Legal Aid Foundation
24 March 2011
Dear Ms. Lu,
Nice meeting you this afternoon. I am sending documents that may help,
assuming you have not received them in hard copy.
I would like to clear up one matter we briefly touched upon this
afternoon, namely the difference between American and Taiwan law. Of
course there will always be differences; there are differences between
American state laws too (some have capital punishment, some don't;
some give harsher sentences for the same crimes, etc.); but there are
legal guidelines too! I know of no US state or foreign country that
would not prosecute child abuse, for example; and federal law prevents
wide disparity in sentencing. All countries have libel laws, statutes
against bodily harm, sexual offenses, etc.
My criticism does not concern a difference or mild disparity of
rulings between nations. I don't expect the large punitive damages one
is used to in American law; but when the university is not ordered to
pay any damages, then that's an issue. It undermines confidence is
legal channels in Taiwan.
I feel judges in Taiwan do not strictly apply laws in their rulings,
as can be seen in other cases. A person kisses a stranger on the
street and it's ruled not a sexual act because the kiss lasted only a
few seconds. A person takes photographs of a woman in a changing room
and that's ruled not a sexual offense because it was in a public
place. One judge ruled a child should have resisted sexual advances,
etc.
Every lawyer knows that democracy is won or lost in thousands of court
cases daily. That's why lawyers fight so hard for defendants who don't
seem to deserve it. Why defend a person who killed three babies, even
when he admits to doing so? The answer is the lawyer isn't fighting
for that criminal so much as fighting for principles of law, which are
won or lost in courtrooms daily.
I wish people in Taiwan would see my case in that perspective. A
society is risking social chaos if it allows officials to do what they
did to me without punishment;. A society undermines the law if it
allows a student to accuse a teacher of failing her eight years
before, without proof, and with evidence clearly showing she was
lying.
Certainly one of the purposes of legal redress is to serve as a safety
valve, to prevent injured parties from taking the law into their own
hands. Without confidence in fair judicial rulings, a father would
kill the man who raped his child. Three strong men would beat a person
who owed one of them money and never repaid it. A person whose house
was burned down by another would burn down that person's house too,
possibly killing innocent people.
Therefore the average citizen must have trust in judicial rulings. I
can honestly say I don't trust judicial rulings in Taiwan. My case
speaks for itself. But it doesn't speak only for me; it speaks (or
should speak) for all citizens.
I suppose some people in Taiwan think what happened to a foreigner
cannot happen to them. First, that's a selfish way of thinking.
Second, it's not even true, like I argued above; because principles of
law are eroded or firmly established in every case brought before the
law. That's what we know as "common law" and "case law" and "case
precedent."
So those who fight for a case today on behalf of someone else will
insure justice for themselves or their family in the future. The same
judge who ruled that a student who wrote a secret letter against me
did nothing wrong can rule, next year, against a Taiwanese, in a
similar type of case.
So democracy is a job of work. I'm fond of the saying, "Democracy is
not something you have, it's something you do."
How true. Democracy is "done" every day, in court rooms, at school
meetings, among parents who complain there's no stop light on the
school corner, or that a child was bullied in school, and in similar
cases.
It's not only selfish, but short-sighted, for my colleagues to think
my illegal dismissal only concerns me; like it's short-sighted to
ignore discrimination based on race if one belongs to a "favored"
race; because tomorrow the same company will discriminate based on
religion or based on gender or based on who you know. That's how legal
rights are daily eroded and lost.
Consider the erosion of legal principles in my case. A secret letter
was circulated by high officials at a high-ranked university. Neither
the student nor officials were punished. The student is now teaching
part-time at the university; faculty who defended her are now
department chair and Dean of Liberal Arts. A president who refused to
enforce a legal Ministry ruling was not only never punished but
approved for another three-year term as president! Yet these officials
control the minds of the next generation of citizens in Taiwan! What
does that say about the future of Taiwan?
You told me you knew of the principle of estoppel; that one cannot
contradict a claim previously made or assumed in court. Yet the
university lawyer, Wang Cheng-bin, held appeal hearings at the
university then said I had no right to appeal, after I won the case.
Instead of dismissing the lawyer's case the court accepted it and I
won only after months of testimony.
But a court should be a forum based on legal principles, not a place
where people argue out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
I can't fire someone for being drunk and when I lose the case claim I
fired him for being late!
Not only wasn't this lawyer punished but, from what I've been told,
he's treated with respect in court! I am certain he would have been
disciplined or even dismissed by an American Bar Association.
In sum, I hope the Legal Aid Foundation sees the wider legal
principles involved in my case: equality under the law; the right to
remedy, including compensation and apology; penalties as a deterrent
factor, which encourage lawful conduct in the future; fair judicial
rulings, which discourage personal vengeance or people taking the law
into their own hands; the need to treat foreign litigants fairly,
which encourages cultural and economic exchanges between countries
(capital investment, etc.). In the long run, every society benefits
from the best laws and the best judicial rulings.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment