Chiang Mai residents launch social sanction against judges

By Thai PBS

 

 

Chiang Mai residents who oppose the judges’ housing project in Doi Suthep mountain have launched a social sanction against the judges and officials of the 5th Region Appeals Court who move in to stay there.

 

The social sanction has manifested in the social media and in notice boards put up in front of restaurants and in grocery shops as well as green wristbands.

 

At one restaurant, one notice board reads:  “This restaurant does not welcome people who destroyed forest.  Joining hands to reclaim the forest of Doi Suthep”.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/chiang-mai-residents-launch-social-sanction-judges/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2018-04-23

As in many countries, true justice is the one we do ourselves.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“This restaurant does not welcome people who destroyed forest.  Joining hands to reclaim the forest of Doi Suthep”.

That is beautiful.  Shining lights on the cockroaches. 

Can seldom see the mountain yet alone the much disputed houses under the pollution cloud 

3 hours ago, Borzandy said:

As in many countries, true justice is the one we do ourselves.

In other news today, a canadian guy has been lynched by the mob in Peru because he was suspected of having killed a tribe woman, a girl has been set on fire alive in Pakistan because she didn't want to renounce her faith, another one has been killed by her father and brother because she wanted to marry a man of her choice.

I suppose that's true justice according to you.

1 hour ago, arithai12 said:

In other news today, a canadian guy has been lynched by the mob in Peru because he was suspected of having killed a tribe woman, a girl has been set on fire alive in Pakistan because she didn't want to renounce her faith, another one has been killed by her father and brother because she wanted to marry a man of her choice.

I suppose that's true justice according to you.

Actually no!

 

The mode of protest referred to, usually called a "Boycott," is meant to be non-violent and simply involves not doing trade with certain members of society whose behaviour is particularly awful. It was named after a certain Captain Boycott who was a notorious land agent in the west of Ireland during the so-called Irish Land War in the 1880s. This was where absentee English landlords (whose ancestors had been granted land taken from the indigenous Irish in earlier centuries who were left landless) used agents to exact every increasing rents on tenants under threat of eviction.

 

Captain Boycott was one of the worst of these agents and no one in the surrounding area would trade with him as a result. This occurred after the notorious famine of the 1940s when a million impoverished tenants, who had been reduced to living off lumpen potatoes, died of hunger when their potato crops failed due to blight.

 

What the businesses propose is a very gentle version of a boycott - after all, the judges can send their maids or their wives or relatives to buy from those businesses. But it does send the message that if you try to do something that takes away something that people find really valuable, you can expect to feel the discomfort of the wrath of the ordinary people. 

Boycott is good.

It has nothing to do however with what I had commented about.