western Allied and Chinese forces, and Robert C. Doyle gives a figure of 38,666 Japanese POWs in captivity in camps run by the western Allies at the end of the war. Alison B. Gilmore has also calculated that Allied forces in the South West Pacific Area alone captured at least 19,500 Japanese.


text: As the Japanese forces in China were mainly on the offensive and suffered relatively few casualties, few Japanese soldiers surrendered to Chinese forces prior to August 1945. It has been estimated that at the end of the war Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces held around 8,300 Japanese prisoners. The conditions these POWs were held in generally did not meet the standards required by international law. The Japanese government expressed no concern for these abuses, however, as it did not want IJA soldiers to even consider surrendering. The government was, however, concerned about reports that 300 POWs had joined the Chinese Communists and had been trained to spread anti-Japanese propaganda.


text: The Japanese government sought to suppress information about captured personnel. On 27 December 1941, it established a POW Information Bureau within the Ministry of the Army to manage information concerning Japanese POWs. While the Bureau cataloged information provided by the Allies via the Red Cross identifying POWs, it did not pass this information on to the families of the prisoners. When individuals wrote to the Bureau to inquire if their relative had been taken prisoner, it appears that the Bureau provided a reply which neither confirmed or denied whether the man was a prisoner. Although the Bureau's role included facilitating mail between POWs and their families, this was not carried out as the families were not notified and few POWs wrote home. The lack of communication with their families increased the POWs feelings of being cut off from Japanese society.


text: The Allies gained considerable quantities of intelligence from Japanese POWs. Because they had been indoctrinated to believe that by surrendering they had broken all ties with Japan, many captured personnel provided their interrogators with information on the Japanese military. Australian and US troops and senior officers commonly believed that captured Japanese troops were very unlikely to divulge any information of military value, leading to them having little motivation to take prisoners. This view proved incorrect, however, and many Japanese POWs provided valuable intelligence during interrogations. Few Japanese were aware of the Geneva Convention and the rights it gave prisoners to not respond to questioning. Moreover, the POWs felt that by surrendering they had lost all their rights. The prisoners appreciated the opportunity to converse with Japanese-speaking Americans and felt that the food, clothing and medical treatment they were provided with meant that they owed favours to their captors. The Allied interrogators found that exaggerating the amount they knew about the Japanese forces and asking the POWs to 'confirm' details was also a successful approach. As a result of these factors, Japanese POWs were often cooperative and truthful during interrogation sessions.


text: Japanese POWs were interrogated multiple times during their captivity. Most Japanese soldiers were interrogated by intelligence officers of the battalion or regiment which had captured them for information which could be used by these units. Following this they were rapidly moved to rear areas where they were interrogated by successive echelons of the Allied military. They were also questioned once they reached a POW camp in Australia, New Zealand, India or the United States. These interrogations were painful and stressful for the POWs. Similarly, Japanese sailors rescued from sunken ships by the US Navy were questioned at the Navy's interrogation centres in Brisbane, Honolulu and Noumea. Allied interrogators found that Japanese soldiers were much more likely to provide useful intelligence than Imperial Japanese Navy personnel, possibly due to differences in the indoctrination provided to members of the services. Force was not used in interrogations at any level, though on one occasion headquarters personnel of the US 40th Infantry Division debated, but ultimately decided against, administering sodium penthanol to a senior non-commissioned officer.


text: Some Japanese POWs also played an important role in helping the Allied militaries develop propaganda and politically indoctrinate their fellow prisoners. This included developing propaganda leaflets and loudspeaker broadcasts which were designed to encourage other Japanese personnel to surrender. The wording of this material sought to overcome the indoctrination which Japanese soldiers had received by stating that they should "cease resistance" rather than "surrender". POWs also provided advice on the wording for propaganda leaflets which were dropped on Japanese cities by heavy bombers in the final months of the war.


text: Japanese POWs held in Allied prisoner of war camps were treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. By 1943 the Allied governments were aware that personnel who had been captured by the Japanese military were being held in harsh conditions. In an attempt to win better treatment for their POWs, the Allies made extensive efforts to notify the Japanese government of the good conditions in Allied POW camps. This was not successful, however, as the Japanese government refused to recognise the existence of captured Japanese military personnel. Nevertheless, Japanese POWs in Allied camps continued to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions until the end of the war.


text: Most Japanese captured by US forces after September 1942 were turned over to Australia or New Zealand for internment. The United States provided these countries with aid through the Lend Lease program to cover the costs of maintaining the prisoners, and retained responsibility for repatriating the men to Japan at the end of the war. Prisoners captured in the central Pacific or who were believed to have particular intelligence value were held in camps in the United States.


text: Prisoners who were thought to possess significant technical or strategic information were brought to specialist intelligence-gathering facilities at Fort Hunt, Virginia or Camp Tracy, California. After arriving in these camps, the prisoners were interrogated again, and their conversations were wiretapped and analysed. Some of the conditions at Camp Tracy violated Geneva Convention requirements, such as insufficient exercise time being provided. However, prisoners at this camp were given special benefits, such as high quality food and access to a shop, and the interrogation sessions were relatively relaxed. The continuous wiretapping at both locations may have also violated the spirit of the Geneva Convention.


text: Japanese POWs generally adjusted to life in prison camps and few attempted to escape. There were several incidents at POW camps, however. On 25 February 1943, POWs at the Featherston prisoner of war camp in New Zealand staged a strike after being ordered to work. The protest turned violent when the camp's deputy commander shot one of the protest's leaders. The POWs then attacked the other guards, who opened fire and killed 48 prisoners and wounded another 74. Conditions at the camp were subsequently improved, leading to good relations between the Japanese and their New Zealand guards for the remainder of the war. More seriously, on 5 August 1944, Japanese POWs in a camp near Cowra, Australia attempted to escape. During the fighting between the POWs and their guards 257 Japanese and four Australians were killed. Other confrontations between Japanese POWs and their guards occurred at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin during May 1944 as well as a camp in Bikaner, India during 1945; these did not result in any fatalities. In addition, 24 Japanese POWs killed themselves at Camp Paita, New Caledonia in January 1944 after a planned uprising was foiled. News of the incidents at Cowra and Featherston was suppressed in Japan, but the Japanese Government lodged protests with the Australian and New Zealand governments as a propaganda tactic. This was the only time that the Japanese Government officially recognized that some members of the country's military had surrendered.


text: The Allies distributed photographs of Japanese POWs in camps to induce other Japanese personnel to surrender. This tactic was initially rejected by General MacArthur when it was proposed to him in mid-1943 on the grounds that it violated the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and the fear of being identified after surrendering could harden Japanese resistance. MacArthur reversed his position in December of that year, however, but only allowed the publication of photos that did not identify individual POWs. He also directed that the photos "should be truthful and factual and not designed to exaggerate".


text: Millions of Japanese military personnel surrendered following the end of the war. Soviet and Chinese forces accepted the surrender of 1.6 million Japanese and the western allies took the surrender of millions more in Japan, South-East Asia and the South-West Pacific. In order to prevent resistance to the order to surrender, Japan's Imperial Headquarters included a statement that "servicemen who come under the control of enemy forces after the proclamation of the Imperial Rescript will not be regarded as POWs" in its orders announcing the end of the war. While this measure was successful in avoiding unrest, it led to hostility between those who surrendered before and after the end of the war and denied prisoners of the Soviets POW status. In most instances the troops who surrendered were not taken into captivity, and were repatriated to the Japanese home islands after giving up their weapons.


text: Repatriation of some Japanese POWs was delayed by Allied authorities. Until late 1946, the United States retained almost 70,000 POWs to dismantle military facilities in the Philippines, Okinawa, central Pacific, and Hawaii. British authorities retained 113,500 of the approximately 750,000 POWs in south and south-east Asia until 1947; the last POWs captured in Burma and Malaya returned to Japan in October 1947. The British also used armed Japanese Surrendered Personnel to support Dutch and French attempts to reassert control in the Dutch East Indies and Indochina respectively. At least 81,090 Japanese personnel died in areas occupied by the western Allies and China before they could be repatriated to Japan. Historian John W. Dower has attributed these deaths to the "wretched" condition of Japanese military units at the end of the war.


text: Nationalist Chinese forces took the surrender of 1.2 million Japanese military personnel following the war. While the Japanese feared that they would be subjected to reprisals, they were generally treated well. This was because the Nationalists wished to seize as many weapons as possible, ensure that the departure of the Japanese military didn't create a security vacuum and discourage Japanese personnel from fighting alongside the Chinese communists. Over the next few months, most Japanese prisoners in China, along with Japanese civilian settlers, were returned to Japan. The nationalists retained over 50,000 POWs, most of whom had technical skills, until the second half of 1946, however. Tens of thousands of Japanese prisoners captured by Chinese communists were serving in their military forces in August 1946 and more than 60,000 were believed to still be held in Communist-controlled areas as late as April 1949. Hundreds of Japanese POWs were killed fighting for the People's Liberation Army during the Chinese Civil War. Following the war, the victorious Chinese Communist government began repatriating Japanese prisoners home, though some were put on trial for war crimes and had to serve prison sentences of varying length before being allowed to return. The last Japanese prisoner returned from China in 1964.


text: Hundreds of thousands of Japanese also surrendered to Soviet forces in the last weeks of the war and after Japan's surrender. The Soviet Union claimed to have taken 594,000 Japanese POWs, of whom 70,880 were immediately released, but Japanese researchers have estimated that 850,000 were captured. Unlike the prisoners held by China or the western Allies, these men were treated harshly by their captors, and over 60,000 died. Japanese POWs were forced to undertake hard labour and were held in primitive conditions with inadequate food and medical treatments. This treatment was similar to that experienced by German POWs in the Soviet Union. The treatment of Japanese POWs in Siberia was also similar to that suffered by Soviet prisoners who were being held in the area. Between 1946 and 1950, many of the Japanese POWs in Soviet captivity were released; those remaining after 1950 were mainly those convicted of various crimes. They were gradually released under a series of amnesties between 1953 and 1956. After the last major repatriation in 1956, the Soviets continued to hold some POWs and release them in small increments. Some ended up spending decades living in the Soviet Union, and could only return to Japan in the 1990s. Some, having spent decades away and having started families of their own, elected not to permanently settle in Japan and remain where they were.


text: Gilmore provides the following numbers of Japanese POWs taken in the SWPA during each year of the war –


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Devil Dinosaur is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character is depicted as resembling an enormous, crimson colored "Tyrannosaurus"-like theropod dinosaur. Created by Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in "Devil Dinosaur" #1 (April 1978). Devil Dinosaur and his inseparable ape-like friend, Moon-Boy, are natives of "Dinosaur World", a version of Earth in a parallel universe where dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures co-exist with tribes of primitive humanoid beings. The comic is considered a "cult classic" by Kirby fans.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Devil Dinosaur and Moon-Boy are the creations of artist Jack Kirby who scripted and penciled all nine issues of the first series. Devil Dinosaur was created during Kirby's third stint at Marvel (1975–1978). Having learned that DC Comics was working on an animated series featuring Kirby's Kamandi, Marvel attempted to one-up their competitor by instructing Kirby to create a series similar to Kamandi, but incorporating a dinosaur co-star, since dinosaurs were hugely popular with young audiences of the time. The resulting "Devil Dinosaur" series was short lived, lasting only nine months (April – December 1978), and the proposed animated series never entered development. The original "Devil Dinosaur" series chronicled Devil and Moon-Boy's adventures in their home, "Dinosaur World". After the cancellation of "Devil Dinosaur", the character's appearances were relegated to one-shot comics, cameos, and supporting roles in other series.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In "Devil Dinosaur" #1, Kirby states in the ""Dinosaur Dispatches"" letters column that the original intent was for Moon-Boy and Devil to be an early human and dinosaur from Earth's past. Kirby writes: ""After all, just where the Dinosaur met his end, and when Man first stood reasonably erect, is still shrouded in mystery"". Writers subsequent to Kirby have approached the character's origin in various ways. Some have followed Kirby's lead and portrayed the character as being from the prehistoric past of the main Marvel continuity (sometimes referred to as "Earth-616"), while others have depicted Devil as hailing from either an alien planet or an alternate reality Earth. Marvel's most recent publications list Devil's home of origin as "Dinosaur World (Earth-78411)", a primitive version of Earth existing in one of the many alternative universes contained within the Marvel Multiverse.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: The first appearance of Devil Dinosaur after the cancellation of the original series was in Marvel's "Godzilla, King of the Monsters" of 1979. The character was not to be referenced again in a Marvel comic until 1986 when the Thing of the Fantastic Four travels to a Pacific island where ""Devil Dinosaur: The Movie"" is being produced. During the Thing's visit, Godzilla appears. After battling and destroying a robot Devil Dinosaur used in the film, Godzilla disappears once again into the ocean. Devil Dinosaur himself does not actually appear in the 1986 story, but beginning with the "Fallen Angels" limited series of 1987, the character has continued to make sporadic appearances in Marvel publications.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In 2016, Devil Dinosaur was again given his own ongoing series "Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur". The series has Devil teaming up with Lunella Lafayette, a.k.a. Moon Girl, a 9-year-old prodigy from modern times. Moon Boy, no longer Devil's primary partner, plays only a minor role in the series.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: The young Devil Dinosaur was nearly burned to death by a tribe of Killer-Folk, hostile beings native to his planet, but was rescued by Moon-Boy, a young member of a rival tribe, the Small-Folk. Exposure to the Killer-Folk's fire activated a mutation in the dinosaur which gave him powers greater than others of his species and turned his skin from olive green to flame red. Devil's early adventures on his home world include encounters with extraterrestrials and a brief teleportation to modern day Earth.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Later, Godzilla rampages through the Marvel Universe (Earth-616). In an attempt to stop the monster, S.H.I.E.L.D. shrinks Godzilla with Pym Particles and attempts to teleport him via a time machine to the prehistoric past. However, Godzilla's radiation apparently distorts the time machine so that he is transported to the alternative universe of Dinosaur World instead. While there, he briefly unites with Moon-Boy and Devil against a common foe before being pulled back to the main Marvel continuity.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: After Ariel, an extraterrestrial mutant with teleportation powers, teleports the Fallen Angels to Dinosaur World, the group convinces Devil and Moon-Boy to join their team and return with them to Earth-616. During his time with the Fallen Angels, Devil Dinosaur accidentally kills "Don", the super-intelligent mutant lobster on the team by stepping on him. Devil and Moon-Boy return to their own universe when the Fallen Angels eventually disband.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: After their stint with the Fallen Angels, the duo's life back on Dinosaur World is interrupted numerous times by events occurring in the main Marvel continuity:


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Some time later, the sorceress Jennifer Kale, in an attempt to return Howard the Duck to his homeworld, inadvertently teleports Devil Dinosaur and Moon-Boy into her New York apartment. The disoriented dinosaur rampages through the city before being subdued by Ghost Rider. Stranded in modern-day Earth-616 after their teleportation there by Kale, the pair is hypnotized into joining the Circus of Crime. After being rescued by Spider-Man, Devil and Moon-Boy are relocated to the Savage Land.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: The Heroes for Hire mercenaries go on a mission to retrieve Moon-Boy from the Savage Land and encounter Devil Dinosaur in the process. Devil is found fiercely guarding a nest containing a clutch of eggs that apparently he himself has laid and the dinosaur abandons Moon-Boy to ensure their safety. The discrepancy between this development and his previously presumed male sex is noted by the mercenaries, who can only speculate as to the cause of the change. After returning to the U.S. the Heroes for Hire disband and group member Paladin leaves alone with Moon-Boy to collect the reward from the S.H.I.E.L.D. scientists who hired the mercenaries.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Moon-Boy would remain under the custody of S.H.I.E.L.D. for some time, which drove Devil Dinosaur into a sort of saurian depression. Refusing to eat, or defend himself, he was in danger of dying. However, Stegron, the dinosaur man, became worried about the survival of the Devil-Beast due to it being the last known of its species. Leaving the Savage Land without the permission of Ka-Zar and building an army of reanimated dinosaurs, Stegron marched across the U.S. attacking S.H.I.E.L.D. base after base, until he was eventually stopped by the Fifty State Initiative. The group discovered the motive behind Stegron's plan and, though he was arrested all the same, the Initiative recruit Reptil smuggled Moon-Boy back to the Savage Land, where he was reunited with his companion.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In the Savage Land, a group of Killer Folk got their hands on the sacred Nightstone. Moon Boy and Devil Dinosaur fought to reclaim it, but Moon Boy died as the Killer Folk were sucked into a vortex through time with the Nightstone. Moon Boy's dying wish was for Devil Dinosaur to reclaim the Nightstone and to avenge him.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Going through the portal, Devil Dinosaur ended up in New York City. The Nightstone had fallen into the hands of Lunella Lafayette - a genius 9-year-old - who deduced the Nightstone was actually a Kree Omni-Wave Projector. Lunella had identified the Inhuman gene within her own DNA and feared being transformed into a monster due to the changes brought about by Terrigen Mist. Due to several Terrigen clouds that had been drifting around the city following the Inhumans' detonation of a Terrigen bomb, she took drastic action and intended to use the Nightstone to find a way to remove the Inhuman DNA. With Lunella refusing to give up the Nightstone, Devil Dinosaur was forced to bring her on his rampage through the city as he searched for the Killer Folk. Although Devil Dinosaur fought the Killer Folk, they managed to escape with the Nightstone.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Lunella ended up harboring Devil Dinosaur in her laboratory that she had built in the depths of her school, growing more and more frustrated that she was stuck with the "big red dummy" but found him useful when he helped save the lives of her teacher and class during a fire. However, the Hulk (Amadeus Cho) arrived, seeking to apprehend Devil Dinosaur for his earlier rampage and accused him of the fire. Lunella refused, declaring that she needed Devil Dinosaur and, growing frustrated with Amadeus patronizing her and undermining her intelligence, drew out a few homemade weapons to fight him, but only accidentally ended up knocking out Devil Dinosaur.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Lunella, feeling responsible for Devil Dinosaur's arrest and, feeling kinship to the beast stuck in a place he did not belong, broke him out under the moniker of Moon Girl, a nickname the other students used to bully her. After the Killer Folk - who had conquered territory previously owned by the Yancy Street Gang - failed to kidnap Lunella from school to be their blood sacrifice to the Nightstone on a full moon, Lunella decided to end things. She and Devil Dinosaur fought the Killer Folk once more and won, reclaiming the Nightstone. Lunella hoped she could finally use it to ensure she would not transform into an Inhuman, but at that precise moment she was caught in a Terrigen cloud.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Devil Dinosaur took Lunella's cocoon to her lab and watched over it for several days until she hatched. Lunella was at first relieved she had not changed physically, but was dismayed to learn her Inhuman power caused her consciousness and that of Devil Dinosaur's to switch. Devil Dinosaur proceeded to make her even more ostracized at school due to freaking out in class and attacking other students whilst Lunella rampaged through the city. Eventually though they returned to normal.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Devil Dinosaur and Moon Girl's next opponent came in the form of Kid Kree - a misunderstood Kree boy who had failed to enter the academy twice, who sought to capture an Inhuman to impress his father and make a name for himself on Earth as Captain Marvel had - who disguised himself as a new student, Marvin Ellis, in Lunella's class. Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur fought Kid Kree several times, once being separated by Ms. Marvel, who recognized their fight as the childish squabble it was, but still entrusted Moon Girl with a device to contact her if things ever got out of hand.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Lunella is then approached by Hulk, who gives her the Banner B.O.X. (Brain Omnicompetence Examiner), and is surprised when she solves it in mere seconds, proving that Lunella is the smartest person on Earth. After consulting experts, Moon Girl, Hulk and Devil Dinosaur encounter Mole Man, who was attacking the city with a group of monsters. The next day, at her lab, Lunella ends up having a vision of herself in the future, where she is approached by Earth's smartest heroes. After school, she is approached by the Thing, who takes her for a walk when Hulk appears. When the two start fighting, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur manage to contain them while protecting the civilians, until both of them are left unconscious. Meanwhile, Doctor Doom is surprised to discover that Moon Girl is considered the smartest person on Earth and vows to prove himself superior. During science class, Lunella is attacked by robot drones until she is saved by Riri Williams. They follow the drones to a nearby alley, where Moon Girl encounters Doctor Doom. After Doom escapes, Moon Girl and Ironheart go to Moon Girl's secret lab, where they discover that the energy signatures of the drones are mystic in origin. While tracing Doom's location, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur arrive at the Sanctum Sanctorum and are found by Doctor Strange. Waking up from a dream, Lunella is reunited with Devil, who was shrunk down by Strange. While walking back home, Moon Girl and two of her classmates are attacked by Doctor Doom and his Doombots. Moon Girl uses an enlargement potion on herself to help Doctor Strange fight Doom and his robots. A few nights later, while installing an energy sensing probe, Moon Girl is found by five members of the X-Men. Arriving at an abandoned mall, Moon Girl reengineers a Cerebro helmet with the Omni-Wave Projector to locate Doom, only for her and the X-Men to travel back to the 1980s. Once there, Doctor Doom arrives with an army of Doombots. The X-Men and Devil fight the Doombots until Moon Girl takes off the helmet, sending them back to the present, where they discover that Doom is actually a Doombot. Lunella takes the Doombot to her lab to analyze it. Lunella later makes a major discovery about her Inhuman power: it only activates during a full moon. She then encounters an army of Doombots, along with Thing, Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Ironheart, Doctor Strange, Kid Kree and the Killer Folk, who went to her aid after being recruited by Lunella.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Lunella then receives a call for help from an alien girl named Illa and, after building a spaceship, goes to space with Devil and crash land on a moon. While exploring, Lunella discovers that Illa is the moon. She soon realizes that Illa is lonely and wants company and does not understand Lunella at all. After a brief fight between Devil and some giant bugs, Lunella leaves, despite Illa's objections. In the process, she is sent to a parallel universe where she meets another version of herself and Devil Dinosaur. Meanwhile, the Doombot head creates robotic versions of Lunella to avoid suspicions of her absence. After fighting their counterparts, Devil Girl and Moon Dinosaur, Lunella and Devil get back on their spacecraft and return to Illa who tells them that they'll never leave her. Back home, the Doombot head begins to have problems with one of Lunella robots. Moon Girl and Devil manage to find Ego the Living Planet and reunite him with Illa, while the Doombot discovers that the Lunella robot is acting independently.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Meanwhile, the Doombot head has created multiple Moon Girl replacement robots who to his surprise are acting like real little girls. He tells them that they will be obsolete when the real Lunella returns. While up in space Lunella has united Ego and Illa as a family. On the way to Earth she uses the Omniwave projector to tearfully return Devil Dinosaur to Moon Boy in the Savage Land where she thinks he belongs and then returns to New York where she tosses it away in the trash.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Admitting she was wrong Moon Girl brought him back as she, Ben Grim, and Johnny Storm reformed the Fantastic Four and even gave Devil his own uniform. Afterwards while Wilson Fisks's daughter Princess is enrolled in her school Moon Girl decides to turn Devil into a human boy and enroll him in her class to tone down his destructive accidents. Taking attention away from princess causes her to begin focusing her and her father's negative attentions on the two.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: During the "Monsters Unleashed" storyline, Devil Dinosaur was with Moon Girl when she was studying the different Leviathon attacks. Later, Kei Kawade demonstrates his abilities to the heroes present by summoning Devil Dinosaur, though Moon Girl was also brought along during Devil Dinosaur's summoning. When the Leviathon Servitors attack the Baxter Building, Kei Kawade summons Devil Dinosaur to help fight them. Moon Girl, Devil Dinosaur and other heroes later encounter other monsters until the Leviathon Queen is defeated by Kei Kawade and his new creations.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: During the "Secret Empire" storyline, Devil Dinosaur and Moon Girl join up with Daisy Johnson's Secret Warriors. After rescuing Karnak from a prison camp, the Warriors encounter the Howling Commandos after falling into a trap. While driving West, the team is found by the X-Men. After escaping New Tian, the team meets Dark Beast, an evil version of Beast, who's tortured by Daisy and Karnak on information of an Inhuman who can help them. After receiving their information, the team encounters Mister Hyde along with Hydra's Avengers. After a brief fight, the team is captured until they break out when Daisy uses her powers to destroy the Helicarrier they were in. While trying to break Devil out of his cage, Moon Girl meets Leer, the Inhuman Karnak mentioned, who knocks her unconscious when the Helicarrier crash lands. Fortunately, Moon Girl and Devil have switched brains just in time, enabling Moon Girl to lead the Warriors to an Inhuman prison camp. There, the Warriors plan a jailbreak with the imprisoned Inhumans when the Underground resistance arrives to help them. It's later revealed that Leer is Karnak's son and that Karnak had sold him to Mr. Sinister to help activate his powers.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Devil Dinosaur is a gigantic reptile, with the instinctive savagery of a carnivore, and possesses super strength and durability. He also possesses above normal intelligence, on par with a human's. He can switch bodies with Moon Girl because of her as yet unexplained Inhuman powers and may also be able to change his physical size, sometimes appearing nearly five stories tall with Moon Girl dwarfed by his foot and at other times closer to the size of an average "Tyrannosaurus rex" of roughly twenty feet in length and Moon Girl standing as tall as his knee. After their first mind-body switch he appeared to temporarily shrink to around ten feet in height.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: Wolverine and Spider-Man are transported to an alternative reality in chaos. This bizarre world is ruled by a race of small ape-like creatures who are menaced by numerous enemies. Among these enemies is a cybernetic Devil Dinosaur ridden by a warrior-like being.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: The Avengers of Earth-730834 battle Devil and Moon-Boy. This is after the Collector captures the Avengers and other notable Earth denizens and locks them in a human-friendly jungle environment.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: The mercenary Deadpool encounters dozens of versions of himself from alternative realities. One version he meets is "Deadpool Dinosaur", an amalgam of Deadpool and Devil Dinosaur.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In the alternative universe of Earth X (Earth-9997), the skeletal remains of Devil and Moon-Boy are at the Blue Area of the Moon. In "Paradise X", the sequel to "Earth X", it is revealed Moon-Boy's people are the ancestors of Wolverine.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In the "Mutant X" alternative universe, a version of Devil Dinosaur who bears Daimon Hellstrom's trident and "Moon Knight Boy" are members of Earth-1298's version of the Lethal Legion.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In the "Nextwave" series, Devil Dinosaur is revealed to be the head of two organizations with ties to terrorism, the Beyond Corporation© and S.I.L.E.N.T., both of which he created due to his growing hatred of "monkeys". Devil is depicted as having the power of speech and states: "Moon-Boy hated me. Moon-Boy had to die. Moon-Boy tasted bad and gave me considerable rectal distress". Devil's uncharacteristic behavior in the "Nextwave" series and also the fact that Moon-Boy, who is said to be dead but shows up later on friendly terms with a non-speaking Devil Dinosaur in "Heroes for Hire", has given rise to speculation about whether the "Nextwave" stories should be seen as occurring in the main Marvel continuity or not. A more recent Marvel publication, the "Marvel Pets Handbook", states that the Devil Dinosaur in Nextwave was a clone.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: In Marvel's "What If?" series, the alternative reality of Earth-34882 is presented in which Devil is part of a team of super animals assembled by Howard the Duck.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: During the "Secret Wars" storyline, an unidentified Red Hulk is the Baron of the Battleworld domain of Greenland under the name Red King. A variation of Captain America called the Captain and his Devil Dinosaur were sent into Greenland by God Emperor Doom and Sheriff Strange in order to kill Red King when it turned out that he has the Captain's Bucky whom the Captain has been looking for.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: After the Captain and his Devil Dinosaur made their way to the Mud Kingdom where the Red King resided, both of them raided the Red King's palace. When the Captain demanded that he release Bucky, the Red King revealed that God Emperor Doom lied to him and that he already sent his head to God Emperor Doom a month ago. While grabbing the cybernetic arm of Bucky, the Red King stated that Bucky wasn't his prisoner but his trophy.


title: Devil Dinosaur

text: When the Red King offered the Captain to join his army into attacking God Emperor Doom, the Captain declined, where he managed to fight and kill the Red King. Upon the Captain killing his counterpart that was a Hulk called Doc Green, the Captain threw the Red King's head in front of the Tribal Hulks causing them to stop fighting Devil Dinosaur.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The Meech Lake Accord () was a series of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada negotiated in 1987 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and all 10 Canadian provincial premiers. It was intended to persuade the government of Quebec to symbolically endorse the 1982 constitutional amendments by providing for some decentralization of the Canadian federation.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The proposed amendments were initially popular and backed by nearly all political leaders. However, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, feminist activists, and Indigenous groups raised concerns about the lack of citizen involvement in the Accord's drafting and its future effects on Canadian federalism, and support for the Accord began to decline. Changes in government in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Newfoundland brought ministries to power that declined to accept the Accord. Further negotiations were conducted but tension increased between Quebec and the predominantly English-speaking provinces. A dramatic final meeting among first ministers a month before the Accord's constitutionally-mandated ratification deadline seemed to show renewed agreement on a second series of amendments that would address the concerns raised in the intervening debates. Despite this, the original accord would not gain acceptance in the Manitoba or Newfoundland legislatures in time for ratification.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Failure to pass the Accord greatly increased tensions between Quebec and the remainder of the country. The Quebec sovereignty movement gained renewed support for a time. The general aims of the Accord would be addressed in the Charlottetown Accord, which failed to gain a majority vote in a referendum.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: In 1981, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments to patriate the constitution, led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, resulted in an agreement that formed the basis of the Constitution Act, 1982. Quebec Premier René Lévesque and the Quebec National Assembly refused to approve the amendments and announced it would use a constitutional veto. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the "Quebec Veto Reference" that Quebec did not have a veto, and the "Constitution Act, 1982" was operative in Quebec.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: In the 1984 federal election, the Progressive Conservatives, led by Brian Mulroney, committed to eventually allowing the National Assembly to accept the amendments "with honour and enthusiasm," won a majority government. The apparent lessening of tension prompted Lévesque to attempt the ""beau risque"" of federal cooperation. His government split, leading to his resignation and the ultimate defeat of his sovereigntist Parti Québécois by the federalist Quebec Liberal Party of Robert Bourassa in the 1985 provincial election.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: In his election platform, Bourassa outlined five conditions that would have to be met for Quebec to "sign on" to the constitution. They were recognition of Quebec's distinct character (as primarily Catholic and French-speaking), a veto for Quebec in constitutional matters, input from Quebec into the appointment of Supreme Court justices, entrenchment of Quebec's role in immigration, and a limit on the federal spending power. Bourassa considered the demands practical, as all elements of the conditions had previously been offered by the federal government to Quebec on different occasions.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Bourassa and Mulroney, both pragmatic pro-business figures, had a far more congenial relationship than had Trudeau and Lévesque. Mulroney tasked Senator Lowell Murray with coordinating a possible agreement with the provinces. Bourassa announced that talks could proceed based on the five conditions, adding only the provision that "recognition of Quebec's distinct character" had to be an interpretive clause rather than a symbolic note in a revised preamble.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: At a meeting of the first ministers (the Prime Minister and provincial premiers) in Edmonton in August 1986, the ministers agreed to the "Edmonton Declaration". It stated that a "Quebec Round" of constitutional talks based on the five conditions would occur before further reforms would be undertaken.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Believing that a constitutional agreement was possible, Mulroney called a conference with provincial premiers for April 30, 1987 at Willson House, located on the shores of Meech Lake, Quebec, in the Gatineau Hills. In contrast to previous constitutional conferences, which tended to feature a multitude of bureaucrats and advisors, the 11 first ministers were the only participants at the bargaining table. Other officials were kept downstairs and the media was locked out of the negotiation process.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Mulroney chaired the meeting, and agreement came quickly on the Supreme Court and immigration conditions, both of which were significantly an entrenchment of the status quo. The only agenda item added besides Quebec's conditions was Senate reform. After initially proposing abolition, Mulroney agreed to allow appointment from lists created by the provinces while awaiting further reform, which the provinces accepted. Changes to the amending formula and recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" were the most contentious issues. Changes to the wording of the "distinct society clause" that also preserved rights for English and French minorities in other provinces gained acceptance by all representatives at the table.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: After nine hours, the Premiers and Mulroney announced a consensus for constitutional reform had been reached amongst the first ministers. The consensus would encompass five main modifications to the Canadian constitution:


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The initial reaction of the public was shock. Interest groups that had been involved in the constitutional debate, unaware that an agreement was practicable, had not thought to begin agitating for consultation. They were caught off balance by the accepted Accord. The only province to have public hearings after the Accord stage and before the legal text was drafted was Quebec.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: National public opinion polls initially showed that a majority of Canadians supported the proposed agreement.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Liberal Party leader John Turner and New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent announced their agreement with the consensus.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The first prominent opposition, as reported by the media, was from former Prime Minister Trudeau. In an open letter published in both the "Toronto Star" and "Le Devoir" on May 26, 1987, Trudeau attacked the Accord as a capitulation to provincialism and the end of any dream of "One Canada". Portraying "patriation" as the equalization of the bargaining power of federal and provincial governments that would allow Canada to survive indefinitely, Trudeau wrote that the new agreement made further devolution of powers inevitable. He referred to Mulroney as a "weakling," the Premiers as "snivelers," and invoked Bourassa's previous reneging of the Victoria Charter as suggesting that the Accord would be the beginning of concessions to Quebec and provincial interests.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Trudeau's well-known position as an ardent federalist and a prominent Québécois helped express the opposition to the Accord for many of its opponents. He generated concerns with the Accord in other groups that had embraced the "Charter", such as Indigenous peoples, ethnic communities, and women. His position created turmoil in the federal and provincial Liberal parties, with the federal party split largely on linguistic lines, shaking John Turner's already fragile leadership.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: As the final agreement was to be drawn together in Ottawa on June 2, 1987, Trudeau's intervention had made him, in the words of Mulroney advisor L. Ian MacDonald, a "twelfth participant". The meeting, seen as a formality to precede a signing ceremony the next day, instead lasted 19 hours.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Manitoba NDP Premier Howard Pawley, faced with left-wing opposition to the consensus in his home province, insisted on more limited language regarding limits on the federal spending power in the final agreement. Ontario Premier David Peterson, as the sole Liberal at the table (Bourassa’s Quebec Liberal Party having severed ties with the Liberal Party of Canada in 1955), did not have support for it by most of his caucus (including his main adviser, Ian Scott). They opposed the consensus, and proposed a variety of amendments to the "federal spending power" and "distinct society" clauses. Pawley and Peterson agreed to follow each other's lead or back out together, to avoid either being seen as the cause of the collapse of talks. They asked Mulroney to take a harder line on federal powers.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Trudeau's intervention had also created a separate backlash: Mulroney and the other eight Premiers, insulted by what they saw as undue interference, aggressively embraced the previous consensus. Bourassa in particular refused to move away from any of the Accord's major provisions. Negotiations went on through the night. They ultimately agreed on a clause promising that "the distinct society clause" would not derogate the "Charter", providing protections for multicultural and aboriginal rights, and tighter language regarding restrictions on the federal spending power.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: At a final roll call at 4:45 a.m. June 3, 1987, hours before the signing ceremony, Mulroney knowingly breached convention by taking the vote in reverse order around the table instead of the traditional order of a province's entry into confederation. Pawley, after pressure from federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent, conceded and approved the agreement. Peterson, the last to vote in this improvised formula, approved the final agreement on behalf of Ontario.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: At the symbolic signing ceremony, the Premiers signed the Accord. Bourassa declared that Quebec had become reintegrated in Canada to a standing ovation.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Supporters of the Accord argued that it would provide a generation of constitutional peace and do so in a simple and understandable way without major structural changes to the Federal government or the Canadian federation. Bourassa described Quebec's exclusion from the 1982 agreement as a "hole in the heart" that had to be mended before Quebec could become a normalized participant in constitutional matters. Mulroney and others, acknowledging that the agreement focused on primarily Quebec concerns, described the agreement as a "bridge" that, once accepted, would allow for further negotiations with other groups to proceed with Quebec's full participation.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Mulroney argued that the Senate and Supreme Court reforms would allow for greater involvement of other parties in what was generally a unilateral decision from the Prime Minister. It was an attempt to reduce what was seen as an overly powerful Prime Minister's Office. Mulroney would tell the "Toronto Star", "You can have the old style of warring federalism, or you can have genuine co-operative federalism, on which we're trying to build a new country."


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Proponents such as constitutional expert Peter Hogg said that the "distinct society" clause was merely an "affirmation of a sociological fact". Chief Justice Brian Dickson noted that court decisions had for decades taken Quebec's "character" into consideration on a standard basis.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Opponents of the Accord took issue with both the process and ultimate results of the negotiations. Process objections focused on the agreement being negotiated in circumstances considered to be opaque and undemocratic: the amendments were effectively drafted and agreed to by the Prime Minister and ten Premiers themselves in two meetings and were presented to their legislatures as a "fait accompli". Some academics described the Accord as resulting from an exercise in "elite accommodation" not compatible with a more democratic Canada. Aside from Quebec, no province held public hearings on the Accord until opposition began to sprout.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Some critics said that "distinct society" focus unbalanced the Federation, creating a "special status" for Quebec that would lead to asymmetrical federalism and the possible decline of the English-speaking community in Quebec and Francophones elsewhere in Canada. Aboriginal, feminist, and minority groups worried that the clause could be interpreted by courts to allow the Quebec government to disregard sections of the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and of other constitutional protections in the name of preserving the province's culture.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Aboriginal groups were opposed to the amendments that involved constitutional change, as they had not had any representation in negotiations.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Former Prime Minister Trudeau and similar critics argued that the further devolution of powers was unnecessary and did not result in any "trade-off" with the Federal government. Rather, the Accord reduced its ability to speak for all Canadians on matters of national interest.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Western and Atlantic Canada particularly objected to the lack of more substantive reforms in how the Senate membership was chosen, especially as the Accord required further Senate reform to be subject to unanimous approval by the provinces.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: On the other hand, activists seeking sovereignty for Quebec were also unhappy; they generally opposed the agreement, believing that "recognition of Quebec as a distinct society" would be only moderately useful. They thought acceptance of the agreement would forestall devolution of further powers.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Because the agreement would have changed the constitution's amending formula, it needed to obtain the consent of all provincial and federal legislatures within three years. The signatory Premiers undertook to have Accord approved as soon as possible. Quebec passed the Accord on June 23, 1987, triggering the three year time limit provided for by the Section 39(2) of the "Constitution Act, 1982"; this meant that June 22, 1990, would be the last possible day the Accord could pass. Saskatchewan ratified the Accord on September 23, 1987, and Alberta did likewise on December 7, 1987.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: After the conclusion of public hearings, New Brunswick premier Richard Hatfield was unable, despite significant pressure from Mulroney, to put the Accord to the floor of the provincial legislature. Hatfield's government lost every seat in the October 1987 New Brunswick election to the Frank McKenna-led Liberals. McKenna had campaigned on requesting changes to the Accord, especially for protections for New Brunswick's linguistic duality, and demanded changes before passing the Accord in New Brunswick. The unanimous provincial consensus was now gone, and with it much of the Accord's political momentum.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: More surprising was the unexpected defeat of Howard Pawley's NDP majority government in Manitoba after a disgruntled backbencher voted against the government, prompting an election in April 1988. The result was a PC minority government under Gary Filmon that was tacitly supported by Gary Doer's NDP. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Sharon Carstairs, was a fervent opponent of the Accord, and was convinced some dissident PCs and NDP MLAs could be convinced to vote it down. The unstable confidence situation meant that all three leaders would have to negotiate on Manitoba's behalf.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Trudeau was invited to both the Commons and Senate committee hearings to discuss the Accord, with his later Senate appearance lasting several hours. The Senate, the majority of whose members had been appointed by Trudeau, rejected the Accord, prompting the House of Commons to use s.47 of the "Constitution Act, 1982", to pass the amendment without the Senate's consent.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The Accord played very little role in the 1988 Federal election, as all three parties supported the Accord and the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement was the dominant issue. Bourassa's Liberals, who supported free trade, lent tacit support to the federal Progressive Conservatives and their campaign in favour of the agreement. This support was later speculated to have been a cause of a disconnect between left wing intellectuals and support for the Accord, and was cited by the Manitoba NDP for their more lukewarm attitude toward the amendments after Pawley's retirement.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Shortly after the election, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on "Ford v. Quebec", a compendium of cases regarding sign restrictions in the Charter of the French Language. While acknowledging the protection of Quebec's French identity as a pressing and substantial objective, the Court ruled that the outright ban on English-language signs was a violation of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and ordered the language restrictions be struck down.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The decision reignited the long-simmering debate over language use in Quebec: while English-language groups celebrated the decision, the Parti Québécois and nationalist groups demanded Bourassa use the notwithstanding clause to uphold the "Charter of the French Language" against the court ruling. Both Mulroney and Peterson pressured Bourassa not to use the notwithstanding clause, while prominent Quebec cabinet minister and nationalist Claude Ryan threatened to resign if the clause was not used.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Bourassa opted to propose Bill 178, which continued the ban on outdoor signs and used the clause, causing four of his English-speaking ministers to resign and prompting general outrage in English Canada. Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon, calling the move a violation of the "spirit of Meech Lake", immediately ordered that public hearings regarding the Accord be ended and the Accord be withdrawn from consideration pending a new constitutional conference, officially joining New Brunswick in opposing the Accord. John Turner and the federal Liberals, who had gained little traction in Quebec from their pro-Meech stance in the previous election, attacked Mulroney for what was seen as Federal acquiescence to and, in the case of Lucien Bouchard and Louis Plamondon, approval of Bill 178.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The Accord would gain a third opponent after the 1989 Newfoundland election, which saw PC premier Tom Rideout defeated by the Liberal Clyde Wells. Wells had campaigned against the Accord, as he was opposed to changing the amending formula before senate reform, the restrictions on the Federal spending power, and felt that distinct society would be used by Quebec to gain special status in confederation. Wells demanded a re-opening of the Accord. A conference held in November 1989 failed to break the logjam, and featured a bitter argument on national television between Wells and Mulroney.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: As the political discourse moved from the contents of the Accord to the possible results of its demise, palpable tension arose between English and French speakers throughout Canada. Using Bourassa's use of the notwithstanding clause as justification, groups such as the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada convinced municipalities such as Sault Ste. Marie to pass bylaws outlawing the provision of French language services. A video clip of protesters stomping a Quebec flag in Brockville, Ontario was replayed frequently on Quebec television to symbolize English Canada's opposition to the Accord.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The Accord required passage in Manitoba, New Brunswick, and, after Wells used s. 46(2) of the "Constitution Act, 1982", to revoke the province's previous assent, Newfoundland.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Hope for the Accord gained momentum after New Brunswick proposed a series of alternate concerns that would have to be addressed to enable passage of the original agreement. Jean Charest, a former cabinet minister, was tasked with heading a commission on addressing New Brunswick's concerns on March 22, 1990, which expanded into an attempt to forge an all-party consensus on the Accord. Despite his opposition, leading Liberal leadership candidate Jean Chrétien, wishing the issue to be off the table, contributed to the commission via a back channel. On May 17, 1990, the commission recommended a companion accord that would be approved by all provinces along with Meech Lake; This would permit the original accord to stay in place, saving face for Quebec and the federal government, while addressing the concerns of other provinces. The companion Accord asserted that the distinct society clause would be subject to the "Charter" and would feature greater protections for minority language rights in the provinces.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Bourassa dismissed the report the day it was released. Anger at reading its contents in Paris prompted Lucien Bouchard, environment minister and Mulroney's Quebec lieutenant, to send a telegram to a gathering in his native Alma lavishly praising the Parti Québécois and René Lévesque to be read by PQ leader Jacques Parizeau.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Upon his return to Canada, Mulroney demanded Bouchard clarify the remark or resign, and Bouchard supplied a lengthy letter of resignation on May 22, 1990. The two men, who had been close friends since attending Laval University together, never spoke again. Bouchard sat as an independent. He made a speech in defence of the original Meech accord and stated that without it, sovereignty was the only option. Bourassa announced his support of Bouchard's action from the National Assembly, and said it provided a clear warning to English Canada of what would occur if Meech failed.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: On June 3, 1990, after each Premier met individually with the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive, the First Ministers met at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull. Scheduled as a one-day meeting, the premiers instead met for a week at the National Conference Centre and the Government Conference Centre. The combined media presence outside lent to an atmosphere of chaos and drama, with repeated intonations by Mulroney and other Federal officials that acceptance of the accord was necessary for the very survival of Canada. As the process wore on, journalists noted that the secrecy and spin began to echo the original meetings that had created problems in the first place. Historian Michael Bliss described the spectacle as "nauseating".


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: After a first day that was unsuccessful, McKenna attempted to start conversation by announcing that New Brunswick would support the Accord. The second day saw Filmon agree to a second accord being enacted a number of months after the original passed, allowing for all sides to show more flexibility.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: At the meeting, Bourassa conceded that a second accord could be adopted that included a guarantee that distinct society would not weaken gender equality and give the territories involvement in the appointment of senators and Supreme Court justices. The Premiers also agreed to hold future conferences on Aboriginal and minority language issues, the creation of a "Canada Clause" to guide judicial decisions in the same manner as "distinct society", a new process for how new provinces would be formed, and a new amending procedure.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Wells, however, was still not satisfied with the proposed conditions, and threatened to walk out of the conference. After being physically stopped by Alberta Premier Don Getty, he was asked what his conditions were for acceptance, and Wells replied that he needed a guarantee that senate reform would be carried out. The Ontario delegation then proposed a new formula: A clause would be placed in the new accord for senate reform negotiations to continue to 1995. If negotiations failed by 1995, Ontario would agree to give up 6 Senate seats, meaning that Quebec would have 24 seats, Ontario 18, Prince Edward Island 4, and the remaining provinces 8. Wells immediately agreed in principle.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The next day, another signing ceremony was held, but Wells protested that the draft agreement had deleted a request that a 10-year review be conducted on the distinct society clause without informing him. The clause was never seriously considered by Federal negotiators who, thinking it would be a poison pill for Quebec, had never brought it to Bourassa's attention. Wells put an asterisk next to his signature, but promised that the Accord would be put before the Newfoundland House of Assembly or to a referendum.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: The apparent success of the negotiations was offset by a severe public relations blunder the following day: Mulroney, when describing the negotiation process to "The Globe and Mail", stated that he had intentionally scheduled the final conference until the last few days before the amendment could be passed to put pressure on the attendees, which would allow him to "roll the dice" and force the deal to go through.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Susan Delacourt reported Mulroney's remark, which prompted general outrage in both the political class and in the public for its apparently flippant nature, which contrasted heavily with Mulroney's somber language and remarks about the necessity of the Accord passing during the previous conference. Filmon and Wells both expressed their displeasure with the remark, and Filmon declared that, while he would place the Accord in front of the Manitoba legislature, he would not exempt the Accord from public hearing requirements. Liberal leader Jean Chrétien, who had been considering endorsing the Accords, backed off after the remark. Peterson and Stanley Hartt, Mulroney's chief of staff, believed that the remark killed any chance of the Accord passing.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Wells had determined that a referendum was impractical in the short time period, and arranged for the Accord to be put to a free vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, with himself opposing ratification. In a highly unusual maneuver, Mulroney, Peterson, and McKenna addressed the House of Assembly and urged them to accept the Accord.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: On the final day ratification was possible, June 22, 1990, unanimous support was still required to bypass the necessary public consultations in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and proceed with ratification. Elijah Harper raised an eagle feather to mark his dissension, on the grounds that Aboriginal groups had not been consulted on either Accord. As the amendment could not proceed, Filmon contacted Wells in Newfoundland and advised that the Amendment would not reach the floor.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Accordingly, Clyde Wells and opposition leader Tom Rideout agreed to cancel the planned free vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly as unnecessary, their belief is that it likely would have been a refusal. Peterson, Mulroney, and McKenna argue that Wells undertook to put the Accord to a vote before the ratification deadline, but Wells disagreed with that interpretation.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Pursuant to Section 39(2) of the "Constitution Act, 1982", on June 23, 1990, the amendments lapsed. They had received the assent of the federal government and eight provinces totaling 96% of the population.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: In a speech to the National Assembly of Quebec delivered the next day, Bourassa captured the nationalist sentiment of the moment:


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Jacques Parizeau, leader of the opposition, crossed the floor to shake Bourassa's hand and referred to him as "my Premier". On June 25, an estimated 500,000 Quebecers marched in the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in Quebec City, during which actor Jean Duceppe delivered a speech calling for independence. Polls at this time showed a majority of 61–64% in favour of sovereignty-association. Bourassa, in an attempt to constructively capture nationalist sentiment, declared he would negotiate only with the Federal government, and later passed Bill 150, which promised a referendum by October 26, 1992, on a revised constitutional agreement or sovereignty for Quebec. Despite these initiatives, Bourassa remained privately committed to federalism, believing that sovereignty, while possible, was unworkable.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Ontario Premier David Peterson had, reluctantly, played a prominent role in creating the accord and continued to support it in the face of growing opposition. This led to a backlash in his own province, especially regarding his promise to provide Senate seats to other provinces. He was defeated by Bob Rae's NDP within months in a snap election.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: In response to criticism of the Accord, British Columbia and Alberta enacted legislation requiring future constitutional amendments to be put to a referendum before being approved by the legislature.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: Mulroney's popularity plummeted. Many condemned his handling of the accord, and the exhaustive and interminable debates over it caused a backlash against further constitutional negotiations. In November 1990, Mulroney sought the input of Canadians on the country's constitutional future by convening the Citizen's Forum on National Unity. The forum was more commonly known as the "Spicer Commission", after its chair, Keith Spicer.


title: Meech Lake Accord

text: A variety of constitutional conferences and the efforts of former Prime Minister Joe Clark resulted in the Charlottetown Accord, which contained many of the same proposals, along with concrete involvement of First Nations groups. The Charlottetown Accord, unlike Meech Lake, was put to referendums (on October 26, 1992), but it was also defeated in most provinces, including Quebec. Following these attempts to make further amendments to the Constitution have been recognized as extremely difficult. No serious attempt has been made since to alter the Constitution.