百家争鸣
郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges]
郭国汀律师专栏
***中共专制暴政是国人一切深重苦难的总根源
·人权律师郭国汀称中共制造法拉盛事件旨在嫁祸抹黑法轮功以转移公众视线
·郭国汀 纽约时报报导死难学生亲属周月悼念地震中无辜牺牲的亲人
·美国顶级地震专家称四川地震有可能未能被预测到
·谁之罪?
·中共专制暴政的罪孽学校跨塌致数千名学生死灭最新统计
·一篇被全球英文博客转载最多的四川地震实况报导
·郭国汀百无一用是中国律师
·我愿意收养一个为救人而牺牲的教师或母亲的遗孤
·中国人持继追问为何众多学校震成碎片废墟? 被全球英文网站转载最多的地震专文
***美国2008年总统大选南郭点评系列
·朗保罗--美国2008年大选最雄劲的黑马
·美国大选最新民意进展分析——美国2008年总统大选南郭点评系列之二
·美国2008年大选程序正义与演讲精华
·欧巴马的通往白宫之旅
·前国务卿鮑威尔支持欧巴马
·麦肯总统候选人的基本政策主张
***(42)中国民主运动研究
· 自由宪政民主运动与中共暴政的决战主战场何在?
·国人应当认清中共政权的极权专制流氓犯罪本质
·真正觉醒后英勇的你我他才是决定中国前途和命运的基本力量
·是谁制造了大陆中国的“暴戾之气的泛滥”?
·我为何对中共极权暴政及胡锦涛没有仇恨维有鄙视?
·是共特黑而非民运黑
·我所了解的政治新星曾节明
· 南郭点评陈子明社会运动与政治演练
· 序《我的两个中国 --一个六四天安门学生反革命的实录》
·时代的最强音:“六四”屠城二十一周年口号
· 警惕共匪假冒民运人士故意毁损民运声誉—答人民思想家
·论颠覆国家政权罪的律师辩护
·郭律师点评杨建立博士论三个中国
·退出自由中国论坛的公开声明
·陈尔晋与张国堂之争的性质
·我的几个基本观点答张国堂先生公开信
·中国民运战略研究
·中国民运当前面临问题与对策研究
·郭国汀加入民主中国阵线的公开声明
·论公推中国民运政治领袖的必要性
·论公推自荐公选民运政治精神领袖的紧迫性
·中国民主运动领袖论?答方文武先生
·关于筹建过渡政府与公选民运领袖问题的讨论
·关于民运领袖过渡政府与程序正义的争论
·历史功臣还是历史罪人?
·中国民主运动到底需要什么样的政治精神领袖?
·谁是中国民主运动政治精神领袖的最佳人选?
·谁是中共极权专制暴政最害怕的劲敌?
·郭国汀:汪兆钧信是中共内部爆炸的一颗原子弹
·严正责令胡锦涛及中共当局——立即无条件释放民运志士李国涛!
·反抗中共专制暴政的先驱者与英雄(修正)
·相会伟大的刘文辉烈士英魂
·敬请胡锦涛先生立即制止下属恶意疯狂攻击南郭之电脑
·"六四领袖去死吧!"及 " 逢共必反、逢华必反"?!
·草根吾友欲往何处去?
·真实的陈泱潮故事
·陈泱潮自传之二
·强烈推荐国人必读之最佳政论文
·答小溪先生质疑
·驳斥草虾兼与草根商榷!
·伟大的中国文化复兴宣言 郭国汀
·关于宣讲人权公约基金申请推荐函
·必须立即终止反动透顶的行政官员任命制
·自由中国论坛的不锈钢老鼠到底是什么角色?
·关注李宇宙的命运
***(43)中国民主运动的思想、理论与实践
·中国争人权言论表达自由权的先驱者与英雄名录
·民主革命论 陈泱潮
·《特权论的》精髓——对共产专制特权制度的深刻致命批判
·特权论的精髓——对共产专制特权制度的深刻致命批判 郭国汀
·枭雄黑道乱世的一百年!郭国汀
·论无产阶级民主制度下的两党制
·陈泱潮评胡锦涛
·陈泱潮论江泽民
·我为什么特别推崇陈泱潮先生的思想理论?
·天才论/郭国汀
·彻底揭露批判中共极权专制流氓暴政本质的奇书
·极权专制暴政的根源/郭国汀
·共产极权专制暴政的典型特征——简评陈泱潮的《特权论》
·论共产极权专制政权的本质——三评陈泱潮天才著作《特权论》
·何谓“无产阶级专政”
·陈泱潮论马克思主义的无产阶级专政 郭国汀
·论初级无产阶级专政 /新南郭点评
·论高级无产阶级专政 郭国汀
·中国何往?——政治思想论战书 /新南郭
·陈泱潮论改良主义/郭国汀
·文化大革命是中国民主革命的序幕 郭国汀
·陈泱潮妙评邓小平的“瞎猫屠夫理论” 郭国汀
·陈泱潮精评毛泽东 郭国汀
·论共产党官僚垄断特权阶级 郭国汀
·共产党官员为什么普遍腐化堕落?郭国汀
·“三个代表”是个什么玩意? 郭国汀
·对抗性的社会基本矛盾 郭国汀
·为何中共官员多具有奴隶主和奴仆的双重人格? 郭国汀
·共产专制特权等级制 郭国汀
·人民“公仆”是如何变成骑在人民头上作威作福的老爷的? 郭国汀
·神化首要分子神化党与邪教 郭国汀
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges

   Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges

   

   By thomasgguo

   

   Judicial independence is the precondition of justice and rule of law. None judges belong to any political party. Judges are security of tenure, and since 1867, none judge were remove from the bench for bribe, although there are some problem exist.

   

   

   In Canada the Federal Cabinet appoint Supreme Court and federal court, as well as provincial appeal and superior courts Judges, while provincial Cabinet appoint provincial courts judges. There are about 1000 judges in each category. All must be qualified lawyers who at least practiced ten years for higher level courts,five years for provincial courts.

   

   

   Judges are security of tenure, the higher courts’ mandatory retirement age of 75, the lower one are 65 or 70. Any judges serve on good behaviour, cannot remove unless by guilty of misbehaviour.

   

   

   Judges cannot be removed merely because the government regards their decisions as error or contrary to government policy, nor ruled against the Crown. Besides security of tenure, judicial independence involving financial, administrative, and political independence; salaries and pensions are fixed cannot intimidated by government threat to reduce. Judges at all levels never cease asking for increases in pay.

   

   

   Judges must be able to function without political pressure. However, Judges increasingly feel their independence is threatened by certain interest group, political correctness, media criticism, political criticism, and even demonstrations.

   

   

   Individual judges have occasionally made outrageous sexist, racist, or other inappropriate comments from the bench. Judges are rarely promoted from provincial court to federal court, 70 percent of appeal court judges have previous judicial experience.

   

   

   Judges are denied vote in federal election and none judges belong to any political party.

   

   

   The Canadian Judicial Council, consist of all the chief-justice and associate chief-justices of courts staffed by federally appointed judges, chaired by the chief-justice of the Supreme Court. The purpose of the Council is deal with the complaints raise against judges. For example, Thomas Berger of the BC Superior court publicly criticized the 1982 Constitution Act for its omission of Quebec and virtually neglect of Aboriginals, his action was investigated by the Canadian Judicial Council, which did not punished him, he resigned protest the process employed.[1]The Supreme Court judges are giving more public speech and interviews than previously, sometime got them into hot water. “It is clearly preferable for judges to exercise restraint when speaking publicly” Judicial Council warmed.

   

   

   In 1982Supreme Court had its first female judge, and in 2004 there were four female judges in the Supreme Court; the first female chief justice is Bererley McLachlan, now one-quarter of all judges in Canada are women.

   

   The Cabinet have used judicial appointment to reward faithful party supporters; although the legal expertise has been taken into account, but it was rarely the primary criterion.[2] Political patronage raises three problems: unsuitable one for his partisan be appointed;well-qualified candidate are overlooked for lack service to governing party;partisan judge may favour his political colleague.

   

   

   Judges are removable for serious criminal acts and for reasons of infirmity or incapacity,failure to execute their duty, or bring the judicial system into disrepute. Only four judges at intermediate and district level met their fate of remove charged since 1867. In 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the removal of Judge Richard Therrien from the court of Quebec on the ground thatwhen he was appointed a judge, he failed to disclose to the authority that he had been sentenced imprisonment for one year for unlawfully giving assistance to the FLQ.[3]Not a single Superior court judges has been removed from office; however, such proceedings were initiated in several cases,but judges either died or resigned during the removal process. Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec Superior court resigned in 1997, after the Canadian Judicial Council asked the federal Parliament to remove him, for having said on the bench that women can be crueller than men, and that even Nazi exterminated Jews painlessly.[4]In 1999, Robert Flahiff of the Quebec Superior Court lost his position when he was sentenced three years in jail after being found guilty of laundering $ 1.7million in drug money when he was a practicing lawyer.[5]Justice Matlow and Justice Cosgrove of Ontario Superior court, formal council vote not removal, later council recommended removal, he resigned.

   

   

   

   

   [1] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.678.

   

   [2] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.672.

   

   [3] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 p.677.

   

   [4]see, Gall, The Canadian Legal System,P.231, 238-39; Russel, The Judiciary in Canada; p.176-79; the courts p. 94-103.

   

   [5] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.677.

(2012/01/12 发表)

blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场