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
·我的思想认识与保证/郭国汀
·郭国汀律师的[悔罪][悔过]与[乞求]
·郭国汀因言论“违宪”行政处罚听证案代理词
·我推崇的浦志强大律师/郭国汀
·我被中共当局非法剥夺执业资格的真实原因
***(24)《共产主义黑皮书》郭国汀编译
·共产党皆变成杀人犯罪团伙的历史与理论分析
·朝鲜的罪恶与恐怖和秘密:共产党暴政罪恶批判系列之一
·古巴共产极权政权的罪恶:共产党暴政罪恶批判之二
·越南共产党暴政罪恶昭彰:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之三
·中欧和东南欧共产党暴政的深重罪孽: 共产党极权暴政罪恶批判之四
·埃塞俄比亚共产党政权的罪孽: 共产党政权罪恶实录之五
·安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的血腥暴力:共产党政权罪恶实录之六
·阿富汉共产党暴政罪大恶极:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之七
·尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录之八
·秘鲁共产党的血腥残暴:共产党暴政罪恶实录之九
·虐杀成性的柬普寨共产党暴政:共产党暴政罪恶实录评论系列之十
·波兰共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十一
·苏联共产党暴政的滔天罪行:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十二
·中国共产党极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十三
·论共产党极权暴政的归宿-- 2010年全球支持中國和亞洲民主化斯特拉斯堡大會专稿
·金正日真面目
·韩战真相
***(25)《苏联东欧天鹅绒革命》郭国汀编译
·东欧天鹅绒革命导论
·苏联政治民主革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之一
·罗马尼亚暴力革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之二
·匈牙利静悄的革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之三
·捷克戏剧性革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之四
·东德和平革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之五
·波兰自我限制的革命:共产党极权暴政崩溃原因分析之六
·罗马尼亚35天革命成功真相
·社会转媒(国际互联网)对阿拉伯之春革命的巨大作用
·郭国汀:苏共政权垮台的根本原因
·阿拉伯之春埃及部分成功的革命
·阿拉伯之春:突尼斯成功的革命
·觉醒的人民粉碎专制体制:阿拉伯革命
·民主革命决非恐怖主义
·东欧各国追究共产党罪犯的罪责概况
·共产党专制暴政皆依赖秘密政治警察实行极权恐怖统治
·共产党极权暴政利用强制劳改劳教集中营野蛮残暴迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政实质上皆与人民为敌
·共产党极权专政暴政的大清洗
·共产党极权专制暴政皆利用强制劳改集中营野蛮迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政皆践踏法律司法暗无天日
·共产党极权专制暴政皆疯狂迫害宗教信仰者
***(26)《共产主义的历史》郭国汀编译
·序《共产主义的历史》
·共产主义的理论与实践批判
·列宁主义批判
·斯大林主义批判
·西方国家的共产主义
·第三世界的共产主义
·共产主义谬误的根源及其注定失败的原因
·共产党政权跨台的理论与实践根源
·马克思确认共产主义是“可怕的妖精”和“鬼魂”及“幽灵”
·共产主义注定败亡的十四项理由
·人类不平等的起源究竟是什么?
·郭国汀马克思主义批判
·宗教是毒药!宗教是引人堕落的意识世界吗?!
·马克思列宁毛泽东为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党政权为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源
·中共政权极度腐败的宗教根源
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源—与网友的讨论
***(27)《列宁不为人知的故事》郭国汀编译
·列宁不为人知的故事(1)
· 列宁不为人知的故事(2)
·列宁不为人知的故事(3)
·列宁不为人知的故事(4)
·列宁不为人知的故事(5)
·列宁不为人知的故事(6)
·列宁不为人知的故事(7)
·列宁不为人知的故事(8)
·列宁不为人知的故事(9)
·列宁不为人知的故事(10)
·列宁不为人知的故事(11)
·列宁不为人知的故事(12)
·列宁不为人知的故事(13)
·列宁不为人知的故事(14)
·列宁不为人知的故事(15)
·列宁不为人知的故事(16)
·列宁是天真无知与考茨基的远见卓识
·马克思私生子考评
***(28)《苏俄革命》郭国汀编译
· 列宁共产主义实践的恶果
·极权主义术语的由来
·苏俄十月革命真相
· 列宁首创一党专制体制
· 卖国求权的布列斯特和约
·革命的真实含义
·支撐沙皇的五大政治力量--俄國革命前夕的历史格局
·1917年俄国二月革命
·权欲知识分子与苏俄革命
***(29)《基督教与人类文明》郭国汀编译
·《基督教与文明》
[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