jonclark

Wrong.

So if as you keep saying and believe that any reference to " all people, persons" etc is explicitly directed at Thai people only..as the constitution only covers Thai people. One can assume by logical extension that where the constitution states "No person or people" it is meaning No Thai person. Correct? Section 6 which covers his majesty the king states " No person shall expose the king to any sort of accustaion or action" Using your interpretation as detailed obove. This leaves a rather vacumous hole that means the king according to the constitution could be accused by a non Thai. As no person explicitly according to you means no Thai person. No government in it right mind would create a constitution that creates this problem. The only logical conclusion therefore must be that "no person," and by extension it's opposite "all people" must refer to and include non Thais who live in Thailand.

Not from the USA sorry Section 49 also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

Thank you. If the constitution was only aimed at and exclusively applicable to Thai people. There would be no need to mention discrimination based on race or origin...as all Thai people (semantics aside) are the same race and origin and thus it is impossible for discrimination to exist based on race or origin within this constitutional framework.

Nope. Otherwise Thai laws would consitutionally not apply to non Thais in Thailand. As all laws must legally exist within the constitutional framework with the exception of some laws regarding national security. The Constitution of Thailand is aimed and worded for Thai people for obvious reasons. But it does not exclude non Thais who live here. All people. That term includes all people that live, reside, stay inside the borders of Thailand.

Only the uneducated deal in stereotypes.

Probably unsurprising that you have not heard the rich complain. They are way above your social level and wouldn't be seen dead talking to an aging poor person outside of a 7-11. Enjoy your beer.

So according to you this only applies to Thais...right so section 28 and all subsequent sections does not apply to foreigners in Thailand. We have no right to choose and practice our religion, choose our dwelling, travel within Thailand, have our consumer rights protected and be free from unlawful detention etc. We can be legally kidnapped???Your understanding of all people is not consistent with the law and the law is underpinned by...you guessed it the Thai constitution. If we take your definition on step further and your interpretation for "a person "as mean only Thai, then ...apply that to section 49.... I am not even gonna get into that one.

Section 27 of the Thai Consitution ...i guess even a foreigner is a person? All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

I pity your students then

Clearly you have not read it then.

Based on the contents of this (rather limited newspiece). It is fairly clear that an appeal will have good grounds imho. The plaintiff has argued that the dual pricing is unconstitutional. The judgement seems to have not answered that question, just saying, "Its okay because its for the good of the country." The judgement has not answered the plantiffs arguement about the constitutional validity of his complaint. Also there is no legal definition (that I know of) of what is 'good for the country' . If this good man has the time and money, I would take this to the consitutional court for review. There could well be other element to the judgements which are not reported here which may answer his complaint.