法官对李向东发出的隔离令意味着什么?

Sedona

First, respect to 弄舟.  How many of us know what e-laws is, or spend time understanding the legal and social systems in Canada?  What 弄舟 doesn't have is life case experience to support his interpretation, which is fairly accurate in my humble opinion.

I am not a lawyer, but have done law enforcement for over 20 years in Canada. My current role includes interpreting the laws and translating them into government position papers, policies and procedures.  I have seen more than 2000 no contact orders, so I guess I am qualified to toss in my 2 cents.

In at least 2 of my posts in other threads, I have tried to "re-construct" the disposition of Mr. Lee's criminal case.  He refused to further elaborate, though he spent time and efforts telling us he made his wife pregnant in the first very date and the details of his negative family interactions.

Let me try the "re-construction" one more time:

Before conviction/disposition:

There may be a no contact order before conviction or disposition.  The order is either issued by the police via an undertaking or by the law court via a bail.  This order is still an order; every legal party in the case must abide by the order.  However, it doesn't mean the defendant is guilty of anything. GongYiZhiSheng has said it the case still is untested.

After conviction/disposition:

I had an hour conversation with my legal manager about this case.  She probably thought I had "trouble" at work.  My legal manager is a panel member with the Ministry of Attorney General, to review and to revise the current laws.

We "re-constructed" the following:

1. Dismissal (case dropped or not convicted). The law court has no jurisidiction issuing any restrictive order on the defendant.

2. Conviction. The law court will issue an order with or without restrictive conditions including a no contact order.

3. Bargain, with or without a conviction. The law court can issue restrictive orders. My legal manager could not recall if she had seen a conditional discharge with a no contact order, though I told her I had seen it.

4. After the disposition, the no contact order means the victim requires protection.  If the defendant violates the court order, he will be charged with breach, and the old case will be brought back to court for a new disposition.

To conclude, it is time for Mr. Lee to tell us if he was convicted or he got a bargain with the Crown.  The current no contact order, after the disposition, means Ms. Wu still is at risk.

I don't understand why the court order includes that Mr. Lee can't have access to his daughter. There must be "more facts" in this case Mr. Lee has chosen not to share with 51ers.

Sedona

最初由[哇咧]发布
加拿大的法院和官僚系统，基本上就是瞎判

和红楼梦里面的葫芦僧差不多。很多时候都不是合情合理合法，也不是有根有据有保障。这种所谓隔离令就是这样。

木然参与此事，主要是针对平权会；
开始我了解得不多，后来认为是需要帮助李向东恢复自信心，捍卫自己的生活，包括挑战法庭判决和resolve与妻子的争端。所以李向东的自述有部分原因是我鼓励的，为的是让他熟悉中文输入，以便提交给律师的材料。

合法???  Of course, a no contact order is legal - no doubt about it.

合情合理????  No contact order is reasonable and fit well to the Canadian mainstream society.  I am not sure about immigrants though.  There are 105 ethno-cultural communities in Toronto.  I don't think we can find a legal system to fit them all.

不是有根有据有保障????  This is a strong accusation. If the Canadian law system doesn't operate based on reasonable and probable grounds, that's a good news - we can all move to USA, UK, Australia or China to claim refugee status.

所以李向东的自述有部分原因是我鼓励的，为的是让他熟悉中文输入，以便提交给律师的材料。?????  You don't learn Chinese typing by sharing your private life, including the graphic details of the very first date.  Go talk to a lawyer, who will assist Mr. Lee to organize his case.  Instead, he is shooting his own feet by sharing lots of inappropriate comments.

If the Canadian legal system is corrupt, forget legal help or appeal to the law court. Smuggle to a civilized country to claim refugee status!

Sedona

最初由[哇咧]发布
回复：回复：加拿大的法院和官僚系统，基本上就是瞎判



I know the Chinese community well and I believe what I suggested is appropriate, adequate, and constructive, from the side of Mr. Lee. Canadian's law systems, specifically family law, is very easily used against people like Mr. Lee, who has a short life living here, apparently lack of self-confidence, under financial difficulties. This is not the problem of enforcement, but the consequence of cultural differences.

Canadian legal system is corrupt, no doubt. I saw it on TV once the police in some state of US is chasing a suspect on the road, and the woman reporter was asking questions to the *criminal expert*, "why he is still trying to hide somewhere here, why didn't he go to somewhere else like Canada?" It's a shame.



Though I don't agree the Canadian legal system is corrupt, I agree with you lots of Chinese immigrants suffer because of the cultural clash.

Do I agree with the family law in Canada?  Not quite.  The family law intervention is like when we have a fever, we take antibiotic, regardless the cause of the fever.  It is very effective, but the side effects are harmful as well.

You mention tv shows.  Mr. Lee is eligible for a trip to Jerry Springer's show in Chicago. Alternatively, Judge Judy's.

Sedona

一个法律认定了的罪犯，比如3年刑的（我没说李向东），这人是否失去所有权力，比如隐私权，姓名权什么的，是否就可以任媒体任意宰割？   

I am no expert in anything. The only thing I am good at is traveling, so if you need any suggestion, I am more than happy to share my experience.

To answer the question above, it is easy.  We don't need no legal expertise; just use common sense.

这人是否失去所有权力?  The key word is 所有.  The answer is of course no; even prisoners have some rights.

比如隐私权，姓名权什么的?  I guess you are referring to the video.  I haven't seen the video, but I bet Mr. Lee's name was not mentioned.  Mr. Lee self-identified it to the media he is the talk of the town.  In term of confidentiality, I don't think anyone or organization has violated Mr. Lee's rights.  If they did, Mr. Lee can sue them for millions.

On the other hand, Mr. Lee disclosed the names of his ex-wife and his daughter and the details of him making Ms. Wu pregnant on the first date, to the media or at 51.  He has violated Ms. Wu's privacy.

Sedona

最初由[胡硕士]发布
法官对李向东发出的隔离令意味着什么?



这么简单的问题,让大家论得越来越复杂了.意味着什么?  就是在法官发PERMIT前,老李不能碰他老婆一根汗毛. 就这么简单!


You are very right.  A no contact order is to protect the victim.

Sedona

I don't know if a court order is sufficient to conclude if Mr. Lee is an abuser in a video.

A court order after the disposition is sufficient, for example:

1. to exclude Mr. Lee from home because he is an abuser.

2. to allow Ms. Wu to apply and to obtain full custody of her daughter because he is an abuser.

3. to allow CAS, if CAS is involved because of child abuse, to register the subject of the court order to the Child Abuse Registry, because he is an abuser.

4. to allow CAS, if they are involved because of child abuse, to verify the abuse by the subject of the court order, thus forming part of the child abuse record, because he is an abuser.

5. to allow Toronto Housing, or York Housing or Peel Housing, if they are involved, to delete him from the list and to allow her full access and rights to the unit, because he is an abuser.

6. to allow Citizenship and Immigration Canada to waive the conditions in a sponsorship agreement if the victim is a subject of an immigration sponsorship, because he is an abuser.

A court order is no monkey's business; it is the foundation of social stability.

Sedona

木然, you are wrong.

1.先给你再强调一下，我要说的是什么问题。我所提出的问题，是平权会拍摄这样一个影片，拿的是政府的资助，却以一个“隔离令”，以及一个“找不到李先生”的借口，凭借想象，演绎一个真人故事，这种缺乏公道、公平和专业的工作态度，怎么能服务社区，所拍摄的影片，是否具备意义？

平权会 does not rely on imagination.  They are based on information available including the court order, disclosure from Ms. Wu and possibly records from social service agencies, with consent.  They are not based on 凭借想象, which is a strong accusation.  You have to provide evidence to prove 平权会 did the video based on imagination.

Too bad you deny the importance of a court order. The judge won't issue a court order by 凭借想象.

2.   .......如果你中文阅读能力不好，听力应该没有问题吧？我不相信你不明白我所一而再，再而三的强调。

I am shocked by your statement.  All professionals must have a stable EQ.

4.你发表你的观点时，不应该想当然地给对方下个定义，你怎么知道我没有看过相关资料呢？

Please tell us what you have read.  Police disclosure?  Agency record?  CAS file? The court order?  Or, information from Mr. Lee?

Did you read Mr. Lee's telling the world he made his ex-wife pregnant on the first date?  Did you read how he interacted with his family? (Based on his own submission, I don't believe Mr. Lee is a victim.  I have said it Mr. Lee fits the profile of a male abuser.)

我在节目中邀请了《破碎家庭》出品人之一，华人家庭辅导中心总干事区慕启先生分析解答，他的资历是被政府认可的，目前多伦多警察局所经手的华裔家暴案的心理辅导，大都转介到他们中心处理，他在听完我们第一次节目後，即写信给平权会，明确要求平权会停止发行《破碎家庭》，认为该影片已经失去了原有的意义...

In language logic, we call the above appeal to authority.  He might have written a letter.  What is the purpose of the letter?  To pacify the community?  You can't, based on such a letter, to conclude 平权会 was wrong.  Every stakeholder and every citizen can write a letter to any organization.  I can write a letter and you can write a letter.  Unless you successful ask Mr. Au to declare 平权会 made a mistake, don't appeal to authority. Don't put words into his mouth.

同时，他在出席我们节目中，明确说明的家暴案的细节，对于“隔离令”也有专业的解释，所以，弄舟先生，我做的功课，一定不比你少，建议你有心做功课，最好把我们的节目也听一下。

I have also offered my professional input to explain what no contact order is.  My argument is Ms Wu requires protection by a court order.

I heard your program.  Patrick Au did not talk about what a no contact order is.  His response was a typical answer of bureaucracy, e.g. "it depends on the scenario...."

弄舟先生，我做的功课，一定不比你少，建议你有心做功课

You are passive aggressive.  Don't forget you are an "icon".

Sedona

木然, as an icon in the Chinese community and the Chinese media, you have the social responsibility asking right questions and providing information free of personal bias.

In your program with Patrick Au, you spent at least the first 10 to 15 minutes telling the audience that a man will be detained for a long time, because of unfounded allegation by a woman, without any evidence.

What was said in the program was wrong.  I have said it in 51 there are 2 principles in consideration of a detention: flight risk and security.

In Mr. Lee's case, he returned home in 2 weeks, violating the first no contact order.  Though Mr. Lee refused to confirm it, I trust that's the reason for his detention. You have the social responsibility to tell the audience if we have a no contact order and we don't like it, we must return to court to have it amended first. Or else, don't be surprised by jail time.

Correct me please, if you have insider's information.  Otherwise, you have misled the Chinese community.

Sedona

Wow.  Mr. Lee.  Please don't use a dead person to meet your agenda.