大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[自由之我见]
郭国汀律师专栏
·作家黄金秋被无罪判重刑十二年辩护律师郭国汀谴责中共司法不公
·我为留学生英雄清水君抗辩
·清水君近况
·清水君其人其事辩护律师答记者问
·清水君:开庭日
·清水君:我的最后陈述
·清水君狱中诗草
·告诉你一个真实的清水君─黄金秋自述
·狱中诗草-短诗赠郭兄雅正
·赠黑眼睛等诸友
·南郭/清水君自我辩护感人至深
·南郭/中国人决不能忘记清水君!
·南郭/清水君是当代中国英雄
·南郭/清水君在狱中受到中共监狱毫无人性的虐待!
***(二)郭国汀律师为法轮功抗辩
***(1)中共极权暴政的最新反人类罪:活体盗卖法轮功学员人体器官专栏
·郭国汀 中共活摘器官是真的!
·中共为何纵容活体盗卖法轮功信徒的人体器官Why the CCP Harvests the Living Falun Gong
·BLOODY HARVEST Organ of Falun Gong
·活体盗人体器官关健证人调查纪录
·惊天罪孽 铁证如山
·郭国汀:苏家屯事件敲响了中共的丧钟
·郭国汀:苏家屯事件是真实的
·郭国汀:西方媒体报导苏家屯是个时间问题
·西方媒体首次报导苏家屯事件!
·中共活割法轮功学员人体器官主调查人DADID Matas 获Tarnopolsky 2007年人权奖(英文)
***(2)郭国汀律师为法轮功强力抗辩
·Resolution for Falun Gong in Congress of USA
·法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?答MICRONET有关瞿延来的质疑
·中共为何血腥镇压法轮功?
·诉江泽民案美国依据国际法的义务:是对公共安全的危胁还是种族灭绝?
·值得中国律师学习的起诉书: 诉江泽民\李岚清\罗干\刘京\王茂林损害赔偿两千万加元
·郭国汀论辩法轮功
·我为法轮功说句公道话
·陈光辉监外执行、保外就医申请书
·为争取信仰自由权已绝食抗争七百八十天的瞿延来.
·百无一用是中国律师
·答三项基本原则
·中共必须立即停止镇压法轮功
·我为什么为法轮功辩护? 郭国汀
·我为法轮功抗辩的真实心声
·法轮功真相之我见
·中共才是真正的邪教----中共血腥残暴迫害法轮功的根源
·中共镇压法轮功的国际法分析
·中共滥用教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析
·当代中国的盖世太宝[610办公室]研究(英文)
·有感于对法轮功学员的强制教育
·中共当局必须立即无条件释放刘如平律师!郭国汀
·声援支持杨在新律师!
·郭国汀章天亮曾宁谈425和平上访到千万退党的精神延续
·中共专制暴政一直在杀人----悼念讲真相英雄陈光辉
·FALUN GONG PERSECUTION FACTS HEET
·RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FALUN GONG IN CHINA
·2
·Falun Gong Wins Motion in Historic Torture Lawsuit against Former Head of China
·为法轮功抗辩与自由中国论坛部份网民的论战
·Dr Wang Wenyi will be remembered by history as a great courage hero
·法轮功是比中共有过之无不及的一人专制吗?-答谭嗣同先生
·法轮功讲真相无罪
·郭国汀:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
·郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·质疑张千帆教授对法轮功的评价 郭国汀
·宣誓证词Affidavit
·中共一贯谎言连篇是个地道的骗子党!
·中共下达密文奥运成迫害最大借口
·中国著名人权律师从为法轮功辩护看中共践踏法律(图)
·郭国汀律师批评中共奧運前加劇迫害法輪功
·郭国汀律师呼吁台湾政府予吴亚林政治庇护
·郭国汀律师称中共持续非法迫害法轮功及其辩护律师
·答Gavin0919郭国汀是法轮功走狗之指控
***(3)郭国汀为法轮功辩护的专访
·专访郭国汀律师(上) :为法轮功辩护
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·RFA:郭国汀介绍为法轮功学员打官司的曲折经历
·自由亞洲電台专访郭國汀谈為法輪功學員打官司
·希望之声郭国汀专访:对法轮功学员的劳教、判刑是非法行为
***(三)郭国汀律师为郑恩宠抗辩
·我为郑恩宠律师抗辩的前前后后
·为郑恩宠案翟明磊等中国新闻记者六君子的声明
·敬请关注郑恩宠律师所谓"非法获取国家秘密罪"一案
·历史将证明郑恩宠律师无罪/郭国汀
·郑恩宠案二审辩护词及网友评论/郭国汀
·关于会见在押的郑恩宠的第二次申请函
·郑恩宠律师“为境外非法提供国家秘密罪”一审判决书
·上海市高级法院郑恩宠案刑事裁定书
·郑恩宠冤案再审案至全国律协诸位会长之公开函/郭国汀
·中国最需要像郑恩宠这样的律师
·诽谤郑恩宠律师的中共党奴及特务名录
·再谈郑恩宠案 郭国汀倡律师网上辩护
·我为郑恩宠辩护的前前后后 郭国汀
·上海普通市民感受的郑恩宠大律师
·关于郑恩宠案我的声明
·我为郑恩宠律师辩护
·一切源于郑恩宠案,可敬的国安兄弟请自重!
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
自由之我见

   郭国汀 自由之我见( 2003-3-1 20:01:26)
   
   思想自由人人都认为其可贵,言论出版自由是使思想自由得以实现其社会意义及政治意义的惟一正途。
   
    如果我们真是民主法治自由的国度,那么就不要害怕言论自由!假如我们的主张是真理,那么我们就不必害怕批评更不应限制言论出版自由!若我们真理在握,我们当然敢于面对任何争辩!如果我们希望国家进步富强,惟有彻底解放思想,调动每个人的积极性创造性,中华民族才能真正复兴!

   
    自由即是人们能够按照其自己的意愿而非受制于任何外界力量从事任何行为。如果我们的行为需受制于任何外部力量我们也就没有自由。
   
    自由并非社会动乱的原因,专制暴力才是动乱的根源。我们反对暴力反对一切专制。我们欢迎批评欢迎论战欢迎论辩。
   
    目前我国根本不存在所谓自由过多或是烂用自由或是自由导致动乱之虞。任何理论任何主义任何思想任何主张都可以也应当公开辩论公开批评,特别是事关国家前途,民族命运,人民幸福的大问题只有通过最广大的人民参与充分讨论争辩后,才有可有避免再度出现反右大跃进人民公社大练钢铁四清文革批孔批邓血洗六四镇压法轮功等荒谬绝伦政治动动。
   
    林语堂大师早在80年前便深刻指出:“中国两千年来思想之所以沉寂,这是因为没有真正自由的批评思想而只有做文章而已。”(《林语堂全集》第13集第126页)吾深以为然。

©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

决于每个个案情况的事实问题91。在普通的拖航合同中,被拖轮控制航行,充当“支配意见方 ” 92,在其与拖轮之间的关系中处于主人的位置93。然而,在拖轮控制航程的场合(通常的情形是,被拖船是艘“非自航驳船”,或者平底驳船,或者一艘“死船”),并不存在此种主仆关系,法律上将拖轮视为独立的合同方94。
   象英国一样,加拿大的拖轮船东并非普通承运人,对被拖轮或船上货物不负有保险人的责任95。同样,根据加拿大法律,承拖方并非受寄托人,这是相当清楚的,因为判决确立了“…………事故的发生并不对拖轮产生推定,索赔方负有证明缺之通常注意的责任” 96。假如拖航属于寄托,则产生过错推定,承拖方负有对此进行反驳的责任97。
   91、Hubbard v. Dickie , (1906) 39 N.S.R. 506 at P.513 (N.S.S.C).
   92、The Prince Arthur v. The Florence, (1896) 5 Ex. C.R. 151 at at P.155, upheld (1896) 5 Ex.C.R. 218 at P.219. Even where the towed vessel controls the navigation, however, the tug must employ reasonable care and skill. See Hamilton Marine &Engineering Ltd. v. CSL Group Inc., (1995) 95 F.T.R. 161 (Fed. C.Can.).
   93、Smith v. St. Larence Tow-Boat Company, (1873) L.R. 5 P.C.308 at P.313 (P.C.); The Wandrian v. Hatfield, (1907) 38 S.C.R. 431 at P.446; Canada S. A . lines Ltd. v. Montreal Co., [1940] Ex .C.R.220 at P.234.
   94、Re dumb barges, see Harbour Commissioners of Montreal v. The S.S. Universe,(1906) 10 Ex. C.R. 352 at P.378; Waldie Btos. Ltd.v. Fullum, (1909) 12 Ex. C. 325 at P.370; Russell v.The Gloria, [1927]Ex.C.R. 162 at P.175; Goodwin Johnson Ltd .v.The A.T&B.No.28,{1954} S.C.R. 51 at PP.533-534, (1954) 4 D.L.R. 1,14 –15. But see also The A.L. Smith and The Chinook v. Ontario Gravel Freighting Co.,(1915) 51 S.C.R.39 at P.44, (1915) 23 D.L.R 491 (tug and barge belonging to same company held jointly liable in rem, although tug alone controlled the navigation), Anglin and Davies, JJ. Dissenting strongly. See also Canadian Dredging Co.v. Northern navigation Co., [1923] Ex. C.R. 189 at PP.193-194, [1923] 4 D.L.R. 1195 (summ.) (tug and barge held jointly liable, it being unclear which vessel cintrolled the navigation). Re “lead tug” as dominant mind of other tugs in a flotilla, see The Rhone v. The Peter A.B. Widener, supra, [1990] 3 F.C 185 at P.200, (1990) 67 D.L.R. (4 th) 646 at P.655(Fed. C.A). This finding of fact was not disturbed by the Supreme Court of Canada, in reversing the Federal Court of Appeal on other grounds. See, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 497 at PP.525 and 530, (1993) 101 D.L.R (4th) 188 at PP.213 and 216-217,[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.600 at PP.609 and 611,1993 AMC 1697 at PP.1713 and 1717.
   95、See Annotation by Robinson, supra, note 88, at P.172. See also The Tug Champlain v. Canada S.S.Lines, [1939] Ex. C.R.89 at P.95, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 384 at P.389; Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd.,1995 AMC 1558 at P.1568(Fed. C.Can.). But see also Burrard Towing Co.v.Reed Stenhouse Ltd.,(1996) 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 391 at P.396 (B.C.C.A), where Southin J.A. held that a contract to move goods from one place to another by means of a tug and barge both supplied by the tug owner was a contract of affreightment or a contract of carriage, rather than a contract of towage.
   96、The Tug Champlain,[1939] Ex. C.R.89 at p.95, [1939] 1 D.L.R.384 at P.389; The Rhone v. The Peter A.B.Widener, [1990] 3 F C. 185 at P.197, (1990) 67 D.L.R. (4 th) 646 at P.653 (Fed. C.A.); St.Lawrence Cement Inc.v. Wakeham and Sons Ltd., (1995) 26 O.R. (3d) 321 at PP.328-329, 1996 AMC 632 at P.639 (Ont.C.A). But see A.I.M. Steel Ltd. v. Gulf of Georgia Towing Ltd.,(1964( 50 W.W.R. 475 at P.481, (1964) 48 D.l.R. (2d) 549 at P.555 (B.C.S.C), holding a towing contractor to be a private carrier for reward and a bailee, with the attendant onus of rebutting the presumption of negligence resulting from bailment). See also Fraser River Pile &Dredge Ltd. v.Empire Tug Boats Ltd., 1995 AMC 1558 at PP.1565-1568(Fed.C.Can.), Questioning., without deciding, why towage of an unmanned barge should not be considered as bailment.
   97、Supra, discussion surrounding note 18 ; A.I.M Steel Ltd. v.Gulf of Georgia Towing Ltd., supra, note 96; Fraser River Pile& Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd., supra, note 96.
   事情不言自明适用于帮助原告进行举证,但并不创设任何法律上的推定98。然而,该原则现已不再适用于加拿大的普通法,加拿大最高法院在Fontaine诉British Columbia (Official Administrator)案中彻底将其废止99。而Bayside Towing Ltd诉Canadian Pacific Railway Co.一案100同样拒绝了该原则对拖航的适用。
   象英国一样,拖航在加拿大也有别于救助,除非危险的存在或者危险的风险性要求拖轮履行超出拖航本身通常的服务101。
   (2)、注意标准
   加拿大拖航的注意标准,与英国及美国一样,是“谨慎和技巧的程度应达到审慎的航海者通常类似的服务” 102,或者,换句话来说,通常的小心、谨慎及海事技巧103。
   98、 Canadian Dredging Co.v. Russell, [1936] 3 D.L.R. 44 at PP.49-50 (Exch. C. Can.); The Rhone v. The peter A.B. Widener, [1990] 3 F.C.185 at P.197, (1990) 67 D.L.R.(4 th ) 646 at P.653 (Fed.C.A.).
   99、[1998] 1 S.C.R.424 at P.435, where Major, J. Said of res ipsa loquitur: “It would appear that the law would be better served if the maxim was treated as expired and no longer used as a separate component in negligence actions. After all, it was nothing more than an attempt to deal with circumstantial evidence. That evidence is more sensibly dealt with by the trier of fact.......”
   100、[2000] 3 F.C.127 at PP.139-140, 2000 AMC 1277 at PP.1283-1284 (Fed. C.Can.per Hargrave, P.)
   101、Canadian Pacific Navigation Co.v. The C .F. Sargent, (1893) 3 Ex. C.R. 332; Hine v. Steam-Tug Thomas J. Scully, (1899) 6 Ex. C.R. 318 at P.326; Humphreys v. The Florence No.2, [1948] Ex. C.R. 426 at P.429-430; Dunphy’s Ltd.v. S.S. Nancy Caines, [1950] 2 D.L.R. 64 at P.68 (Exch.C.Can.); The Bonabelle v. The Hazard, [1953] Ex. C.R.192 at P.193; Burrard Towing Ltd.v. T.G. McBride & Co., [1968] 1 Ex. C.R. 9 at P.19.
   102、Sewell v.B.C. Towing and Transportation Co., (1883) 9 S.C.R. 527 at Pp.543-544, 547-548 and 554; The Tug Champlain v. Canada S.S. Lines Ltd., [1939] Ex. C.R. 89 at P.96, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 384 at P.390, both quoting from The Webb, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 406 at P414 (1871); Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd.v.Empire Tug Boats Ltd., 1995 AMC 1558 at P.1566 (Fed. C. Can.).

[上一页][目前是第7页][下一页]

©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