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]->[加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明]
郭国汀律师专栏
***(34)《论中共极权专制暴政的本质》郭国汀著
·共产党极权专制暴政的变革
·论中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》之二
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共夺取政权以前的杀人罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共盗国窃政后的滥杀罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共谋杀性大饥荒
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》毛共文革罪孽深重
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》六四天安门屠城
·《中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共统治西藏罪孽深重
·《郭律师论中共极权流氓暴政》郭国汀著
·共产党极权暴政为争权夺利党内自相残杀的罪恶
·论推翻中共极权专制暴政的合法性
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·驳中共政权合法论 郭国汀
·中共极权暴政是严重污染毁灭中国生态环境的罪魁祸首
·论中共政权新闻控制-----2008年《巴黎中国新闻媒体控制国际研讨会》专稿
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(全文)
·论中共专制暴政下的宗教信仰自由(英文)
·中国共产党极权专制流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·中共政权是一个极权专制流氓暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第十九集:论中共暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第二十集:论中共暴政(下)
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个超级暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个极权暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个流氓暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共是个犯罪组织
·论中共的骗子本能
·《郭国汀评论》第六集中共暴政与精神病
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败(下)
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制(下)
· 郭律师评价中共律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·郭国汀评论第八十三集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日
· 郭国汀评论第八十四集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日(下)
·郭国汀评论第六十六集中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十七集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十八集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十九集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十集:中共极权专制暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十一集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十二集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十三集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十四集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十五集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天大罪
·郭国汀评论第七十六集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十七集:共产党极权暴政的缩命
·郭国汀评论第七十八集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(中)
·郭国汀评论第七十九集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(下)
·郭国汀评论第八十集:中共极权暴政摧残教育的深重罪孽
·共产党极权专制暴政的滥杀罪孽
·中共极权暴政的野蛮残暴杀人罪孽
·中共人为制造谋杀性大饥荒虐杀农民5000万
·中国反对派不能合作的根源何在?
·共产主义是好的,只是被共产党搞糟了?
·中共极权暴政下根本不可能存在法治
·今日中共还是共产党吗?
·推翻中共专制暴政是替天行道 郭国汀
·中共政权是吸血鬼暴政
·江泽民和胡锦涛均极可能是货真价实的特大汉奸卖国贼!
·中共专制暴政与生态环境
·中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(上)
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(中)
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(下)
·郭国汀评论:胡锦涛不是在执政而是在犯罪
·彻底推翻极权专制流氓暴政!永志不忘六四屠城滔天罪孽!
·朱镕基犯有贪污盗窃罪吗?
·朱镕基有关劳动保险金的罪责是非之我见
·中共党员是罪犯!——评贺卫方教授的中共分成两派说
·中共党员是罪犯 无耻无行文人是重罪犯!
·不是中国政府而是中共暴政丧尽天良!不但温家宝而且胡锦涛皆乃政治精神重症患者!
·中国共产党早已病入膏肓无可救药!
·杜绝三鹿毒奶粉事件的三项原则
·郭国汀律师系统批判中共极权专制暴政论文目录
·郭国汀中共政权已经彻底流氓化
·中共是极端残暴下流无耻的流氓暴政 郭国汀
·怀念当代中国最高贵的人——杨天水/张林
·关于中共政权合法性及专制暴政与人种信仰关系的论战 郭国汀
·南郭/推翻颠覆中共流氓暴政有功无罪!
·面对中共流氓暴政全体中国人应当做什么?
·面对十八层地狱,我的真情告白
·我的退党(社)、团、队声明
·从中共控制媒体看中共政权的脆弱
·关于加国公民起诉江泽民罗干李清王茂林案的宣誓证词(英文)
·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
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明

   加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明
   Statement in Support of Gao Zhisheng and World Wide Hunger Strike by Lawyers
   I wish to add my voice to those of lawyers and human rights organizations throughout the world in condemning the shocking and unceasing affronts to human rights and the rule of law perpetrated by the Government of China against lawyers of conscience.
   
   

   China is obligated both by its own laws, which the Government of China routinely ignores, and by international treaties and conventions binding China both as a signatory and also as a member state of the United Nations, to protect lawyers and ensure they are free to carry out their professional duties as advocates for their clients. The Chinese government has made a cynical mockery of all its obligations to lawyers and human rights advocates, in total violation of its obligations under both Chinese and International Law.
   
   
   The Chinese government today is arguably the worst violator of human rights on this planet, in partnership with western corporations such as Microsoft, Nortel, Yahoo, Cisco and Google. Many western governments, with an eye on their “market share” in China, have obsequiously fawned at the feet of the Chinese dictators and willingly assisted those dictators in promoting their claims that the human rights situation in China has never been better.
   
   
   
   The last Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, shamelessly congratulated the Beijing regime on its alleged progress in promoting human rights and implementing the “rule of law”, in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that the Beijing dictators are crushing human rights as never before and that they are ruthlessly determined to prevent the rule of law at any cost. Indeed, both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien before him prattled on incessantly about the “great progress” in Chinese human rights under the Beijing dictatorship even as Beijing was implementing a policy of full scale genocide against practitioners of Falun Gong.
   
   
   The first prominent human rights lawyer in China was Guo Guoting. His unbelievable courage in risking his own life and standing up to the brutal government of China has inspired a number of other honest lawyers throughout China to stand up for the rule of law, for human rights, for freedom of religion and political belief, against the Beijing regime. Today, Gao Zhisheng leads the fight inside China, while Guo Guoting, now resident in Canada, coordinates the international effort of lawyers everywhere to support their beleaguered and persecuted colleagues in China.
   
   
   Gao Zhisheng, like Guo Guoting, is a man with a level of courage probably beyond the comprehension of anyone not intimately familiar with the brutality and mendacity of the Beijing regime and the Chinese Communist Party. The Beijing regime has prevented him from practising his profession and has recently attempted to kill him. Indeed, were it not for the international attention and support he has received, the Chinese government would have succeeded in murdering him already.
   
   
   Gao Zhisheng spoke out on behalf of Falun Gong practitioners who are denied by the Chinese government their constitutional right to legal defence. He wrote an open letter to President Hu Jintao, specifically addressing the fact that these practitioners are citizens of China and must therefore have the same right to legal defence as all other Chinese citizens (which in practice is of little assistance to any citizen in any case). Mr. Gao also met in December with the United Nations emissary to China who had been sent to investigate reports of torture and other human rights abuses.
   
   
   Shortly thereafter, the Chinese authorities confiscated Mr. Gao’s licence to practise law, and closed down his law office, preventing the other ten lawyers in Mr. Gao’s office from practising their profession. The transparently false justification for these actions was that Mr. Gao had failed to report a change of address when renewing the registration of his law office!
   
   
   Since that time, several other courageous human rights lawyers from all over China have been arrested, incarcerated, harassed, threatened, and in some cases beaten, simply for discharging their professional duties as lawyers. Moreover, a recent attempt was made on Gao Zhisheng’s life, an attempt almost certainly the work of the Chinese police and military.
   
   
   Mr. Gao has now initiated a protest campaign of rotating hunger strikes by lawyers in several cities of China and Ms Sheng Xue has called on lawyers throughout the world to join this movement.
   
   
   We support Mr. Gao. We support the world wide hunger strike by lawyers of conscience. We support the demand that the Chinese government be held to at least minimum international standards of decency and civilization. And we call upon the new Government of Canada to reverse the last government’s shameful complicity in the crimes of the Beijing regime. We hope that the new Canadian government will express its support for Gao Zhisheng, for the world wide hunger strike by lawyers of conscience, and for the demand that Beijing recognize the rule of law and respect at least the minimal international norms of human rights and basic decency.
   
   Clive Ansley
   

©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

;   “保险财产的所有人或其他对其有利益或有责任的当事人由于海上风险的原因对第三方产生的任何责任。”
   在《海上保险法》第74条“对第三方责任”的标题下规定:
   “Where the assured has effected an insurance in express terms against any liability to a third party, the measure of indemnify, subject to any express provision in the policy, is the amount paid or payable by him to such third party in respect of such liability”.
    “被保险人已通过明示条款对第三方的任何责任进行投保,根据保险单上明示条款的规定,获得补偿的数额是其就这一责任向第三方支付或应支付的数额。”
    如果需要权威论点的话,这些法定条款对今天的包括碰撞责任在内的第三方责任保险便是权威。
   协会碰撞责任条款(Institute Collision Liability Clause)
   若未考查其历史,碰撞责任条款似乎是一个相当混杂的条款,让我们回到条款本身,即1983年10月1日协会船舶定期保险条款第8条。虽然其基本特点保持未变,该条款的格式要比船舶碰撞条款清晰和简单的多,保险人不想修改或改变原先船舶碰撞条款的适用范围和含义。四分之三(赔偿责任)的碰撞责任条款全文如下:
   8.1 The underwriters agree to indemnify the Assured for three-fourths of any sum or sums paid by the Assured to any other person or persons by reason of the Assured becoming legally liable by way of damages for
   8.1.1 loss of or damage to any other vessel or property on any other vessel
   8.1.2 delay to or loss of use of any such other vessel or property thereon
   8.1.3 general average of, salvage of , or salvage under contract of, any such other vessel or property thereon,
    where such payment by the Assured is in consequence of the Vessel hereby insured coming into collision with any other vessel.
   8.2 The indemnity provided by this Clause 8 shall be in addition to the indemnity provided by the other terms and conditions of this insurance and shall be subject to the following provisions:
   8.2.1 Where the insured Vessel is in collision with another vessel and both vessels are to blame, then, unless the liability of one or both vessels becomes limited by law, the indemnity under this Clause 8 shall be calculated on the principle of cross-liabilities as if the respective Owners had been compelled to pay to each other such proportion of each other’s damages as may have been properly allowed in ascertaining the balance or sum payable by or to the Assured in consequence of the collision.

[上一页][目前是第2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