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
·中共极力扶持缅甸军事专制政府及苏丹专制暴政
·请胡锦涛立即停止疯狂攻击郭国汀律师的电脑
·中共专制暴政恶贯满盈
·申曦(曾节明):剥胡锦涛的画皮
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛其人其事
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛虚伪狡诈邪恶凶残阴险的真面目
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛的伪善与病态人格
·申曦(曾节明):盖棺认定胡氏中共暴政
·申曦(曾节明):江泽民的心病
·申曦(曾节明):邓小平罪孽深重
***(35)中国政治体制批判
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·郭国汀律师批判极权专制政治司法教育体制主张自由人权宪政民主文章目录
·郭国汀律师政论时评目录
·中国反抗专制暴政的先驱者与英雄
·郭国汀与横河谈中共暴政阉割国人灵魂使警察成为恶魔
·孙文广、程晓农、郭国汀谈共产党的公务员非法歧视政策
·划时代的审判,创造历史的壮举
·恶法不除,国无宁日
·致加拿大国会的公开函
·中共已是末日疯狂/郭国汀
·三权分立的哲学基础
·虚伪是极权专制的必然付产品-------南郭与中律网友们的对话
·汝竟敢骂共党骂毛泽东!
***(36)中共司法体制批判
·从人权律师的遭遇析中国人权的实际情况
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·中共专制暴政下为什么冤假错案堆积如山?
·中共勞教制度是人類歷史上最野蠻的制度
·马亚莲案与废除劳教制度
·郭國汀談中共勞教制度下的性酷刑
·郭國汀談萬名公民提出廢除勞教制度建立叻ㄐ袨槌C治法
·郭国汀:违宪、违法
·郭国汀律师谈中国司法现状
·郭国汀称司法黑社会化免死承诺难保赖昌星的命
·为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词
·中华全国律师协会的实质----被阉割与自宫
·郭国汀 司法公正的前提条件
***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
[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