Use Of Thai Security Laws Comes Under Attack

[OzMick]

when the government starts imprisoning people for their beliefs we should say something. when people are denied judicial process, we should say something. when the thai army is called in to kill its own, we should say something.

And when a group of thugs takes over a city, throws grenades, blows stuff up, we should also say something.

No-one is locked up for having an opinion.

In any country in the world, when an armed group cordons off a section of the city, it will be taken back an if the armed group fires back, some will die.

It seems to me some people on here are forgetting what really happened in April/May. The government tried a softly softly approach for months whilst the red shirts were taking excursions to various places and creating havoc.

There needs to be a serious crackdown on the UDD in my opinion. Regular people don't feel safe any more and this is all at the hands of some square faced megalomaniac who think he owns Thailand.

Agree absolutely. 6 months on and the revisionists are re-writing history, the favourite one being 90 peaceful protesters killed by an out-of-control army. And it continues. Every day more proof comes that T and his PTT bumpals are running an insurrection as they were in April, but they have gone covert after getting snotted.

Why is the ED in place? Because a bunch of mental defectives are setting off bombs and planning assassinations. Does that not constitute an emergency?

[orangezeke]

****removed ****

the flip flop lady:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2070

contrary to pedro01's assertions that "No-one is locked up for having an opinion."

the original thai version

www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/10/31341

in case you don't wish to bypass the system, i include a screenshot.

abasit's claim on the 24th September that the authorities are no longer using the State of Emergency to detain people:

http://www.cfr.org/p...r_thailand.html

it is quite long, so you should search for the following:

I was surprised to learn that you mentioned things like detentions under the emergency decree, because that's no longer happening. It took place in the early post-rally stages, when these people turned themselves in and before they were charged with -- under the criminal procedures law. But now nobody's -- is detained.

if you are interested, a lot of this was covered by bangkok pundit and i would be remiss to not mention him.

http://www.asiancorr...kok-pundit-blog

Edited October 12, 2010 by cdnvic
content violating forum rules regarding proxies

[Buchholz]

what does that mean...it didn't happen if you didn't read about it ?

spending all of your time on 'thai visa' will do that to you. Buchholz just served up post number one thousand and whatever which again adds nothing to the topic in an effort to divert attention from the issues.

If you think reminding posters to post with at least a modicum of civility towards each other (in this case, you) is diverting attention, then you might reconsider posting. Your inflammatory and over-personalizing snips at individual members massively detracts from reasonable discussion.

What is it with you types that come in here blazing away with your sling=shots of insults?

sigh...

thats it ? really ? you have nothing to add ? i said i would find the links if animatic answered some questions. will you ?

but that's not all you said, right? You had to get a gouge in first with insults before getting to that point.

i think your propaganda is ridiculous. if saying that is a personal snipe im sorry to offend you. seriously.

now, got any comments on the article ?

Sure, if by doing so it's not met with more of your inflammatory tone. If you consider my input as propaganda, then fine, counter it with your own, but please do so in a manner that doesn't generate hostility. That's pretty basic and it's a shame it's had to be pointed out to you several times before taking hold.

In regards to the security laws as opined by the academics of the OP, I think it's a bit of gloss over in that they seem to regard all of the Red Shirts as non-violent political prisoners and that's clearly not the case. There's a few hundred Red Shirts that are currently incarcerated at various locations. How many of them were not involved in the clearly criminal acts of arson and mayhem in Bangkok, Ubon, and Udon Thani, among others. I would venture very few given the relatively small number.

At the same time, they do have valid points in that the SOE needs monitoring as it can certainly be exploited if it's not. Enforcement of the SOE involves thousands and careful monitoring of the situation is necessary to see that it's not abused on a local level. If instances of that occur, they need to be dealt with, but overall that doesn't seem to be the case. The Cabinet seems to be doing a rather reasonable job with the SOE in regards to continually monitoring it as dozens of provinces that were previously under the SOE are no longer under it. Abhisit has been curtailing it on a continual basis and if there are not a lot of glaring examples of its misuse, then he seems to be doing a decent job with it.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Buchholz

[orangezeke]

^^^

dude, i haven't insulted anyone on this thread, and stand by every word written – which would include my regret that you felt offended. but that isn't a mea culpa and you would be wrong to read that into the reply. i think your posts have been off topic and set up solely as a diversion from any meaningful discussion on an issue you wish to hide from. grow a backbone if you want to live on a public forum. adults play here.

i gave you the links asked for, now, answer the questions !

[SergeiY]

Thai society should question the continued use of special security laws like the emergency decree imposed in Bangkok and nearby areas and not mistake the suspension of certain fundamental rights as part of the rule of law, according to top law professor Vitit Muntabhorn of Chulalongkorn University.

"The exceptions are now the rule. That exceptionalism is not the rule of law. We have to question that," he said.

I am with that law professor. exceptions are not the rule of law. That are the basics. I learned that at my university too.

[rubl]

Prove me wrong.

No offense, but do you know the saying 'a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer'

[rubl]

hahaha...this is hilarious. to see this link you need to get behind a proxy server. (not that i condone that sort of behavior) i originally read it yesterday without having the proxy, but can no longer. yet another example of CRES swooping in to rescue us from those bad people out to get us.

the flip flop lady:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2070

contrary to pedro01's assertions that "No-one is locked up for having an opinion."

the original thai version

www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/10/31341

in case you don't wish to bypass the system, i include a screenshot.

abasit's claim on the 24th September that the authorities are no longer using the State of Emergency to detain people:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23035/conversation_with_abhisit_vejjajiva_prime_minister_thailand.html

it is quite long, so you should search for the following:

I was surprised to learn that you mentioned things like detentions under the emergency decree, because that's no longer happening. It took place in the early post-rally stages, when these people turned themselves in and before they were charged with -- under the criminal procedures law. But now nobody's -- is detained.

if you are interested, a lot of this was covered by bangkok pundit and i would be remiss to not mention him.

http://www.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog

On the 24th of sept PM Abhisit said detentions under the emergency decree no longer happen. The 'slippers' lady was arrested on the 3rd of Oct. in Ayutthaya which is no longer under E.D. It simply shows the police when arresting Amornwan Charoenkij, 42, for an offense under Section 9(3) of the Emergency Decree were overdoing things. Most likely because of the suggestive nature of the prints on the slippers "a message, ‘People died at Ratchaprasong,’ and photos of Abhisit and Suthep Thaugsuban." It's not as bad as the doctored tape on which k. Abhisit is heard to say 'kill them', but falls in the same category as propaganda and mis-information. The lady also said she had sold the slippers at red-shirt gatherings at Ratchaprasong, Imperial shopping mall [red-shirt headquarters in Lad Phrao, Bangkok] and in Chiang Mai. Hardly the places anyone would complain

Edited October 12, 2010 by rubl

[animatic]

Well October and the Thai version of North ireland's 'Marching Season' is upon us.

Traditionally the seemingly paid shills, zealots and rabble rousing types ramp up the Pro-Red/ Anti Dem. commentary here in TVF just before things go pear shaped in the streets in an attempt to pre-sway public opinion, or justify their coming moves at public disorder in yet another bid to win power for their masters.

Well here it comes, a gang shagg of our sensibilities

has entered the dialog right on cue.

So looks like High Season will be trashed again, and the increasing Red Rally Season will find some, never quite valid, reason to cause disorder and worry, and theoretically bring down the government, and if necessary cause more injury and death if that is what it takes to make the government fall.

So watch now kind folks as the dialog goes more divisive and attempts are made to make all dissenting voices silent, or diminished as irrelevant and clueless dilettantes.

Good luck boys, it hasn't worked before,

but that never stopped the trying.

Edited October 12, 2010 by animatic

[orangezeke]

Prove me wrong.

No offense, but do you know the saying 'a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer'

i haven't heard the saying, no. but it isn't a question, and if it was, this post doesn't manage an answer.

[animatic]

Prove you are right first.

[orangezeke]

Well October and the Thai version of North ireland's 'Marching Season' is upon us.

Traditionally the seemingly paid shills, zealots and rabble rousing types ramp up the Pro-Red/ Anti Dem. commentary here in TVF just before things go pear shaped in the streets in an attempt to pre-sway public opinion, or justify their coming moves at public disorder in yet another bid to win power for their masters.

Well here it comes, a gang shagg of our sensibilities

has entered the dialog right on cue.

So looks like High Season will be trashed again, and the increasing Red Rally Season will find some, never quite valid, reason to cause disorder and worry, and theoretically bring down the government, and if necessary cause more injury and death if that is what it takes to make the government fall.

So watch now kind folks as the dialog goes more divisive and attempts are made to make all dissenting voices silent, or diminished as irrelevant and clueless dilettantes.

Good luck boys, it hasn't worked before,

but that never stopped the trying.

both you and Buchholz asked for references supporting the lead article which i went and found. i have a sneaking suspicion i wasted that 45 minutes, never to get back again. i even included a screen shot ! do you know how hard that is on an apple !? i had to google that. i asked you that if i went ahead and found them, would it:

change your opinion ? or will you have your defense of this administration already in place ? if you were to read that a lady with bad taste was arrested under a law that is

obsolete

in ayudhaya would you question it ? if you heard abasit falsely say on the 24th of last month that no one is being detained any longer under these laws, when they are, would you hold him to account ?

it seems from your post above that - like Buchholz - no actual topic will be discussed in any real depth. instead we get your 'High Season', 'injury and death', 'dissenting voices' post. if it hasn't 'worked before' it is only because opinions can't be changed, no matter what.

comment on the lead article. comment on the links i gave you. answer the questions above.

[SergeiY]

Prove you are right first.

For me has the law professor from the University more credibility than some of the foreign tourists here who wanna know everything better.

[SergeiY]

Prove me wrong.

No offense, but do you know the saying 'a fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer'

Prove me wrong, or prove you're right. The truth will enlighten you

[OzMick]

****removed ****

the flip flop lady:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2070

contrary to pedro01's assertions that "No-one is locked up for having an opinion."

the original thai version

www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/10/31341

in case you don't wish to bypass the system, i include a screenshot.

abasit's claim on the 24th September that the authorities are no longer using the State of Emergency to detain people:

http://www.cfr.org/p...r_thailand.html

it is quite long, so you should search for the following:

I was surprised to learn that you mentioned things like detentions under the emergency decree, because that's no longer happening. It took place in the early post-rally stages, when these people turned themselves in and before they were charged with -- under the criminal procedures law. But now nobody's -- is detained.

if you are interested, a lot of this was covered by bangkok pundit and i would be remiss to not mention him.

http://www.asiancorr...kok-pundit-blog

Are you aware that this whole argument is 1/ off the topic and 2/ wrong. The topic is about the problem of detaining people for the 30 days allowed under the ED. After looking at your link, it is obvious that the woman selling slippers was arrested and allowed to go on bail, for which she considered not applying. She was not detained. There is no contradiction of the PM's statement.

[orangezeke]

...she was taken off the street, against her will, by police. That pretty much fulfils every aspect of the verb. In fact, I can't think of a better example of what the word 'detained' might mean! If there was a kids colouring book of verbs, her picture would be in it under the word detain.

She was detained. (bold and underlined)

This example is very much on topic.

[animatic]

Yes, now we have some references to this lady being taking in.

First corroboration I have seen so fair play.

As to detention for 30 days, well it seems more like 3 hours from the description.

And interesting that a PTP MP was so easy to find, and so readily rushed down to bail out this little person. So convenient, almost like it was planned as another embarrassment.

And considering the charge of dissemination of inflammatory materials,

yes, they could be seen that way. Or they could have been let slide.

It was purely a judgment call from some police officer or his boss.

So WHY did those particular BiB decide her shoes were sufficient reason,

considering the governments stated stance against using this law cavalierly,

was she taken in?

Does anyone here believe that some police factions would not be

more than happy to create another embarrassment for the government?

And using this law in this manner, right after the PM said this is not happening,

would work towards the Red/PTP PR war against the government.

This is equally as plausible as the cops seeing her extraordinarily insulting propaganda

footware as being within the bounds of the laws description as stated in screen shot one above.

Now considering the bombs and much too close to dispute PTP MP, Committee secretary / family friend / financial transfer and red shirt connections to the recent blast, and the Chaing mai hit team, if real, such a grave insult or anything of such an insulting and inflammatory nature could well be seen as a provocation to an angry, less logical mind to take violent revenge. Fits the legal definition stated above.

So it is a toss up. Cops over reacting, or actually finding these propaganda footware

meeting legal definition, or as an absurdist attempt to yet again create anger via

painting the government as over reacting on this woman's products.

And implying the government actually knew this was happening.

Ultimately it was the Ayutthaiya POLICE doing this not the government.

And we know the BiB make up or twist the laws to suit themselves if they have reason.

Since she was not a violent threat herself to order she was bailed, and they will let the court decide on legality of the items. Of course the PTP MP has no problems with people putting the soles of their feet on the PM's face. Happily condoning one of the gravest insults in Thai culture. No, no provocations there, other than people get killed for showing their sole to others in person in Thailand every year.

Edited October 12, 2010 by animatic

[asiawatcher]

"... "Whether we accept it or not, [some red shirts] think they have been politically detained,"

If they chose to be part of a deadly protest then they should take the consequences of their actions and it has nothing to do with politics as neither does murder, pillage and maiming or inciting to riot. If you step up to the plate to be a leader then wear the results. It was not the yellows or the army who burned Bangkok and there is sufficient video evidence of red leaders saying burn the place down. Sorry - zero sympathy from this side.

[animatic]

"... "Whether we accept it or not, [some red shirts] think they have been politically detained,"

If they chose to be part of a deadly protest then they should take the consequences of their actions and it has nothing to do with politics as neither does murder, pillage and maiming or inciting to riot. If you step up to the plate to be a leader then wear the results. It was not the yellows or the army who burned Bangkok and there is sufficient video evidence of red leaders saying burn the place down. Sorry - zero sympathy from this side.

Exactly.

[OzMick]

...she was taken off the street, against her will, by police. That pretty much fulfils every aspect of the verb. In fact, I can't think of a better example of what the word 'detained' might mean! If there was a kids colouring book of verbs, her picture would be in it under the word detain.

She was detained. (bold and underlined)

This example is very much on topic.

Perhaps you should read the article again. The use of the word "detained" is held in custody without being charged with any crime or brought before a judge. Under your broad usage, I could consider myself detained by being stopped at a traffic light, but it would have nothing to do with this topic.

She was, I admit, improperly charged, and the case would be dismissed. The police were harassing her for distributing offensive material, and the same thing could happen in many parts of the world.

[orangezeke]

...she was taken off the street, against her will, by police. That pretty much fulfils every aspect of the verb. In fact, I can't think of a better example of what the word 'detained' might mean! If there was a kids colouring book of verbs, her picture would be in it under the word detain.

She was detained. (bold and underlined)

This example is very much on topic.

Perhaps you should read the article again. The use of the word "detained" is held in custody without being charged with any crime or brought before a judge. Under your broad usage, I could consider myself detained by being stopped at a traffic light, but it would have nothing to do with this topic.

She was, I admit, improperly charged, and the case would be dismissed. The police were harassing her for distributing offensive material, and the same thing could happen in many parts of the world.

where did you get this definition from ? "The use of the word "detained" is held in custody without being charged with any crime or brought before a judge".

i don't have a broad usage of the word. i just use english. if the police stop you at the traffic lights then i suppose you could say you were detained. admittedly, if you told me that story i would think you were fishing for the sympathy vote, maybe in the hope i buy the first round. but i wouldn't say to you "you've used the word detained incorrectly".

anyway, she wasn't simply stopped at a traffic light. she was held from 5pm to 11pm for an offense under section 9 (3) of the emergency decree. a decree that no longer exists in that province. perhaps this is the part that will help you understand - if she was not bailed, she would still be there ! still detained.

the way you minimise the event by likening it to a stop at the traffic light and "the same thing could happen in many parts of the world" is exactly what the lead article was warning of. when k. vitit says "the exceptions are now the rule. that exceptionalism is not the rule of law. we have to question that" he is talking about you. that behavior, that compliance to things you don't agree with but will allow because you are fearful. you simply empower the government with that blasé attitude.

anyway, the flip flop lady isn't the crux of this thread and was only an example of "excesses that were not in line with respect for human rights". so please don't try to make this thread about whether she was detained or not. lets talk about why she was. lets talk about what it means to be complicit in allowing this to happen.

Edited October 13, 2010 by orangezeke

[TheyCallmeScooter]

You must always consider the source. I'm surprised the brighter voices of reason participating in this thread didn't quickly pick up on the 'author' of the article in the OP.

Pravit is not a journalist.

He does not write news.

He works for the Red Shirts and Thaksin, although I don't know enough about his finances to know if he's remunerated or if he works for free. But search a string of his articles and you get the picture. He's either writing with direction from Amsterdam or the content is Amsterdam's work. I could - and happily will if anyone wishes me to do so - destroy literally every propaganda piece he writes. He's shameless, and if he was ever a journalist, he stopped being one a long time ago. He merely writes brainfreeze terrible Red Propaganda now.

Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said at the same seminar there were 184 red shirts currently being detained in normal prisons, with 25 reported as missing, but no political prisoners.

"It's interesting you use the term 'political prisoner'. I don't find any country using that term in regard to people who are held in Thailand ... There are no secret cells, as reported by the media. We found no one held in secret jails. We found no one held without charges," he said, adding that those reported as missing could be "normal" missing people.

"Every day, there are people missing in Thailand."

Whilst Pravit is definitely not above completely misquoting and slanting government quotes to suit the Red Propaganda Network's purposes, I have to admit the government really don't do themselves a lot of favours with their choice of phrasing and even their spokespersons...too often for comfort. I guess they don't believe it's important, but they're wrong.

If we assume that Pravit didn't fabricate the last line of that quote, and I think it's safe to say it's legit, literally omg. No no no no no bad spokesperson bad. Do not talk to the star of the Red Propaganda Network and say things like "every day, there are people missing". facepalm

I would prefer the system to get cleaned up, and the army to be told to stay completely out of domestic POLITICS. Coups do not in any way strengthen the system, the serve to continually weaken it.

I much prefer the Army coups to the Red Shirt ones. Less deaths. Less violence. Less terrorism.

red shirts = bad

current government = our protectors and saviors. looking out for all of us in our time of need.

this concept is both simplistic and dangerously naive. when the government starts imprisoning people for their beliefs we should say something. when people are denied judicial process, we should say something. when the thai army is called in to kill its own, we should say something.

1. The Red Shirts are bad, yes. In ways that are - quite frankly - horrific. Do you cover your eyes?

2. In relation to the threat posed by the Reds, the current government are saviours and protectors of the nation. These are not legitimate opponents, friend. Or should I say, comrade? These are violent terrorists who are conniving, two-faced, and diabolically hypocritical - they lie endlessly and gratuitously in a "no price is too high" battle for power.

3. Yes, when the government starts overstepping the boundaries of what is reasonably required, I and others like me WILL speak out. Will you? Please reference me to your thoughts on Thaksin's extra-judicial killings. Please link me to your outcry against Red Shirt violence and terrorism. Until you do, you're just another Pravit - but without the cover provided by his job, and without the ready-made audience ready to agree with you - no matter how outrageous your rambling might be.

4. When people are denied judicial process... you really want to go down this road?

5. The Thai Army was not called in to kill Red Shirts. The Red Shirts were called in to kill their own. For two months, the Army largely refused to rise to the baiting of the armed Red Shirt provocateurs; who would fire at stationary soldiers, then run back behind their children (used as human shields).

The Thai Army was called in to return Bangkok to it's 20 million residents. We couldn't very well let the Reds have it for ever - they weren't doing a great job with the upkeep of the CBD whilst we kindly let them hijack it for two months. The Reds attacked every time. The soldiers - very rarely - returned fire. If you don't understand how much discipline the Thai Army was displaying when you look at the numbers, you need to refresh your understanding on the realities of applying 'indiscriminate' M79 and sniper rounds onto unprotected human skin. Over two months. And when you wonder why the number of Red Shirts dead is not 2500, you'll start to appreciate the fact that the Thai Army were heroic in ways the Reds really should worship them for...

you want me to find you links to the story ? i will. but first answer this in an effort to save my time. will it change your opinion ?

If you want to be taken seriously by serious people, you would do two things as a matter of common-sense routine:

1. Don't include news stories without links (this is not because we would think you're making it up, but because the source of the news determines whether it is 'news' or not).

2. Nothing about Prachatai is news. They are the most one-sided hypocritical nauseating exponent of Thaksin's Red Propaganda Network that there is. You'll find all of Pravit's 'reports' on there, of course. He writes for Prachatai, not for The Nation. The Nation shouldn't actually be publishing his ludicrous op-ed spin. It's not news. It's Pravit desperately attempting to proscribe Red Desires onto the people they'd like to actually hold those fears, or actually behave those ways, or actually be terrified when the government has no reason to be.

The monarchy, the government, the Army. United as one. They have all the boxes ticked.

Pravit doesn't like this. So Pravit will continually imply that, despite being in total control, the Army is terrified of his looming power (which is all a figment of Pravit's - and Amsterdam's - typewriters).

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2070

LOL of course it's Prachatai. The No Spin Zone.

This isn't your little seditious underground bookclub, buddy.

Did you really think you could attempt to pass off a Prachatai 'report' as news and hope no one would realise?

Get out of here, you baboon. That was not a very intelligent or convincing effort. Though I did admire a few things about your approach, very unlike-Red (in certain aspects). But overall, still a massive fail.

Come back when you're ready to be....serious.

[OzMick]

Dodge, weave ,duck and keep using your colouring book simplistic use of the word. Read the bloody article! The professor is using the word to describe those held without charge which is legal for up to 30 days under the ED. That is his concern, that this is ongoing. Most of the posts on this thread have concerned an example of exactly what the professor required, those arrested to be charged, and offered the chance of bail, or brought before a judge - yet you use the same example to declare the PM a liar, an offence that exists only in your narrow mind.

This woman was being offensive. Showing the soles of your feet is offensive in this culture, walking on on image of their face even more so. And for that she was harassed, and she wants to get used to it. If I went to a political event and sold T-shirts with "Hilary Clinton is a <deleted>" (and the mis-spelling is deliberate) I could probably do so without breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't get any grief. That is the way it is, being offensive offends, and people respond.

[rubl]

anyway, the flip flop lady isn't the crux of this thread and was only an example of "excesses that were not in line with respect for human rights". so please don't try to make this thread about whether she was detained or not. lets talk about why she was. lets talk about what it means to be complicit in allowing this to happen.

An example of 'Excesses not in line with human rights' ? The lady was detained for three hours and bailed out. I can hardly call that an 'excess'. It may have been for a wrong reason, but courts will decide on that.

Next.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I wonder how the PAD lady would go with her Wanted: Thaksin sandals at a Red Shirt rally.

Would she live to tell the tale?

[animatic]

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: detain

Function: transitive verb

1 : to hold or keep in custody or possession

detain ed > detained in a care facility>

2 : to restrain from proceeding

<detained the driver and asked to see his license>

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

--------------------------------------------------------

What is important is the duration, and charges to be filed.

Many people are detained for questioning

and detained pending charges, and eventually the charges are not filed.

This happens in all countries world wide.

The issue here is some police decided to ignore the governments

relaxation of the letter of the law, and apply it more harshly to one

individual who was showing very poor taste at best and spreading divisiveness.

This is as likely either :

a ) Overzealous cop, who took a disliking to her and / or her message

b ) a setup for political purposes

to continue the ongoing smear attempts on the government.

c ) a lack of communication between government and the Ayutthaya police

[orangezeke]

Dodge, weave ,duck and keep using your colouring book simplistic use of the word. Read the bloody article! The professor is using the word to describe those held without charge which is legal for up to 30 days under the ED. That is his concern, that this is ongoing. Most of the posts on this thread have concerned an example of exactly what the professor required, those arrested to be charged, and offered the chance of bail, or brought before a judge - yet you use the same example to declare the PM a liar, an offence that exists only in your narrow mind.

This woman was being offensive. Showing the soles of your feet is offensive in this culture, walking on on image of their face even more so. And for that she was harassed, and she wants to get used to it. If I went to a political event and sold T-shirts with "Hilary Clinton is a &lt;deleted&gt;" (and the mis-spelling is deliberate) I could probably do so without breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't get any grief. That is the way it is, being offensive offends, and people respond.

your second paragraph first. there are judicial systems in place for the aggrieved - isn't the appropriate response for abasit/suthep to sue for defamation ? a civil case. at any rate your commentary here can be dismissed as holding no basis in law.

then you go on to decry my earlier posts as simply verbal rope-a-dope. that is pretty harsh. lets explore these claims.

• post 29 pedro01 says "No-one is locked up for having an opinion."
• post 31 OzMike's first post, follows up with "Agree absolutely".
• post 32 i disagree and post an example of someone locked up for having an opinion
• post 44 OzMike replies with "She was not detained" in bold and underlined for emphasis.
• post 45 i disagree.
• post 49 OzMike suggests i reread the article, continues to defy the rules of english and in a moment of quite incredible foresight assures us "the case would be dismissed". then he says "the same thing could happen in many parts of the world" comparing this administration to the likes of burma as evidence it is all okay.
• post 50 i disagree, say im not buying OzMike a beer and suggest we shouldn't focus on the flip flopper.
• post 52 i'm accused of dodging the issues

im confused, is it 'dodge, weave or duck' when i disagree with you or when i don't address your point ? because up until now it has been all about whether she was detained and i think we have covered that to death.

the rest of your post is good and worth discussing. your point as i understand it is the flip flop woman doesn't count as a relevant example she was processed, bailed and allowed to leave within the 30 day limit. all above board right ?

wrong.

she was arrested under section 9(3) of the emergency decree - the only way an offense like this becomes criminal. but the decree is not in effect in ayutthaya. (like my font flair ?) when k vivit talks about the laws being subverted to suit this administration, this example proves perfect.

as a footnote to my post i do recommend readers review the whole thread for themselves. my post summary is pretty bad.

[orangezeke]

I could - and happily will if anyone wishes me to do so - destroy literally every propaganda piece he writes.

wow, that would be super awesome dude, and i would be super interested to read that. but could you do it somewhere else, we are talking about something different here.

hahaha...baboon. really ? i'm a babooooooooooon !!! wait til i tell your mum. cos she's been saying im more like a donkey...if you know what i mean.

[rubl]

I could - and happily will if anyone wishes me to do so - destroy literally every propaganda piece he writes.

wow, that would be super awesome dude, and i would be super interested to read that. but could you do it somewhere else, we are talking about something different here.

hahaha...baboon. really ? i'm a babooooooooooon !!! wait til i tell your mum. cos she's been saying im more like a donkey...if you know what i mean.

Could you at least try to keep this discussion both on a mature level and to the point ?

[orangezeke]

anyway, the flip flop lady isn't the crux of this thread and was only an example of "excesses that were not in line with respect for human rights". so please don't try to make this thread about whether she was detained or not. lets talk about why she was. lets talk about what it means to be complicit in allowing this to happen.

An example of 'Excesses not in line with human rights' ? The lady was detained for three hours and bailed out. I can hardly call that an 'excess'. It may have been for a wrong reason, but courts will decide on that.

Next.

i said this in an earlier quote, and stand by it:

the way you minimise the event by likening it to a stop at the traffic light and "the same thing could happen in many parts of the world" is exactly what the lead article was warning of. when k. vitit says "the exceptions are now the rule. that exceptionalism is not the rule of law. we have to question that" he is talking about you. that behavior, that compliance to things you don't agree with but will allow because you are fearful. you simply empower the government with that blasé attitude.

[orangezeke]

I could - and happily will if anyone wishes me to do so - destroy literally every propaganda piece he writes.

wow, that would be super awesome dude, and i would be super interested to read that. but could you do it somewhere else, we are talking about something different here.

hahaha...baboon. really ? i'm a babooooooooooon !!! wait til i tell your mum. cos she's been saying im more like a donkey...if you know what i mean.

Could you at least try to keep this discussion both on a mature level and to the point ?

oh man...seriously ? sorry...he started it !