Press Freedom Group Criticizes Thai Plan To Deport Photojournalists

[webfact]

Press freedom group criticizes Thai plan to deport photojournalists

A New York-based press freedom group said Saturday it was concerned about the Thai government's plan to deport two foreign photojournalists for illegally entering Burma.

Thailand-based John Sanlin, a Burmese passport holder, and Pascal Schatterman, a Belgian national, were arrested Thursday as they re-entered Thailand after illegally crossing into neighbouring Burma.

On Friday a Thai provincial court found both foreigners guilty of violating immigration laws, for which they were fined Bt500, taken into custody and told they would be deported.

"We call on Thai authorities to reconsider the deportation of journalists John Sanlin and Pascal Schatterman and take into consideration the prospect that Sanlin will suffer severe reprisals if he is forcibly returned to Burma," said Shawn Crispin, the South-East Asia representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

"Thailand has long been a safe haven for exiled journalists to report freely on Burma. CPJ encourages the Thai government to maintain that important press freedom role for the region," Crispin said.

Both Sanlin and Schatterman had crossed into Burma to cover an escalating armed conflict between Burmese troops and ethnic Karen insurgents.

Thailand has provided refugee camps with international assistance for up to 150,000 Karens fleeing fighting in Burma for the past two decades.

The country has also offered sanctuary for scores of Burmese political activists and an estimated two million Burmese labourers

.

There have concerns that the Thai government may become less tolerant of the large numbers of Burmese expatriates following Burma's general election of November 7, 2010, which could bolster the credibility of the military junta that has ruled the country since 1988.

The polls, criticized by western democracies for being neither free nor fair, were won by the pro-junta Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which is packed with ex-military men.

The first parliament session is scheduled to convene on January 31.

-- The Nation 2011-01-22

[webfact]

Thailand poised to deport two journalists

BANGKOK, January 22, 2011 (AFP) - Thai authorities on Saturday confirmed plans to deport two photojournalists arrested after re-entering the country from neighbouring Myanmar, despite criticism from a media rights group.

Belgian Pascal Schatteman will be flown to his home country and John Sanlin, a Myanmar passport holder, is to be expelled at one of Thailand's land borders with the military-ruled nation, according to an immigration official.

"Both of them will be deported tomorrow," said Colonel Suriya Prapysatok, acting Immigration commander in Tak province, where the men were arrested.

The pair were detained Thursday in the border town of Mae Sot after returning to Thailand from eastern Myanmar, where they reported on clashes between troops and rebels, said the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Sanlin now faces being returned to a country known for handing down lengthy prison sentences to journalists working for unofficial media.

CPJ said Thailand should "take into consideration the prospect that Sanlin will suffer severe reprisals if he is forcibly returned" to his country, also known as Burma.

"Thailand has long been a safe haven for exiled journalists to report freely on Burma. CPJ encourages the Thai government to maintain that important press freedom role for the region," said Shawn Crispin, senior Southeast Asia representative.

Thai authorities confiscated video footage taken by the pair in Myanmar, including "images of internally displaced people suffering from severe deprivation," according to CPJ.

Sanlin, who CPJ said has previously provided video footage to Al Jazeera and France 24, told the group he fears reprisals if he is deported to Myanmar. He said he holds a student visa for Thailand.

CPJ lists Myanmar as the world’s fourth-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 13 in prison.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-01-22

[swifty5x5]

Let me get this straight. Broke immigration laws and because they say that they are photojournalists that it's o.k. I must take my camera next time I go out of country.

[buckeye]

I totally agree, breaking the law is breaking the law. I called a friend in Maesot, he says the talk in town is that John Sanlin, a Burmese passport holder is also a Australian Passport holder. So the story is a little miss leading. Also just to add to the DRAMA, Pascal Schatterman, a Belgian national is Deaf Mute. Now if I was to go into a rebel fighting zone he would be the last person I would take!!. He also tells me that this a daily happening, and they were just unlucky or set up by someone to add a little drama to the KNU-SPC battles.

[asiawatcher]

Yep - stupidity - they know the rules and expect leniency! Go figure.

[Buchholz]

I totally agree, breaking the law is breaking the law. I called a friend in Maesot, he says the talk in town is that John Sanlin, a Burmese passport holder is also a Australian Passport holder. So the story is a little miss leading. Also just to add to the DRAMA, Pascal Schatterman, a Belgian national is Deaf Mute. Now if I was to go into a rebel fighting zone he would be the last person I would take!!. He also tells me that this a daily happening, and they were just unlucky or set up by someone to add a little drama to the KNU-SPC battles.

About

Welcome to the archive of Photographer Schatteman Pascal

I am deaf.

I have basis at Mae Sot (Border Burma-Thai) in Thailand.

So lf my work interessed you, don’t hasetate and contact me.

I do not write the English language very well

http://www.lightstalkers.org/schatteman

========================================================================================================

* Name john sanlin

* Location Thailand (Bangkok)

* Bio I'm Burmese Freelance Journalist

http://twitter.com/johnsanlin

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

same photo enlarged on his mphotos web page:

http://mphotos.live.com/f6d80807a24eed81/d.aspx?rid=F6D80807A24EED81!211&mkt=en-US

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

Another with him shaved and without the shades & cap, but perhaps not the best photo to post on one's own web page given his activities:

http://mphotos.live.com/f6d80807a24eed81/d.aspx?rid=F6D80807A24EED81!215&mkt=en-US

Edited January 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[jdinasia]

I find the whole thread a bit misleading.

They aren't being deported because of an occupation (photojournalists), they are being deported because of immigration violations. They exited and re-entered Thailand illegally if I am reading this right. If, at some point in your life, you willingly and knowingly break the law you absolutely should be willing to face the consequences. These consequences don't seem particularly harsh all things considered.

[nicknostitz]

You jokers - every single story on the fighting across the Burmese border is done by journalists who cross "illegally". By it by freelancers, or by BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and whoever else - there is just no visa to possible or available to cross into the warzones in Karen State.

Without journalists crossing "illegally" from Thailand - there would be no coverage whatsoever of what happens there.

I don't know the Belgian, but i know John - we talked briefly on the phone when he just crossed into Burma. He is a incredibly courageous cameraman, usually always to be found in the thick of the worst fighting. He was injured in April 10, had two pieces of shrapnell lodged deep in his leg and stomach from the grenade that killed Col. Romklao, and just kept on working, for days. The footage he took there was of enormous importance.

Please think about this before you start disrespecting people you don't know, and have no idea about their lives.

[euro82]

Buchholz what is your point in releasing these pictures, esp. the last one concerning John? People are going to be completely misleaded by this one. John is a very courageous Burma citizen who just wants to show the world what is going on in his country, he is a very great man, as I met and talked to him him several times. The last picture may be interpreted in the wrong way, and is clearly taken out of context.

For the rest I agree with nicknostitz.

[euro82]

thank you Nick for these precisions. I think exactly the same as you.

You jokers - every single story on the fighting across the Burmese border is done by journalists who cross "illegally". By it by freelancers, or by BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and whoever else - there is just no visa to possible or available to cross into the warzones in Karen State.

Without journalists crossing "illegally" from Thailand - there would be no coverage whatsoever of what happens there.

I don't know the Belgian, but i know John - we talked briefly on the phone when he just crossed into Burma. He is a incredibly courageous cameraman, usually always to be found in the thick of the worst fighting. He was injured in April 10, had two pieces of shrapnell lodged deep in his leg and stomach from the grenade that killed Col. Romklao, and just kept on working, for days. The footage he took there was of enormous importance.

Please think about this before you start disrespecting people you don't know, and have no idea about their lives.

[Buchholz]

Buchholz what is your point in releasing these pictures, esp. the last one concerning John? People are going to be completely misleaded by this one. John is a very courageous Burma citizen who just wants to show the world what is going on in his country, he is a very great man, as I met and talked to him him several times. The last picture may be interpreted in the wrong way, and is clearly taken out of context.

For the rest I agree with nicknostitz.

1. I didn't "release" the photos. They are public domain photos posted by the photographers themselves on their own webpages.

2. If Mr. Sanlin didn't wish people to be "misled" by his photos, he might wish to reconsider what photos that he himself posts on his own webpage.

3. I have no doubt that Mr. Sanlin is courageous.

4. As I posted above the photo, given Mr. Sanlin's activities and given the high potential for his being apprehended by either the Burmese or Thai authorities and in light of that, it probably would have been best for him not to post potentially provocative photos on his own webpage so as to not be mis-"interpreted."

5. I wish both photographers the best of luck. Having reviewed their pictures that they have both posted on their own webpages, I think they are both talented photographers.

[Pi Sek]

Two sides to the responses so far...

1) Whether a visa is available or not, the simple fact is that two photojournalists broke the Law. If Law is to be respected, then being deported to answer for said crime is not an unreasonable punishment. Given the 'outside pressures' on Burmese courts, the rule of Law or truth are not as important in Burmese courts as, say, political stability - so this is obviously something that needs to evolve. But the photojournalists knew what they were doing and now, whatever their intentions or motives, they have to face the consequences. Just like a captured spy.

2) I'm sure that these particular guys were trying to provide coverage of a situation that deserves coverage. So there is something wrong here, because now there will be two fewer individuals who are available and willing to make such coverage. The world has lost out.

[nicknostitz]

2) I'm sure that these particular guys were trying to provide coverage of a situation that deserves coverage. So there is something wrong here, because now there will be two fewer individuals who are available and willing to make such coverage. The world has lost out.

Read many recent and old statements by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International accusing Thailand of illegally pushing back of refugees into Burma.

The two were hardly arrested because they "broke the law" as there is very little law existing at this border (or better - no law that cannot be easily broken when business is concerned) - a border that strives of all sorts of illegal businesses with deep involvement of authorities of both sides, insurgent groups and crime syndicates. Nosy journalists are an inconvenience there.

I would suggest to spend a little time there, and then think about how ridiculous it is to arrest two journalists for "crossing illegally" when at the same time openly at countless spots Thai authorities oversee and benefit from the smuggling of huge amount of illegally cut logs across the border, where enormous money is made from the white slave trade and drugs.

At this particular border everything is wrong.

[jdinasia]

I would think that a journalist would leave out the quotation marks around "illegally" when the fact is it IS illegal, it doesn't matter if there is no legal way to accomplish the same thing. That he then goes on to use it without the quotation marks about Thai authorities would possibly indicate .... bias?

[Pi Sek]

2) I'm sure that these particular guys were trying to provide coverage of a situation that deserves coverage. So there is something wrong here, because now there will be two fewer individuals who are available and willing to make such coverage. The world has lost out.

Read many recent and old statements by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International accusing Thailand of illegally pushing back of refugees into Burma.

The two were hardly arrested because they "broke the law" as there is very little law existing at this border (or better - no law that cannot be easily broken when business is concerned) - a border that strives of all sorts of illegal businesses with deep involvement of authorities of both sides, insurgent groups and crime syndicates. Nosy journalists are an inconvenience there.

I would suggest to spend a little time there, and then think about how ridiculous it is to arrest two journalists for "crossing illegally" when at the same time openly at countless spots Thai authorities oversee and benefit from the smuggling of huge amount of illegally cut logs across the border, where enormous money is made from the white slave trade and drugs.

At this particular border everything is wrong.

Amnesty International and HRW have, in my honest opinion, cried "wolf" too often for anyone to take them seriously anymore. A sad state of affairs, admittedly, but it is of their own doing. However, I acknowledge that Thai authorities have historically been too quick to send the problem back to Burma, where the problem will undoubtedly face rough justice that cannot really be described as justice. Aung San Suu Kyi's recent appeal to Thailand not to repatriate Burmese refugees too hastily was bang on the mark - she said she understood the Thais, as it's a Burmese problem for the Burmese to solve without inconveniencing their neighbours, but she asked for this not to be rushed.

I have no doubt that there is massive corruption on all involved sides - the Burmese authorities, the Thai authorities, the rebel groups and commercial gangsters of numerous nationalities. The thing is, it's *not* ridiculous to arrest people breaking the Law. This is something that I have to point out is fundamentally wrong with your blog's support of the UDD (note I mention UDD rather than Red Shirts) in your blogs. I submit that it is far more ridiculous not to arrest those who are breaking the Law (which we agree is the current status quo), and I think that the journalism crowd would do well to focus their efforts more on this than the "ridiculous arrest of those who broke the Law". Focus on the "ridiculous freedoms of those who broke the Law" instead.

I have no intention of spending any time there at this present moment in time, thank you! I will leave that for the journalists. (Having said that, why on earth did I go to Bangkok in April-May?!)

[nicknostitz]

I would think that a journalist would leave out the quotation marks around "illegally" when the fact is it IS illegal, it doesn't matter if there is no legal way to accomplish the same thing. That he then goes on to use it without the quotation marks about Thai authorities would possibly indicate .... bias?

Using quotation marks when stating "illegal" in an area that is one of the most lawless areas in this part of the world is more than appropriate.

[jdinasia]

I would think that a journalist would leave out the quotation marks around "illegally" when the fact is it IS illegal, it doesn't matter if there is no legal way to accomplish the same thing. That he then goes on to use it without the quotation marks about Thai authorities would possibly indicate .... bias?

Using quotation marks when stating "illegal" in an area that is one of the most lawless areas in this part of the world is more than appropriate.

I guess it would be .... in an opinion piece ... and if you used the same denotation when referring to the Thai authorities

[nicknostitz]

This is something that I have to point out is fundamentally wrong with your blog's support of the UDD (note I mention UDD rather than Red Shirts) in your blogs.

I need to make something clear here. New Mandala is not my blog, it is owned an run by two researchers of the ANU. I am just a regular guest commentator, and only responsible for my articles, and not for what others write.

If you or anyone has problems with any articles there, then there are two ways to make that known: write comments in the comment section, or, if your own research has a certain professional quality, than email the owners, and ask them to have it posted as a guest comment.

[Pi Sek]

Regardless of who owns which blog, please take my suggestion as helpful criticism. It is pointless complaining about the detention of those who broke the Law. It is much more helpful to complain that the Law in question is an ass (accompanied by explanations as to why).

You have a voice and a platform, and have made the decision to tell the world about your interpretation of the truth. Use it! Don't be shy, name names and cost some corrupt police captain his job, find out why all these crimes are going unpunished... go on, make a difference. Whose orders? On whose authority? Why isn't anyone doing anything about it?

But, and this is I think what you are missing (is this a journalists' trait?) - reporters are not above the Law, just as they are not bulletproof. Courageous, sometimes. Correct, sometimes. But above the Law they are not.

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm

Journalists are not above the law ... and yet ... at the end nick makes a case for exactly that. The fact that they were arrested not for violating Burmese law, but for violating Thai law doesn't enter into it?

Internal conflict and the law? Nick tells a poignant story of him reporting on internal conflict in Thailand with apparently no repercussions. The reporters in question cannot claim ignorance and were arrested for exiting/entering Thailand illegally. Where would you draw the line? I would say that if you roll the dice, you take your chances.

Personally, I would like to see more accountability for the actions of the military, but in a situation where international journalists mentioned firefights (gunfire from both directions) repeatedly, laying the blame at the feet of the correct people may prove impossible.

[animatic]

I agree with what they are doing,

and also agree they MUST have known about the consequences about being caught by either side.

For the Thais is is a border issue, for the Myanmar junta it is interfering in a internal war zone, AKA spying.

No doubt the Thai penalties are MUCH lighter.

I am a bit surprised some chunk of tea money hasn't kept this quiet.

Maybe it was just to openly seen for it to be kept quiet.

If the guy has a an Oz passport then he is gonna be OK, if the send him there.

If they send him back to Burma with fanfare, then he likely disappears into the gullag or worse.

But they both knew this before they did their thing. I hope they fare well in any case.

Edited January 24, 2011 by animatic

[nicknostitz]

Hmmmm

Journalists are not above the law ... and yet ... at the end nick makes a case for exactly that. The fact that they were arrested not for violating Burmese law, but for violating Thai law doesn't enter into it?

Internal conflict and the law? Nick tells a poignant story of him reporting on internal conflict in Thailand with apparently no repercussions. The reporters in question cannot claim ignorance and were arrested for exiting/entering Thailand illegally. Where would you draw the line? I would say that if you roll the dice, you take your chances.

Personally, I would like to see more accountability for the actions of the military, but in a situation where international journalists mentioned firefights (gunfire from both directions) repeatedly, laying the blame at the feet of the correct people may prove impossible.

Where firefights are concerned the situation is of course different. But still details have to be investigated there as well, if it is possible. During the last 6 days of the protest i have seen both - firefights and situations where the soldiers have used deadly fire where the situation has only warranted tear gas and rubber bullets at most. Every situation requires an appropriate response - just because some militants were under the protesters does not mean that any protester can be killed. To discern armed militants - a legal target - from unarmed protesters the military has night vision devices, scopes on their rifles, spotters for their sniper teams, etc. Yet the vast majority of killed protesters were unarmed. The lousy excuse that they were all killed by Red Shirt militants is nothing but ridiculous for anyone who has been on the ground.

anyhow...

The line is occasionally not clear, unfortunately, as it happens in life at times. But we have regulations regarding ethical conduct in our profession, even if it is often disregarded.

In this case though the line is quite clear, IMO - the two have kept on the correct side of the line, professionally. As have countless journalists before them done.

Or, would you advocate not to report on the conflicts in Burma because doing so necessarily violates Thai immigration laws?

[nicknostitz]

I somehow thought you might go into that... the shooting of unarmed protesters by the army.

You are right, these unarmed protesters were breaking the Law. Their punishments in and out of court might have been overly severe, but they broke the Law and they are now paying for it. The suitability of the Law is of second consequence, as it is in this case.

You're also wrong - the soldiers were absolutely acting within the Law. And that's International Law, not even Thai Law (we all know that Thai Law is not the strongest legal establishment) - the CRES were very careful about that, to the point that they mentioned it on their broadcasts every day throught the clearance operations. They may have been overly forceful, but they were definitely acting within the Law.

You seem to be getting a little defensive with regards to these two arrests. These two are being treated no differently to spies. They illegally entered another country with the intention of damaging the interests of that country's rulers. Some spies are goodies, some spies are baddies and it looks like these two are goodies - but they broke the Law. Those who choose to knowingly break the Law must acknowledge that, if they get caught, they will be in trouble. If they didn't want to go to jail, then they shouldn't have knowingly broken the Law, regardless of the merits of their intentions. Denying the validity of this risk is doing a dis-service to your own family - it might be you one day.

I'm not saying that these arrests were just, or that they are unjust. As per my first post in this thread, there are arguments for and against... as a journalist, I thought you would be able to understand this better than most!

Thai and international law know the appropriateness of force. Firing kill shots at unarmed protesters (and journalists) is not appropriate, and not protected by Thai law. There were less clear situations, where there were fire exchanges, and there were situations where the military has used appropriate force, but there were situations as well, such as the one i described here, where there were no armed militants anywhere.

The application of the emergency decree does not equate that the military is allowed to kill at will, including innocent bystanders and local residents - as has happened as well. Which CRES has also announced repeatedly, if you care to remember. And if you remember - there are ongoing investigations, that will sooner or later lead also to court cases in Thailand against the military.

The military is only protected as long as it uses force appropriately, also under the emergency decree.

As a journalist, i do believe that there arguments for and against stepping over laws in particular situations. But i have made it quite clear, that as a journalist, i view this situation as quite clear - the two have acted according to our professional conduct. If Thailand really goes ahead with the deportation, you can expect that Thailand will slip even further in the freedom index. You may believe that this is again crying wolf - but an accumulation of such violations one day will have repercussions that Thailand cannot afford.

[Pi Sek]

Hmmmm

Journalists are not above the law ... and yet ... at the end nick makes a case for exactly that. The fact that they were arrested not for violating Burmese law, but for violating Thai law doesn't enter into it?

Internal conflict and the law? Nick tells a poignant story of him reporting on internal conflict in Thailand with apparently no repercussions. The reporters in question cannot claim ignorance and were arrested for exiting/entering Thailand illegally. Where would you draw the line? I would say that if you roll the dice, you take your chances.

Personally, I would like to see more accountability for the actions of the military, but in a situation where international journalists mentioned firefights (gunfire from both directions) repeatedly, laying the blame at the feet of the correct people may prove impossible.

Where firefights are concerned the situation is of course different. But still details have to be investigated there as well, if it is possible. During the last 6 days of the protest i have seen both - firefights and situations where the soldiers have used deadly fire where the situation has only warranted tear gas and rubber bullets at most. Every situation requires an appropriate response - just because some militants were under the protesters does not mean that any protester can be killed. To discern armed militants - a legal target - from unarmed protesters the military has night vision devices, scopes on their rifles, spotters for their sniper teams, etc. Yet the vast majority of killed protesters were unarmed. The lousy excuse that they were all killed by Red Shirt militants is nothing but ridiculous for anyone who has been on the ground.

anyhow...

The line is occasionally not clear, unfortunately, as it happens in life at times. But we have regulations regarding ethical conduct in our profession, even if it is often disregarded.

In this case though the line is quite clear, IMO - the two have kept on the correct side of the line, professionally. As have countless journalists before them done.

Or, would you advocate not to report on the conflicts in Burma because doing so necessarily violates Thai immigration laws?

You've got to stop using this "anyone who has been on the ground" line. I think quite a few posters here were on the ground too - including me - and my conclusions are waaayyyy off yours. As for discerning military targets from civilian ones, there's plenty of for and against arguments all over the Internet, so I won't go into them here unless you ask me. You probably know them all anyway.

Reporting on Burmese conflict does not require the breaking of Thai immigration Laws. Getting a closer look might, and that is what you're gonna have to learn to balance - but don't complain when you are arrested for breaking the Law, that's all.

[webfact]

BKK journos John Sanlin & Pascal Shatterman are freed from immigration prison & will not be deported! /via@whitegirlinasia:

[animatic]

This thread is not about Rachada' or any other Thai issues, except about these two journaists.

So other than law discussions this has veered off topic.

Noting now that Immigration has decided that this is not an issue and released them, all's well as they say.

Might be because they were stamped to be in Thailand, and technically on paper at least 'hadn't left Thailand',

so they decided you can not technically sneak back into somewhere you never left. Or some such.

Well a decent outcome.

[warfie]

Why do journalists behave like they are above the law?

[warfie]

and bullet-proof...

[jdinasia]

This thread is not about Rachada' or any other Thai issues, except about these two journaists.

So other than law discussions this has veered off topic.

Noting now that Immigration has decided that this is not an issue and released them, all's well as they say.

Might be because they were stamped to be in Thailand, and technically on paper at least 'hadn't left Thailand',

so they decided you can not technically sneak back into somewhere you never left. Or some such.

Well a decent outcome.

assuming the tweet is accurate

[metisdead]

The topic of this thread is related to this: A New York-based press freedom group said Saturday it was concerned about the Thai government's plan to deport two foreign photojournalists for illegally entering Burma. Discussion of this is on topic.

Please stay on topic.