Thailand To Jail Foreigners At Political Rallies

[Moonrakers]

I wonder what would happen if a group of foreigners attempted to overthrow Gordon Brown & co.....

Errrm, OK. Bad example.

Actually that is a genuine point I feel. How would voters in the UK feel about foreigners attempting to remove their choice of government and what would Thai's not in support of removing the Dem's feel about foreigners trying to remove the government that they want to see in power?

If I was in their shoes, I'd likely to be thinking: "Mind you own f@cking business"

Edited March 9, 2010 by Moonrakers

[edwardandtubs]

Considering over a million people will be all over Bangkok, how can you even avoid these rallies. Do foreigners have to stay in their homes? This fruitcake government is enough to make anyone support the reds.

[jdinasia]

Monday, February 8, 2010 http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=17761&page=1

International Lawyers Question Thailand's Security Law

A weak rule of law is contributing to political division and violence in Thailand, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

A report issued by the ICJ at a Bangkok seminar said the Thai government needs to find a balance between protecting citizens and guaranteeing security on the one hand, and maintaining the rule of law under international human rights obligations on the other.

The International Commission of Jurists is a non-governmental organization of lawyers from around the world which works "to ensure that international human rights law is actually implemented" at national levels,

At the Bangkok seminar, held at Chulalongkorn University, a panel discussed Thailand's Internal Security Act (ISA). One panelist, Roger Normand, the ICJ's Asia-Pacific director, acknowledged that the ISA is an improvement on original drafts, and is less-restrictive than the Emergency Decree that remains in force in the Muslim-majority south.

But a weak rule of law contributes to political divides and violence in Thailand, according to the ICJ, which said it was concerned at the ISA's "failure to clearly define the concept of a threat to national security."

This "legal uncertainty," the ICJ said, was "likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of association and expression, and to negatively impact on privacy rights."

Noting that no specific level of violence was required to assess an internal security threat, the ICJ said this risked "blurring the line between security threats and legitimate political dissent."

To address real and perceived security threats, the ISA gives significant powers to Thailand's Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC),which was set up to deal with Communist uprisings in the 1960s and 1970s. While in power as Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra reduced the powers of the ISOC and the influence within it of the army.

However, after the 2006 coup the ISOC was granted extra powers and the role of the army was upgraded. The downsizing of military budgets implemented under Thaksin has also been reversed, the ICJ said, although some of Thailand's establishment argue that the country's military spending still lags behind southeast Asian counterparts.

The Bangkok panel was joined briefly by one of the men closely involved in the creation of the ISA—acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn, who said the measure was a response to Thailand security and political conditions. "Laws come about and are made as these conditions change," he said.

The ICJ agreed that "states have an obligation under international law to protect the human rights of people within their jurisdiction, and the right to security is part of this." When violence takes place under a political agenda, states have the right to prevent it and punish the perpetrators.

Panitan compared the ISOC to the US Department of Homeland Security, which was set up after the terrorist attacks in the US on Sept 11 2001.

Seven times in the latter half of 2009, the Thai government declared exceptional powers under the ISA to be in force, in four southern districts of Muslim unrest and in other areas where anti-government demonstrations had broken out.

The ICJ stopped short of recommending the repeal of the ISA but said certain provisions "that violate or risk violating international human rights obligations" needed to be amended.

The ICJ recommended that the language of the act should be revised to better define the SOC's powers and jurisdiction, and that human rights protections should be made explicit in the legislation. The ICJ also recommended that the provision for the prime minister to delegate direction of the ISOC to the head of the army should be abolished.

Originally, the army commander-in-chief was to head the ISOC, but under the revised ISA, the prime minister is the ISOC Director.

However, there is a significant caveat to this, as the prime minister can delegate authority over the ISOC to the head of the army. The ICJ says that this is not ideal as it means that civilian control of the ISOC depends on the relative strength of the prime minister in a country where coups and coup attempts are frequent.

Coup rumors circulated recently after the appearance of armored vehicles on Bangkok streets, with Thailand awaiting a Feb 26 verdict on frozen assets belonging to deposed former premier Thaksin.

Pro-Thaksin "red shirts" are staging a series of protests against the looming High Court decision, which some believe will go against the former premier.

Panitan believes that the ISA might be deployed in coming weeks, but told journalists that no decision had yet been taken.

Associate Prof Somchai Preecha-silpakul of Chiang Mai University went further than the ICJ in criticising the ISA.

He said the law was "about government security not state security" and gave the military "a role in Thai politics."

This role could be decisive in deciding who governs Thailand, according to fellow panelist Naruemon Thabchompon, of the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. She said the ISA allows military officers to effectively act as "kingmakers" in Thai politics, in keeping with what she termed the "Thai style of democracy," which allows "prominent personalities to have a disproportionate say in [the question of] by whom and how the country is ruled."

I looked them up and gave a glance at their condemnations about Thailand. Quite a list! Great stuff in fact! I suggest people take a look! (I also suggest that our resident reds not look unless they want more history of the Thaksin era revealed to them!)

[edwardandtubs]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

The whole point of human rights is that they're universal. They're basic rights that should apply to everyone no matter where you are or where you're from. How hard is that to understand?

[edwardandtubs]

I wonder what would happen if a group of foreigners attempted to overthrow Gordon Brown & co.....

Errrm, OK. Bad example.

Actually that is a genuine point I feel. How would voters in the UK feel about foreigners attempting to remove their choice of government and what would Thai's not in support of removing the Dem's feel about foreigners trying to remove the government that they want to see in power?

If I was in their shoes, I'd likely to be thinking: "Mind you own f@cking business"

There are plenty of foreigners in the UK who support opposition parties and are therefore "attempting to remove" the government. If you told them to "Mind you own f@cking business" you'd probably be jailed for inciting racial hatred.

[jdinasia]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

If you are Thai and have a vote (including naturalized Thais) then this is your battle, if not then this measure certainly protects you from being forced by your employer, that hired you because you were cheaper than a Thai to hire, to go into harm's way in a potentially violent Thai conflict.

So basically you have the right to "shhhhhh" if you are a migrant worker in Thailand. It is a grand right and very useful! More people should exercise the right to be quiet!

[jdinasia]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

The whole point of human rights is that they're universal. They're basic rights that should apply to everyone no matter where you are or where you're from. How hard is that to understand?

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

[edwardandtubs]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

The whole point of human rights is that they're universal. They're basic rights that should apply to everyone no matter where you are or where you're from. How hard is that to understand?

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

Interestingly, yes, it is. Because the constitution applies to everyone who is in Thailand. People in the same circumstances should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, nationality, etc. It is a very puzzling statement on the part of the government.

I'm still planning to go check out the rally this weekend, but very much as an observer.

[ballpoint]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

The whole point of human rights is that they're universal. They're basic rights that should apply to everyone no matter where you are or where you're from. How hard is that to understand?

Well, tell me where you live and I'll exercise my right to park a gas tanker out front, drive a burning bus through the front window, throw a bag of <deleted> through the hole the bus made, and then shoot you because you might be a possible, maybe, in theory, drug dealer.

There are plenty of foreigners in the UK who support opposition parties and are therefore "attempting to remove" the government. If you told them to "Mind you own f@cking business" you'd probably be jailed for inciting racial hatred.

If they were non citizens with no voting rights and they were associated with attempts to seriously impede the rights of the citizens to go about their daily business, to the point of threatening their homes and actually killing a couple, then I'd imagine the government would be very interested in removing them from the country.

This is a local country, for local people.

[OZEMADE]

Is it ok to go and watch? Where is the best place to see it from?

Up the Front.

[jdinasia]

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Sorry but that is NOT a "basic human right" in a country you are not a citizen of. If it were then we would be living in a world without borders since your basic human right to associate with people across the border would be infringed upon. The EU and the USA wouldn't have excrutiating processes that people have to go through just to get a visa etc. You would be able to work anywhere by simple extension of the idea. Nope --- you should have the right to assemble peacefully in your own country but not to protest in some other country.

[neverdie]

So, what happened to basic human rights and freedom of expression?

You are free to exercise those rights in your own country rainman.....how hard is that to understand?

The whole point of human rights is that they're universal. They're basic rights that should apply to everyone no matter where you are or where you're from. How hard is that to understand?

I've got a good idea, why don't you paint that onto a large piece of canvas and go and exercise your universal whateveryoucalledthem and when you get the bejesus kicked out of you or worse, please don't come back online here and have a winge, if you do, I will be waiting to laugh at you. How hard is that to understand?

[neverdie]

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Sorry but that is NOT a "basic human right" in a country you are not a citizen of. If it were then we would be living in a world without borders since your basic human right to associate with people across the border would be infringed upon. The EU and the USA wouldn't have excrutiating processes that people have to go through just to get a visa etc. You would be able to work anywhere by simple extension of the idea. Nope --- you should have the right to assemble peacefully in your own country but not to protest in some other country.

What JD said. Of course I was also wondering where you were edwardandtubs when Saddam Hussein was around, I didnt notice you exercising your basic human right in front of his palace.

[rainman]

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Sorry but that is NOT a "basic human right" in a country you are not a citizen of. If it were then we would be living in a world without borders since your basic human right to associate with people across the border would be infringed upon. The EU and the USA wouldn't have excrutiating processes that people have to go through just to get a visa etc. You would be able to work anywhere by simple extension of the idea. Nope --- you should have the right to assemble peacefully in your own country but not to protest in some other country.

I think everyone pretty much knows that you either don't have a clue about anything or just don't give a poop about anything, so why don't you save your smart butt comments for someone else. Human rights are, as someone else mentioned before me, universal. To say that someone doesn't have "basic human rights" in a country they're not a citizen of is ridiculous. If you go to Italy for example, and you're a citizen of Australia, does that mean that you can basically be abused or mistreated just because you're not an Italian? See how ridiculous your comment is? Maybe you're a time traveler from the Middle Ages or something. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements.

If the foreigners have no legal status in Thailand, such as illegal immigrants, surely they have no rights to protest. However, if they have legal status in Thailand, with a visa or otherwise, they actually do, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thailand is a United Nations member country, so they should respect that.

But we all know that Thailand's human rights record under the Abhisit government is unacceptable.

[neverdie]

.

Edited March 9, 2010 by neverdie

[ballpoint]

I think everyone pretty much knows that you either don't have a clue about anything or just don't give a poop about anything, so why don't you save your smart butt comments for someone else. Human rights are, as someone else mentioned before me, universal. To say that someone doesn't have "basic human rights" in a country they're not a citizen of is ridiculous. If you go to Italy for example, and you're a citizen of Australia, does that mean that you can basically be abused or mistreated just because you're not an Italian? See how ridiculous your comment is? Maybe you're a time traveler from the Middle Ages or something. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements.

If the foreigners have no legal status in Thailand, such as illegal immigrants, surely they have no rights to protest. However, if they have legal status in Thailand, with a visa or otherwise, they actually do, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thailand is a United Nations member country, so they should respect that.

The only thing ridiculous is insisting that impeding on the rights of others to go about their daily lives, including killing some and threatening the homes and livlihoods of many more, is a basic human right. Try doing that in your own country, where you're actually a citizen, and see how far you get.

But we all know that Thailand's human rights record under the Abhisit government is unacceptable.

Try getting out a bit more and researching more than the headlines on TV and you'll see the lie to that.

[anotherpeter]

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

I don't think the Thai government generally has a problem with foreigners protesting, but just not in this protest.

In a western country, you wouldn't get employers sending their foreign workers to a rally to try and bring down a government. In Thailand, that is entirely possible to do that without the employees having much of a say in it.

[elcent]

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[rainman]

You have the basic human right to do as your told when Governments in that of the country to which you are visiting to do as you are told, especially when they envoke special laws in an attempt to keep some form of civil law and order. Is that simple enough for you?

Look, it's not my job to educate you. If you want to know what human rights mean, go read the Declaration of Human Rights. If you don't, then just keep on writing about things you don't know about. Foreigners, in another country, under the Declaration of Human Rights, do indeed have the right to protest. And the legality of the Security Act has been questioned by international lawyers as you can read a few posts back.

You might have jdinasia backing you on this one, that foreigners don't have human rights unless they're in their own country, but anyone that knows a little about something, will be laughing about your ridiculous comments. You two have a nice stay in dreamland and noclueville.

Edited March 9, 2010 by rainman

[rainman]

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

I don't think the Thai government generally has a problem with foreigners protesting, but just not in this protest.

In a western country, you wouldn't get employers sending their foreign workers to a rally to try and bring down a government. In Thailand, that is entirely possible to do that without the employees having much of a say in it.

That's true. Let me also say that I personally don't support sending foreign workers to protest for the employers' cause. But I do support foreigners that want to protest out of their own free will. It is their choice. You have Muslims protesting against the government in the Netherlands and France right now against the head-scarf ban. These countries don't just go and threaten to arrest them because they're protesting. Why don't they? Because they know what human rights are. The current Thai government sadly doesn't, or doesn't give a poop. Thailand is slowly but surely joining Iran, Myanmar and North Korea with their human rights record.

[elcent]

Arbitrary arrest and detention

Arbitrarily arresting and/or detaining persons contradicts rule of law established in democracies as well as habeas corpus and is thereafter illegal in those regimes. In practice in the first decade of the twenty-first century, arbitrary arrest and/or detention (the definitions of these terms vary between different national jurisdictions) is typically tolerated by the legal system for a short duration, of a few hours up to a few days, in most democracies, especially in response to political street demonstrations. It is often a characteristic of dictatorships or police states, which may also engage in forced disappearance.

Virtually all individuals who are arbitrarily arrested are given absolutely no explanation as to why they are being arrested, and they are not shown any arrest warrant.[2] Depending on the social context, many or the vast majority of arbitrarily arrested individuals may be held incommunicado and their whereabouts can be concealed from their family, associates, the public population and open trial courts.[3][4] Many individuals who are arbitrarily arrested and detained suffer physical and/or psychological torture during interrogation, as well as extrajudicial punishment and other abuses in the hands of those detaining them.[citation needed]

[edit]International law

Arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is strictly prohibited by the United Nations' division for human rights. Article 55 of the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court declares such a practice by government a major crime.[5] Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile";[6] that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law.

[edwardandtubs]

Well, tell me where you live and I'll exercise my right to park a gas tanker out front, drive a burning bus through the front window, throw a bag of <deleted> through the hole the bus made, and then shoot you because you might be a possible, maybe, in theory, drug dealer.

If they were non citizens with no voting rights and they were associated with attempts to seriously impede the rights of the citizens to go about their daily business, to the point of threatening their homes and actually killing a couple, then I'd imagine the government would be very interested in removing them from the country.

This is a local country, for local people.

There's nothing for you here?

Of course no one (foreign or local) has any right to destroy property, kill or injure people. We're talking about whether people should have the right to participate in a political demonstration. That's a basic right in all civilised countries.

[neverdie]

You have the basic human right to do as your told when Governments in that of the country to which you are visiting to do as you are told, especially when they envoke special laws in an attempt to keep some form of civil law and order. Is that simple enough for you?

Look, it's not my job to educate you. If you want to know what human rights mean, go read the Declaration of Human Rights. If you don't, then just keep on writing about things you don't know about. Foreigners, in another country, under the Declaration of Human Rights, do indeed have the right to protest. And the legality of the Security Act has been questioned by international lawyers as you can read a few posts back.

You might have jdinasia backing you on this one, that foreigners don't have human rights unless they're in their own country, but anyone that knows a little about something, will be laughing about your ridiculous comments. You two have a nice stay in dreamland and noclueville.

Actually Rainmadn,

My post you have there wasnt complete when it went and I also added a clarification there that naturally basic human rights exist for anyone anywhere they travel and that wasnt the point I was trying to initally argue.

Having said that, no matter where you go, no matter what you do, at some point there will come a time where an official from some level will want to stand in your way and tell you that you cant do something. I am suggesting to you and appealing to your greater common sense that it isnt always in your best interest to stand there with your hands on you hips and argue the point, has it ever dawned on you that some of these laws are actually put in place to protect people from one another.....Ohh yes and I know, you have the basic human right to be able to be killed anywhere you like.

Ive heard it all before, back on your high horse rainman.

[jdinasia]

I fail to see where participation in a political battle in a country where you are not able to vote is a "basic human right".

It's called freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Sorry but that is NOT a "basic human right" in a country you are not a citizen of. If it were then we would be living in a world without borders since your basic human right to associate with people across the border would be infringed upon. The EU and the USA wouldn't have excrutiating processes that people have to go through just to get a visa etc. You would be able to work anywhere by simple extension of the idea. Nope --- you should have the right to assemble peacefully in your own country but not to protest in some other country.

I think everyone pretty much knows that you either don't have a clue about anything or just don't give a poop about anything, so why don't you save your smart butt comments for someone else. Human rights are, as someone else mentioned before me, universal. To say that someone doesn't have "basic human rights" in a country they're not a citizen of is ridiculous. If you go to Italy for example, and you're a citizen of Australia, does that mean that you can basically be abused or mistreated just because you're not an Italian? See how ridiculous your comment is? Maybe you're a time traveler from the Middle Ages or something. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements.

If the foreigners have no legal status in Thailand, such as illegal immigrants, surely they have no rights to protest. However, if they have legal status in Thailand, with a visa or otherwise, they actually do, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thailand is a United Nations member country, so they should respect that.

But we all know that Thailand's human rights record under the Abhisit government is unacceptable.

Did anyone say anything about mistreatment? Did anyone say anything about being abused? No (Gotta love your tactics!)

The discussion is (at this point) What constitutes a "basic human right". I note that many of the basic rights expressed in the UN document you mention are not available in some western countries to all people at all times. The right to protest in a country that you are not a citizen of is NOT expressly covered.

It might be better to discuss the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (Thailand is a signatory) but not only is the right of migrant workers to join political activities not covered by that but every nation has some options on how to implement the right to assemble in times of crisis.

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about Abhisit and civil rights but really .... take a look at his predecessors (most who set the policies you cry "Abhisit" about and that he changed )

[jdinasia]

Someone help me out here .... what is the name of the type of Fallacious argument that completely misrepresents what has been said?

For example "The right to protest in a country in which you are a migrant worker is NOT a basic human right."

and the argument to that being stated as "You say that people in foreign countries have no basic human rights at all!"

edit -----

Oh yeah! duh! It is the incredibly appropos "StrawMan" argument. Could we rename it to the rainman argument?

Edited March 9, 2010 by jdinasia

[rainman]

This isn't about "protecting" people. If they wanted to protect people, why not arrest Thais as well as foreigners? If arrest means protection, surely they should also protect Thais before foreigners, don't you think?

The government is throwing everything, including their own grandmother, at the red shirts in an attempt to minimize the upcoming protest. So far, we've had:

- 6,000 "war weapons" (which later turned out to be just 6,000 ammunition rounds) stolen - people stay at home, it's not safe!

- Warnings that trucks and cars will be towed - how about taking care of the wrong parkings every day, not just now?

- Threat to jail foreigners - to "protect" them.

- Checkpoints coming into the city, supposedly to search for the missing weapons - but really slow the incoming red shirts.

- The "questionable" Security Act implemented once again.

What's next? Bad weather forecast? Rain and thunderstorms? Pink elephants roaming the streets of Bangkok on Sunday morning?

[rainman]

Did anyone say anything about mistreatment? Did anyone say anything about being abused? No (Gotta love your tactics!)

I was trying to make it simple for you to understand, it's not a tactic.

And threatening to arrest foreigners for protesting is actually an abuse of human rights, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, so I forgive you.

[anotherpeter]

The only thing ridiculous is insisting that impeding on the rights of others to go about their daily lives, including killing some and threatening the homes and livlihoods of many more, is a basic human right. Try doing that in your own country, where you're actually a citizen, and see how far you get.

At the lower end of the spectrum, but I think still relevant:

In Melbourne last year a group of about 100 Indian students brought traffic to a standstill in the middle of the city during peak hour by sitting in the middle of a major intersection. I forget what their gripe was about but remember is was a basically valid one. Now, I am assuming that most of these students would have and 1 or 2 year visas just for study. But it was accepted that were allowed to protest for a valid cause. They were eventually dragged off by police after 3-4 hours, but weren't charged with anything.

I think in most western countries, this inconvenience would be tolerated, maybe not by everyone, but by the police at least, until they started causing damage or threatening peoples safety. Once they start doing that, then they will probably get deported.

The expectation here is of violence (as threatened by several of the red leaders) which basically means if a foreigner is involved their visas will be cancelled and they will be deported.

And as I said in earlier post, the high probability of an employer here sending all their foreigner workers to protest basically without a choice means the government needs to stop that from happening.

Edited March 9, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Tanaka]

Goverment running scared and basic attack on human rights...

Human rights do not include right to try overturn legal governments or cause riots or destroying property and lives.