百家争鸣
为了方便阅读,博讯暂停广告播放,博迅需要您的支持。
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award ]
郭国汀律师专栏
·保证保险合同代理词(修正)
·商品房按揭保证保险合同争议案上诉代理词
·信托货款合同争议案再审申请书
·关于所谓“酒后驾车险”的法律分折/郭国汀
***郭国汀律师论文案析与评论
·论FOB合同下承运人签发提单的义务
· 论海上火灾免责
· 论海上火灾免责
·论海上火灾免责
·论承运人单位责任限制
·论提单适用法律条款与首要条款
·无正本提单放货若干法律问题
·从1906年英国海上保险法起草者说开去
·集装箱保险合同争议举证责任规则
·“新世纪”轮船舶保险合同(固定物、浮动物? )争议案的反思
·船舶保险合同(保证条款)争议案析
·记名提单若干问题研究
·集装箱保险合同若干法律问题
·船舶保险合同“船舶出租”应指光船出租
·试论船舶保险合同项下“碰撞、触碰”的法律含义
·“新世纪”轮船舶保险合同(固定物、浮动物? )争议案的反思
·水上油污若干法律问题 郭国汀
·油污国际公约若干问题 郭国汀
·海上油污损害赔偿适用法律研究/郭国汀
·《郭国汀海商法论文自选》
·处理货抵目的港后收货人不提货的措施
·评一起重大涉外海商纠纷案的判决
·托运人对海运合同货损、货差没有针对承运人的诉权
·海上货运合同货差纠纷案析
·共同海损案法律分析
·货物被骗属于货物一切险承保范围
·上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案
·GENERAL TRADE诉绍兴县进出口公司国际货物买卖合同品质纠纷案析
·货代违约造成贸易合同毁约应向谁索赔损失?
·对一起复杂行政诉讼案的法律思考
·2002年国际船舶保险条款
·Peter . Liu劳动争议初步法律意见/郭国汀
·船舶保险合同(保证条款)争议案析/郭国汀
·自有集装箱被占用案初步法律意见/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·析一起签发放行记名提单再审争议案/郭国汀
·上海亚太国际集装箱储运有限公司诉天津海峡货运有限公司上海分公司海上货物运输合同货物被盗损失代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·海上保险合同争议起诉状/郭国汀
·民事答辩反诉状
·关于应当如何理解《INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (A)》中“一切险”责任范围的咨询复函/郭国汀
·海运运费及代理费问题的解答/郭国汀
·美亚保险公司上海分公司诉BDP亚洲太平洋有限公司海上货运合同货损争议代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·货代违约造成贸易合同无效怎么办?郭国汀
·捷运通有限公司诉东方集团上海市对外贸易有限公司海上货运合同争议案析/郭国汀
·平安保险公司代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·记名提单若干法律问题上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·乐清外贸公司与长荣航运公司海上货物运输合同争议案初步法律意见书/郭国汀
·新世纪轮船舶保险合同争议上诉代理词
·“富江7号”轮沉船保险合同争议案析/郭国汀
·上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·评一起重大涉外海商纠纷案的判决 郭国汀
·请教郭国汀律师有关留置权问题
·新加坡捷富意运通有限公司诉上海中波国际贸易有限公司运费争议案析/郭国汀
·中国海关实际运作的宣誓证言/郭国汀
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀译
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀 译(下)
***郭国汀律师专译著
·《现代提单的法律与实务》译者的话/郭国汀译
·《审判的艺术》译者的话/郭国汀
·《国际经济贸易法律与律师实务》作者的话/郭国汀
·《当代中国涉外经济纠纷案精析》主编的话/郭国汀
·《国际海商法律实务》主编前言/郭国汀
(1)《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 郭国汀校
·寄语中国青少年——序《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》
·《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》译后记
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第二编 海上货物保险格式
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第三编 海上船舶格式保险单
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第四编 对船东的附加保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第五编 为各利益方的保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第六编 战争和罢工险格式
(2)英国协会保险货物保险条款英中对译
·1934年1月1日协会更换保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物(A)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物保险(B)和(C)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年8月1日协会恶意损害保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年9月5日协会商品贸易(A)(B)(C)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会黄麻保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冻肉保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶战争险和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物战争险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年10月1日协会煤炭保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年10月1日和1995年11月1日协会船舶定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会天然橡胶(液态胶乳除外)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冷冻食品(冻肉除外)保险A条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会运费定期战争和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award

   letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award

   

   

   Reply to: Clive M. Ansley

   VIA E-MAIL & MAIL 306 – 576 England Avenue,

    Courtenay, BC

   July 5, 2008

   

   Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

   No. 4, Alley 17, Lane 147, Sec. 3, Sinyi Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan V9N 2N3 CANADA

    Tel: 250-338 0202

    Fax: 250-338 0902

   Website: www.ansleyandcompany.com

   

   

   

   

   Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

   Re: Guo Guoting

   I am very pleased to nominate the captioned human rights lawyer and democracy fighter, Guo Guoting, for your 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award.

   I acknowledge at the outset that my recommendation is being sent after your June 30 deadline for receiving nominations and for that I apologize. I trust that my tardiness will not prevent you from considering Mr. Guo for this award. My delay in sending this nomination is in no way the fault of Mr. Guo. I had set aside a time for writing this, but a “perfect storm” of events prevented me from completing the task on time. Unexpected developments in a Supreme Court hearing involving the Falun Gong permanent protest site in Vancouver required substantial overtime work and this happened while my Associate, who was assisting me on this case, was absent from British Columbia. Also, June 30th fell during a four day Canada National Day holiday and that meant that I had no support staff in my office.

   I trust you will understand and will not penalize Mr. Guo because of my failure to meet the deadline, particularly when he is obviously so richly deserving in terms of his unchallengeable merits.

   Mr. Guo emerged as a leading Human Rights lawyer in China in 2003, and very quickly achieved recognition on the international stage. He was subsequently profiled in a New York Times article which highlighted his courageous devotion to defending critics of the Chinese Communist Party, persecuted Falun Gong practitioners, political dissidents, and others who had become targets of the Chinese Communist Party.

   At the time the Times article appeared, Mr. Guo was already experiencing intimidation by the Party and by the “Justice” Ministry controlled by the Party. He had first provoked the wrath of the Party by defending fellow lawyer Zheng Enchong on spurious charges of unlawfully providing state secrets to foreigners. Zheng had run afoul of the Party by bringing a class action on behalf of some five hundred Shanghai homeowners evicted from their homes without compensation in order to facilitate a major project by a powerful Shanghai developer who was in bed with the Shanghai authorities. After Guo Guoting stepped forward to undertake Zheng’s legal defence, he was repeatedly warned by “Justice” Ministry officials and lawyers instructed by those officials that he should walk away from the case and that if he did not, his career would be seriously damaged. But Guo Guoting ignored all the pressure, saw the trial of Zheng Enchong through to the end, and publicly excoriated the Chinese Communist Party.

   It is difficult to comprehend, and impossible to exaggerate, the courage which Guo Guoting demonstrated between 2003 and 2005.

   First, “Justice” Ministry officials broke into his office and confiscated his computer, containing all his legal files and records generated in twenty years of practice. Then the “Justice” Ministry subjected him to a bogus and disgraceful “hearing” which concluded with the confiscation of his licence to practise law. The authorities also closed down his office and made every possible effort to dissuade his clients from contacting him. He was deprived of his right to earn a livelihood.

   In the interim, he had also defended or acted for several Falun Gong practitioners, notwithstanding the Chinese Communist Party prohibition against all lawyers from providing legal representation to Falun Gong practitioners; he had defended the famous political dissident, Shi Tao; he had also defended a number of individuals deemed “enemies” by the Chinese Communist Party, including Huang Jingqiu, who was jailed for attempting to organize a political party, and Qi Yanlai, who was persecuted for telling the truth about Falun Gong.

   Mr. Guo in this period also proceeded to publish a large number of internet critiques of the Communist Party one-party dictatorship, in absolutely scathing terms.

   To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Guo was the first Chinese lawyer to publicly expose the Chinese “judicial” system for the fraudulent and cynical theatre that it is. He was pointing out the obvious, but no one else had dared say it before: If one political party controls all legislation, exercises control over all lawyers and prosecutors, and completely controls all courts and judges, how can it be possible to argue the existence of judicial independence and the Rule of Law? Mr. Guo argued that justice and equity could not possibly exist in a system in which almost 100% of all judges, members of the Judicial Committees, and Secretaries of the Political/Legal Committees which stand above the “courts” were Communist Party members.

   Eventually, in early 2005 Mr. Guo and his family were placed under house arrest. Approximately thirty Shanghai police officers were stationed outside his residence each day, his home telephone was cut off, and his cell phone was confiscated. Police indicated that formal “criminal” charges were being prepared against Mr. Guo.

   However, before police had laid charges, Mr. Guo had attracted such international attention that his continued persecution had become an embarrassment to the Chinese Communist Party Government. Lawyers Rights Watch Canada and other human rights organizations wrote open letters to Hu Jintao. As the Party had done with Wang Dan, Wei Jingsheng, and others, it decided to bring an end to the embarrassment by allowing Guo to go abroad. He came to Canada as a refugee and has worked unstintingly and unceasingly ever since in the cause of human rights in China, the defence of Chinese Human Rights advocates in China, and the promotion of democracy in China. In all three of these areas, Guo Guoting has published voluminously on the internet.

   I have had the opportunity and privilege of working with Mr. Guo over these past three years and have often participated in public forums with him. I have no hesitation in testifying to his honesty, integrity, and tireless devotion to the causes of human rights, democracy, and the Rule of Law in China.

   I continue to marvel at the unbelievable courage Mr. Guo displayed in standing up to the Chinese Communist Party and clinging steadfastly to his principles in the days before he went into exile abroad.

   Should you need further comment from me, please let me know and I shall respond immediately.

   Yours truly,

   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