binjalin Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Just like my home country I dont like either political party, here its red or yellow both corrupt from top to bottom. The problem I have with this whole issue is a court no matter at what level in the system is to be used to judge the legality of a law that has been passed, not the debate or proposal of a law in a democratic society before it has even been passed, To not allow the debate of changes to the constitution just shows the fear of some people (on both sides) in this country of losing their many years of abuse of power. Thats really the main problem thailand faces, not even being able to talk about the problems that have caused many years of turmoil.How can anything or anyone change without an open honest debate of its problems ??? Whichever way the court rules (of which I dont really care anymore)these powerful spoiled children from both sides will be fighting again. spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 If the law existed when they committed the offence, it's irrelevant which constitution was in effect at the time of the conviction. Things aren't so sensible in Thailand. There are stories, in prior times, of Thai Cabinet Ministers who break the law, but then aren't prosecuted because 'they're not in office at the time the prosecution is scheduled to begin.' Yingluck will be out of the country Friday when the ruling is handed down... Yingluck is largely immaterial to such rulings. She made it clear from the get-go that she is 100% behind whatever her clone brother wishes. Chalerm and her other attack dogs are obedient. She is not a competent debater. She prefers to appear aloof and 'above the fray.' The Charter and Constitutional Court issues all revolve around one thing: The manic intent of PT and the Reds to enable T to return without any legal repercussions for his past transgressions. Oh, and to get a truck load of money put in T's overseas accounts from Thai gov't coffers - as will eventually happen if things go their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer And if any single politician's expenses in the UK ran in to millions rather than the odd duck pond, you would expect consequences, if a large enough group of them from one party were found to be doing the same thing, expect very large consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta. Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again. The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution. Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta Sorry, but those things didn't happen, either. It was not "an amendment in 98" and it wasn't a "decree by the junta" . Edited July 10, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The constitution allowing the dissolution of entire parties and the courts which wield that tool are both fabrications of the coup / military junta. Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again. The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution. Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta Sorry, but those things didn't happen, either. It was not "an amendment in 98" and it wasn't a "decree by the junta" . Does any country have those dissolve and banning things except third world countries? Where did Thailand get the idea? I can see some posters here doing it. But tell me someone must know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer \\and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer And if any single politician's expenses in the UK ran in to millions rather than the odd duck pond, you would expect consequences, if a large enough group of them from one party were found to be doing the same thing, expect very large consequences. oh you think they would ban the party? claptrap - maybe more consequences but don't try to even hint that the British Parliament would have a party 'Dissolved' and you know it very well and are defending the indefensible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer \\and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution I don't believe the mighty US of A would sit idly by whilst elections were rigged by positioning voting booths so that votes were no longer private, where the populous was paid to vote in favour of a political party, where small parties were paid to contest and election do you? People would be fined, imprisoned, banned from politics and if it was viewed that the whole party was involved then for sure there would be action against the party itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer And if any single politician's expenses in the UK ran in to millions rather than the odd duck pond, you would expect consequences, if a large enough group of them from one party were found to be doing the same thing, expect very large consequences. oh you think they would ban the party? claptrap - maybe more consequences but don't try to even hint that the British Parliament would have a party 'Dissolved' and you know it very well and are defending the indefensible Yes there would be no dissolution, people would step down of course leading to by elections, but the party would not be dissolved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer \\and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution I don't believe the mighty US of A would sit idly by whilst elections were rigged by positioning voting booths so that votes were no longer private, where the populous was paid to vote in favour of a political party, where small parties were paid to contest and election do you? People would be fined, imprisoned, banned from politics and if it was viewed that the whole party was involved then for sure there would be action against the party itself Don't be silly. In the USA no one is banned from politics. That only happens on Thai Visa or in Thailand or some other 3rd world country where people come from who post on Thai Visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 kerryk and binjalin: These countries that have banned/dissolved political parties: South Korea Iraq Bhutan Brunei Turkey Germany Russia Portugal Finland . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 kerryk and binjalin: These countries that have banned/dissolved political parties: South Korea Iraq Bhutan Brunei Turkey Germany Russia Portugal Finland . Just guessing here, but was the German party the nazi party, and was the Finland one anything to do with also, I guess i am asking if these bannings/dissolutions are as a result of war or other reasons, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . Edited July 10, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution It wouldn't happen in the US because it is not in the US constitution. It does happen in Thailand because it IS in the Thai constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting But have any of these counties banned parties for trivial matters, the point I was making is how serious was the offence for dissolving for countries in your list? Was there a false claim that they intend to overthrow a monarchy for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution It wouldn't happen in the US because it is not in the US constitution. It does happen in Thailand because it IS in the Thai constitution. Yeah but, yeah but if the PTP got to power there and rewrote the constitution and deleted the first amendment as they surely would then anything can happen right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting But have any of these counties banned parties for trivial matters, the point I was making is how serious was the offence for dissolving for countries in your list? Was there a false claim that they intend to overthrow a monarchy for example? What "trivial" matters have Thai parties been banned for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting I posted it after the 19th post or so about how this would never happen in any other country than Thailand, simply to say it has, but not necessarily wishing to explore why they have as, again, it's off-topic. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting I posted it after the 19th post or so about how this would never happen in any other country than Thailand, simply to say it has, but not necessarily wishing to explore why they have as, again, it's off-topic. . Haha. Australia too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta, and enforced with the junta-selected courts. A penalty which did not exist at the time of the act but was enforced retro-actively in order to decapitate the TRT and reduce the party's ability to function under a new banner. None of which changes the original point that the courts are a non-democratic lever to be pulled as needed and a system was created by the junta to do it's so obvious it's painful that some cannot see it. Can you imagine the Dems being dissolved because of Clinton's 'thing', or the Conservatives in the UK because of the 'expenses' thing? it's just so, so obvious If Clinton's staff were running around buying votes and fixing exections, there would be a case to answer \\and dissolution??? UTTER nonsense - would never happen and against the US Constitution I don't believe the mighty US of A would sit idly by whilst elections were rigged by positioning voting booths so that votes were no longer private, where the populous was paid to vote in favour of a political party, where small parties were paid to contest and election do you? People would be fined, imprisoned, banned from politics and if it was viewed that the whole party was involved then for sure there would be action against the party itself The USA currently is allowing elections to be bought, but in a different fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 A post has been deleted as will any others that are uncivil. Please refrain from calling each other liars and so forth. Leave that to the politicians. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Get a grip. False accusation returns as I didn't "claim" any such thing as you "claim" I did. Try and tone things down and not be uncivil. You gave two possibilities on the dissolution of parties and I informed that thee second one was wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. What are talking about with decree 27? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting But have any of these counties banned parties for trivial matters, the point I was making is how serious was the offence for dissolving for countries in your list? Was there a false claim that they intend to overthrow a monarchy for example? Don't expect an honest answer and post #109 proves this........... Disingenuity rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Don't expect an honest answer and post #109 proves this........... He got a very honest answer to the first part, but don't expect any answer past that which perpetuates the off-topic discussion addressed by post # 109, even if you wish to perpetuate. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting I posted it after the 19th post or so about how this would never happen in any other country than Thailand, simply to say it has, but not necessarily wishing to explore why they have as, again, it's off-topic. . Haha. Australia too You mean Australia has the same level of political sophistication as Thailand? What did they ban? Did it work? What did Soft George and Chooka say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Another baiting post has been removed as well as a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 -- deleted due to quote limits -- Sorry, but you got the wrong Constitution... again. The pre-coup / pre-military junta Constitution of 1997 introduced Party dissolution. Sorry, the dissolution existed before - either in the 97 charter or in an amendment in 98, and it was the 5 year banning of party execs instituted by decree by the junta Sorry, but those things didn't happen, either. It was not "an amendment in 98" and it wasn't a "decree by the junta" . Does any country have those dissolve and banning things except third world countries? Where did Thailand get the idea? I can see some posters here doing it. But tell me someone must know? regarding the previous poster : sometimes the word "or" means "or", and yes it was a decree by the junta. So correct, ... again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) There's a myriad of reasons / situations these other countries have acted as they have. Point is, Thailand is not alone in banning/dissolving political parties. Posters can discuss all day what would happen in the UK or USA or elsewhere and in the end, it's really just off-topic bantering. We can even mash out about how the US RICO Act involving criminal conspiracies in very similar in its interpretations of the law as the criminal conspiracies that have been undertaken by the Thai banned parties... but I'd prefer to discuss the OP. . But you chose to post a list of countries that has dissolved political parties, interesting I posted it after the 19th post or so about how this would never happen in any other country than Thailand, simply to say it has, but not necessarily wishing to explore why they have as, again, it's off-topic. . Well it is not off topic as you raised it as an issue by highlighting other countries dissolve parties, possibly in an attempt to justify it happening in Thailand, so the question is a simple one, as you are trying to compare dissolution in Thailand with that in different countries maybe you could justify this claim by clearing up just why parties were dissolved in those countries, this is then relevant to Thailand and this thread. I decided to help you, I just looked at one of he countries and came up with a party that was dissolved for becoming allies with the nazi party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party i wonder what the other countries will throw up? such heinous crimes as following the constitution to make changes to the constitution perchance? Acting in a perfectly legal manner?? Edited July 11, 2012 by carra 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerryk Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 regarding the previous poster : sometimes the word "or" means "or", and yes it was a decree by the junta. So correct, ... again So a bunch of generals or crazy political whackos running from shadows and the real world. In any event I think it can be safely stated that in Thailand if one wants a party disbanded they are either a nutcase Thai or a nutcase posting on Thai Visa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now