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
·初恋
·忠诚的品格
·论幸福/郭国汀
·生命感悟/南郭
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·学者 神 上帝 /南郭
·论英雄
·思想家是真正的王者
·论诗人/郭国汀
·诗论/郭国汀
·人性兽性的证明 南郭
·论嘲讽/南郭
·讽刺与赞美
·南郭点评芦笛
·竞技的由来与意义
·思想言论自由
·精神与物质同性
·自由的含义
·历史的价值
·战争与国家
·自学与真才实学
·欢迎批评批判
·其实我对法官充满了敬意!
·情由可言,难言之隐
·沉重的心!
·我为小点格格说句公道话
·堂堂正正做个真正的中国人!
·为自由为独立为思想的彻底解放大家努力呵!
·吾之专业乃出庭诉讼律师
·怒气
·最美丽的人
·南郭评论美人美言美语美文
·吾之教授梦在今天实现! 南郭
·南郭:我的遗嘱与托孤
·男子汉的眼泪/南郭
·性格决定命运/南郭
·文学感言/郭国汀
·郭国汀:春
·郭国汀:读实秋有感.
·郭国汀:理想.
·郭国汀:律师.
·郭国汀:作文.
·郭国汀:坚韧不拔
·郭国汀:兴趣.
·信函/南郭
·日记与书信/南郭
·性格/南郭
·天才,蠢才,笨蛋/南郭
·陈良宇是中共残酷政治斗争的牺牲品
·郭国汀 国人民族主义乃中共误导所致
·人民公社万岁?!--《辉煌的幻灭》读后感
·如何成为一名伟大的,优秀的法律人?网友评论
·如何成为一名对社会有用的人
·谁杀死了中国伟大的诗人杨春光?
·忆对我前半生影响至深的三位老师
·A Letter to a Chinese
·不敢讲真话的民族注定是受奴役遭天谴的软骨头的劣等种族
·This is no time to kowtow to China
·南郭初步定论宣昶玮
·自封上帝皇帝圣人者:狂妄无知之徒?!
·南郭点评宣昶玮自封紫薇圣人
·南郭点评张千帆教授论宪政
·愤怒出诗人,悲愤出伟诗
***(55)郭国汀律师专访
·世纪回眸(69)-专访郭国汀之一
·世纪回眸(70)-专访郭国汀律师之二
·郭国汀谈郭飞雄、力虹、陈树庆遭被捕
·法律人的历史使命---答《北大法律人》主编采访录
·郭国汀律师答亚洲周刊纪硕鸣采访实录
·希望之声专访:声援高智晟同时也是在为自己
·胡平章天亮郭国汀谈中华文化与道德重建
·希望之声专访郭国汀 中共是最大的犯罪利益集团
·中共已是末日黄昏----郭国汀声援杨在新律师
·希望之声专访郭国汀用法律手段揪出幕后凶手
·【专访】郭国汀从海事律师到人权律师的转变
·专访郭国汀:为女儿打破沉默
·郭国汀谴责中共对他全家迫害恐吓
·郭国汀律师谈中国司法现状
·人权律师郭国汀在加拿大谈六四
·加拿大华人举办烛光悼念纪念六四-著名人权律师郭国汀称退党运动具有重大意义 
·采访郭国汀律师:被逼离婚 战斗到底
·华盛顿邮报报导高智晟律师事件
·[专访]郭国汀律师:从刘金宝案谈开去
·希望之声专访郭国汀和盛雪
·大纪元专访郭国汀 中共垮台是必然的
·郭国汀谈高智晟律师的公开信
·中共的末日只是时间迟早的问题
·中华文化与道德重建
·【专访】郑恩宠律师郭国汀谈郑案内情
·【专访】辩护律师郭国汀谈清水君案
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·郭国汀触怒司法当局:中国律师维护社会正义风险大
·US lawmakers ask Beijing to reinstate law firm of rights activist
***国际透视
·北朝鲜疯狂发展核武器为哪般?
·中国强劳产品出口的罪孽
·郭国汀 中国人民的真正朋友加拿大总理斯蒂芬 哈柏
·只有抛弃马列毛实现法治自由民主21世纪才有可能属于中国
[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