法官对李向东发出的隔离令意味着什么?

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.

加国老三

最初由[Sedona]发布
  

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.

平权会： 《反家暴 破碎的家演出真人真事
平权会制DVD 刘珏辉导演 周志勇作曲

由平权会制作的纪录片「破碎的家」(Tears at Home) 昨天举行公映式，影片透过两名华人妇女的亲身经历，宣传反家暴的主题。》

只听一个对自己的孩子都能“嘴打出血，身上又打又掐的青一块紫一块的，孩子都打911报警”的 Amanda 吴的一面之词，这样的片子不侵权？是真人真事？

弄舟

感谢各位热烈跟贴。

很抱歉，我搞错了一件事。我以为整个案子只是李夫人向家庭法院申请干预令(INTERVETION ORDER)，因而适用法律为安省的“家暴保护法”。才明白这是个刑事诉讼案。印象中在哪里看到过此案属前者，再找，怎么都找不到了。看来是老眼昏花，犯糊涂了。以后不能凭印象办事了。这是个严重的教训，要牢牢记取。

幸好，我对“家暴保护法”的理解基本上是对的。按照SEDONA的说法，我的解释“相当精确(fairly accurate )”。能得到SEDONA的首肯，我信心倍增。 :O

顺便简单介绍一下加拿大有关家暴的法律体系。本来只有联邦立法，一部分在家庭法(FAMILY LAW)中，一部分在刑法(CRIMINAL CODE)中。后来一些省份和区域陆续制订了本地的补充法规，加速和加强制止家暴。前述安省的“家暴保护法”就是这样一个补充法律。不过这个法案虽然在2000年已经通过，却迄未正式实施。

更值得庆幸的是，我对隔离令的意义的理解也是对的。

这个隔离令不可能是SEDONA提到的结案前发布的临时隔离令。那样的隔离令不确定任何事情。但这样的隔离令不可能在结案后继续有效。

这个案子未经庭审便结案了，原因只有以下三种可能：

法院撤案(DISMISSAL)，如SEDONA提到的；
检方撤诉(PROSECUTOR DROPS THE CASE)，如GongYiZhiSheng 提到的；
协议结案(BARGAINING)，如SEDONA提到的。

在前两种情况下结案，不可能还会有继续生效的隔离令。所以，除非还有其他可能，一定是协议结案。根据协议结案发布的隔离令，与经庭审后发布的隔离令，意义是一样的。因为各方已达成协议，发布隔离令所需的事实已经认定，因而无须再经庭审。这个隔离令，不是临时的，而是最终的。法庭不可能在未认定家暴已经发生的情况下发出这样的隔离令。

在整个司法系统中，法院是最后一环。在前面的环节中可以有不确定的东西，如警察可以未经法院审理拘押疑犯24小时，CAS可以未经法院审理带走其认为受到了虐待的孩子。但到了法院这一环，便不允许有任何不确定。有谁听说过法院无法确定被告犯了罪，但为了保险起见，先把他判罪，关起来再说这样的事？

其实李先生很容易把这个问题明确下来。如SEDONA一再敦促的，公布当时未经庭审便结案的原因；对法院是否认定家暴已经发生这个问题作出明确的答复并提供证明。可是李先生就是不做。这就不能不使人怀疑他的可信度了。

其实李先生这么做是对的。本来这件事就应通过法律途径而不是媒体来解决。但要不说，就全都别说。一面由于法律上的顾忌遮遮掩掩，一面又要别人相信自己的话，可能吗？

再次奉劝李先生，什么都不要说了。再说下去，后果严重。没听SEDONA说，你已经侵犯了你妻子的隐私了吗？

台北夢

Didnt many of us has said and warned  Lee that he is not  speaking the truth and that he is only misusing 51.ca and all of the 51.ca fans here?!
The only posititive gesture he can still make is by showing us all the official legal documents for further discussion.
Again, he is a liar, a pitiful timid homosapien .
Why does he go on and on with empty talks!

Good night, Mr. L

弄舟

最初由[网站管理员]发布
鼓励原创，故加精。

我认为，要搞清楚法庭发出“隔离令”的含义究竟是什么，其实很简单，找专业处理这类案件的律师问一下就可以弄明白。至于弄舟先生所说的：“由此可以推断，若法庭发出隔离令，则必然认定家暴已经发生 ”，则不敢立即认同。因为我认为，要当个合格的律师，或者说，有这种解释资格的人，恐怕不是看看法律条文、来个推断，就可以的了。

这里只涉及到对法律条文的栓释并据其作逻辑推理，除非条文有法律上的特殊意义，不具备相应的法律知识无法理解，或文字有歧义，非专家不能解释，否则谁都可以作出解释，不一定非要法律专家不可。我不认为这几条的文字上有常人不能理解的地方。而且若只有专业人士才有资格开口，这里恐怕出了SEDONA，谁都要闭嘴了。

结论是否站得住脚，取决于前提是否正确，推理是否无逻辑错误，而不是谁在推论。老板若认为我在这两方面有问题，欢迎指正。

其实我并不是只看法律条文。我还有其他根据。

其一，在整个司法系统中，法院是最后一环。在前面的环节中可以有不确定的东西，如警察可以未经法院审理拘押疑犯24小时，CAS可以未经法院审理带走其认为受到了虐待的孩子。但到了法院这一环，便不允许有任何不确定。有谁听说过法院无法确定被告犯了罪，但为了保险起见，先把他判罪，关起来再说这样的事？

其二，李先生很容易把这个问题明确下来。如SEDONA一再敦促的，公布当时未经庭审便结案的原因；对法院是否认定家暴已经发生这个问题作出明确的答复并提供证明。可李先生就是不做。这就从反面论证了我的结论。


再看木然先生的《三谈 》一文，似乎也给了有关“隔离令”含义的一些解释，当然，我也不清楚他是否就此咨询了专业人士，抑或也只是他的“个人推断”。

推断是要有前提的。木然先生的前提是什么？法律条文？案例？一概不见。亦未提此案的分隔令在结案后继续有效，而不是结案前的临时措施。这样的推断，怎能站得住脚？

解释人人可作，只有合理的才能被接受。


其实，如果平权会方面咨询了律师（我想他们应该咨询了），得到了“法庭发出隔离令就是认定家暴已经发生 ”这个结论的话，他们完全可以以这个理由回应李先生和木然先生的质疑，就像弄舟这篇文章所写的一样：我们平权会是“根据一件公开审理的案件及法院认定(家暴已经发生)的事实进行反家暴宣传，无可指摘 ”，但为什么他们不这样做呢？很纳闷。难道这类的质疑在他们看来，根本不值得回应吗？:confused:

这就不懂了。老板在这里引的几句话虽是我说的，却并非我的原创。大意相同的话，平权会早就说了。老板没见着？我倒是弄不清，已经交代得清清楚楚了的事，木然还要人家交代什么？也许是收回片子，向李先生道歉？这人家也早已表明了态度，没有法院判决，不收回片子。再要说，不还是这几句话？

弄舟

最初由[胡硕士]发布
俺赞同"玩船"(弄舟)网友的观点. 尤其是关于"木然"对老李和安刚的评论.




谁是老李？

哇咧

按照木然的解释，法庭发出隔离令的依据是第二种情况，就是预见到有可能会有冲突所以让双方隔离。弄舟说了法庭发隔离令有两种情况，然后说现在法庭发了隔离令，所以可以推定是第一种情况；这是不够严密的，那为什么不能是第二种呢，就是preventive.

这就好像小孩打架，大人说，不管谁对谁错，你们两个谁也别招惹谁了，隔离令就是这个意思。

西人的逻辑就是不管你一哭二闹三上吊，只要别闹出人命就行，所以才有这种隔离令的法律怪胎出现。

中国人遇到夫妻打架要劝，单位领导，居委会，大姨二舅三姑爷四叔，以娘家人为主的一帮人都会浮出水面。

弄舟

最初由[Sedona]发布
No Contact Order

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.

U HAVE MY RESPECT，TOO，MR。 SEDONA。I MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH U，THOUGH。

HOPE U HAVE SOME CASES TO SUPPORT MY INTERPRETATION。

WHAT DOES THE TERM “DISPOSITON”  EXCACTLY MEAN，BY THE WAY？

弄舟

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

以便提交给律师的材料。

找了律师了，就不该再找媒体了。公开说的话，往往会对案情有不利影响。这就是为什么平权会再也不出一声，李夫人拒绝媒体采访的原因。

弄舟

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.

PROBLEMS，YES。 CORRUPTED，QUESTION MARK。

U DON‘T JUDGE A SYSTEM ONLY BY A FEW CASES。 OTHERWISE，ANY POINT OF VIEW COULD BE VALID FOR U CAN ALWAYS FIND SOME CASES TO SUPPORT UR VIEW。THUS， WE GONNA HAVE TONS OF VALID POINTS OF VIEW CLASHING EACH OTHER。

弄舟

最初由[Sedona]发布
回复：回复：回复：加拿大的法院和官僚系统，基本上就是瞎判





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.

U R MISTAKEN IF U RELY ANTIBIOTIC ALONE TO CURE UR FEVER。IT’S NOT MEANT SO。 IT‘S UR IMMUN SYSTEM WHICH DOES MOST OF THE JOB。 U CAN CRITICIZE ANTIBIOTIC FOR NOT REDUCING UR FEVER EFFECTIVELY， BUT U CANNOT CRITICIZE IT FOR NOT CURING UR FEVER ENTIRELY。

THE SAME CAN BE APPLIED TO THE LAW。 IT REQUIRES A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS， SUCH AS VALUES，ETHICS，RELIGIONS，EDUCATION，ETC。，WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE LAW TO CURE OUR SOCIETY。

弄舟

最初由[哇咧]发布
我就不说我的解释了，因为我不了解情况

按照木然的解释，法庭发出隔离令的依据是第二种情况，就是预见到有可能会有冲突所以让双方隔离。弄舟说了法庭发隔离令有两种情况，然后说现在法庭发了隔离令，所以可以推定是第一种情况；这是不够严密的，那为什么不能是第二种呢，就是preventive.

这就好像小孩打架，大人说，不管谁对谁错，你们两个谁也别招惹谁了，隔离令就是这个意思。

西人的逻辑就是不管你一哭二闹三上吊，只要别闹出人命就行，所以才有这种隔离令的法律怪胎出现。

中国人遇到夫妻打架要劝，单位领导，居委会，大姨二舅三姑爷四叔，以娘家人为主的一帮人都会浮出水面。

我之所以推断李案中的隔离令属第一种情况，是因为它在结案后继续有效。

这并非“就好像小孩打架，大人说，不管谁对谁错，你们两个谁也别招惹谁了，”。法院只有在相信控方的证据，相信控方需要保护后才会颁发隔离令。而这证据，就是要证明家暴已经发生。否则，没有理由需要保护。

这就引出了我确实不够严密的地方：其实没有第一、第二种情况之分，只有程序上不同阶段之分。

无论如何，若李先生确信法院未断定他有家暴行为，他应该去告平权会。这个行动本身是最好的证明。

弄舟

最初由[Lat123]发布
A Prized Liar - Mr. Lee

Didnt many of us has said and warned  Lee that he is not  speaking the truth and that he is only misusing 51.ca and all of the 51.ca fans here?!
The only posititive gesture he can still make is by showing us all the official legal documents for further discussion.
Again, he is a liar, a pitiful timid homosapien .
Why does he go on and on with empty talks!

Good night, Mr. L

BE NICE，PLEASE。

弄舟

以下网站提供了许多关于隔离令的资料，很有参考价值：

http://www.owjn.org/info/orders.htm

还有其他许多类似的网站，只要在GOOGLE里打进“ NO CONTACT ORDERS”即可找到。

下面是关于如何取得隔离令的问答：

Q. HOW DO I GET A ONE?

A. A Judge or Justice of the Peace needs certain information before s/he can grant you one of these court orders:

s/he must believe on a balance of probabilities that your fear is reasonable: this means a similar person in your position would be afraid
you cannot make emotional pleas without evidence; therefore, you should:
-   document every time the person stalked you or threatened you
-   keep any evidence of abuse such as hospital records, photographs, etc.
-   in the case of a partner/ex-partner, if applicable, evidence of his mistreatment of your children
-  for peace bonds only, document every time the person damaged your property or threatened to; take photographs, if possible.

非常清楚，不是谁跑到法官面前说一声“我受虐待了”就能拿到隔离令的。必须要有能使法官相信的证据。

胡硕士

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!