PAD Defies Police Order To Vacate Public Roads.

[Lite Beer]

PAD defies police order to clear out of roads.

By THE NATION ON SUNDAY.

The yellow shirts yesterday resisted a police order for them to vacate public roads around Government House where they have camped out for weeks.

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) yesterday said the order No 2 of the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO) was unconstitutional as it had been issued with the intent to block a peaceful demonstration.

The police were acting under CAPO, which was formed after the Internal Security Act was imposed last week in seven Bangkok districts, covering locations with political significance such as Government House, Parliament, and the Democracy Monument.

Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD core leader, yesterday did not rule out the possibility of the PAD protesters camping inside Government House, saying that could be one option though he refused to elaborate.

He made the remark after Sondhi Limthongkul, a PAD core leader, had earlier threatened to march into the Government House compound if the police cracked down on protesters.

There were fewer protesters yesterday evening compared to the same time on Friday when the PAD leaders announced they would move to rally at the Royal Plaza.

Prapan Khoonmee, spokesman for the PAD, said the CAPO order was illegitimate because there had been no threat to national security. The order was unconstitutional as it violated constitutional rights. The PAD would file a suit against the government for violating their rights.

Chamlong said the PAD would not resist the police if they wanted to crack down and disperse the protesters. "After dispersing, we will come back together. We will camp out again wherever we can,'' he said.

VIOLATING PUBLIC RIGHT

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the PAD had violated the right to free movement of commuters by camping out on roads and blocking traffic.

"Do not claim that the government aims to resort to violence because we do not. Do not create conditions or instigate situations that could lead to clashes because that does not bode well for the country,'' he said.

He said he had been trying to manage the border situation in a way that it would not lead to clashes as that would open the way for Cambodia to internationalise the issue. The government wanted to solve the border conflict through bilateral negotiations, which most people in the country agree is the best solution. But the PAD's stance dismisses all bilateral mechanisms, he said.

"Why do you [PAD] want to scrap the bilateral negotiations? You may misunderstand. That is what Cambodia wants. Why do you want that? The government takes full responsibility for its handling of the Cambodian issue,'' he said.

-- The Nation 2011-02-13

[whybother]

"After dispersing, we will come back together. We will camp out again wherever we can,'' he said.

Yes, you are allowed to do that, as long as you don't block the roads!

[asiawatcher]

If the order is clear - under present invoking of the internal security act - they have no 'right' to group and collect, block streets and cause public nuisance. In fact by now refuting the order to disperse, claiming illegality of the order, they are in breach of criminal law by the present act but of course, let's see what the next move is. They have denied violence and hostility but of course that is lip service only. Issue three orders and three strikes and then move them forcibly without weapons. Or the Govt will once again be seen to be incapable of keeping its country secure. Let's see. But I am sure all people now have had enough of this civil disobedience. It's time to get tough and move people out - especially with this baseless protest!

[LikeHeat]

QUOTE

Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD core leader, yesterday did not rule out the possibility of the PAD protesters camping inside Government House, saying that could be one option though he refused to elaborate.

He made the remark after Sondhi Limthongkul, a PAD core leader, had earlier threatened to march into the Government House compound if the police cracked down on protesters.

There were fewer protesters yesterday evening compared to the same time on Friday when the PAD leaders announced they would move to rally at the Royal Plaza.

Prapan Khoonmee, spokesman for the PAD, said the CAPO order was illegitimate because there had been no threat to national security. The order was unconstitutional as it violated constitutional rights. The PAD would file a suit against the government for violating their rights.

ENDQUOTE

There seems to be a few loose cannons on the deck. How can they say there is no threat to national security in the same breath as threatening they will camp out inside Government House? All these guys did was justify the order and remove any hope of a court agreeing they are not a threat.

Either you have a peaceful demonstration and obey the laws and rights of others, or you do not. There is no middle grey area. Any sort of violence or infringing the rights of others makes it a non peaceful demonstration, and for the public good must be stopped. It's a simple enough concept.

[Puccini]

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) yesterday said the order No 2 of the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO) was unconstitutional as it had been issued with the intent to block a peaceful demonstration.

I can't find anything in the constitution of Thailand saying that a peaceful demonstration has the right to block traffic. The closest to it I can find is Chapter 3 "Rights and Liberties of Thai People", Part 11 "Liberties to Assembly and Association", Section 63:

Section 63. A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms. The restriction on such liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of public assembling and for securing public convenience in the use of public places or for the maintenance of public order during the time when the country is in a state of war, or when a state of emergency or martial law is declared.

Still nothing about the right to block roads, but in the second sentence a confirmation of the government's right to forbid, for example, the blocking of roads under certain circumstances. It seems to me that the criteria are met: a state of emergency has been declared; the government's order is for "securing public convenience in the use of public places"

Edited February 13, 2011 by Puccini

[hanuman1]

It may seem like any group who claims to protest against the government can block roads and generally create inconvenience to thousands of others without fear of adverse repercussions. Of course, this isn't true.

In my opinion (I'm looking at you, Rubl) you CAN block roads and inconvenience others without repercussions as long as you have the right kind of backing.

For the red shirts, this backing lies in the sheer numbers of people that turned up to their demonstrations. I would throw the anti-red obsessives a bone and say that its backing was Thaksin, but who's afraid of Thaksin, right anti-red obsessives?

As for the yellow shirts, their numbers are far lower than the red shirt rallies. Nevertheless, they too have sufficient backing, just of a different kind. Both the army and the government are very well aware of what backing the Yellows have, and for them it is equally, if not more cast-iron than that of the red-shirt hoards.

Commiseration to weekend shoppers in BKK. Your plight is not over yet.

Edited February 13, 2011 by hanuman1

[animatic]

^ˇhis means that a showdown is going to happen, the PAD will hit the fan and feathers will fly all over. But we know which side will win and it will be definitive.

Why must it be such a cock-up in Thailand when old men feel obsessed to prove their ar still relevant to public discourse, or still have a hold on power like they had when younger?

Edited February 13, 2011 by animatic