Thai Court Defers Key Ruling On PM Party

[binjalin]

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...._People's_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??

game................set..................and match

[binjalin]

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.

.

disingenuous

[Buchholz]

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

it is off-topic, as my reply explains.

I didn't raise the issue, it was simply in response to a series of off-topic discussion, as my reply explains.

It was done so in the hope that by clarifying the situation that Thailand is not unique, the off-topic discussion would cease.

I don't need to "justify" it happening in Thailand. I didn't make the law.

.

[Buchholz]

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....ple's_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??

game................set..................and match

Yes, the off-topic posters have won.

Your applause of their efforts will no doubt encourage them to make further off-topic postings across the forum.

Well done.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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.

.

disingenuous

disinterested

(in discussing the inner workings of ten different countries outside Thailand on Thaivisa)

,

Edited July 11, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

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.

.

disingenuous

disinterested

(in discussing more than a dozen different countries on Thaivisa)

,

well don't bring them up then.

anyone can say hey but look at this blah blah blah blah... but let's not go off topic

it doesn't make them innocent of going off topic because they throw in the little disclaimer at the end.

[Buchholz]

%2

[binjalin]

%2

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

it is plain and obvious, even to a die hard yellow like yourself, that banning political parties does not happen in a developed democracy and is being USED as a political tool - ban politicians yes! but whole parties??? doh... go lie down and think about it

[Reasonableman]

%2

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

it is plain and obvious, even to a die hard yellow like yourself, that banning political parties does not happen in a developed democracy and is being USED as a political tool - ban politicians yes! but whole parties??? doh... go lie down and think about it

If a party adopts an overall election policy and strategy that is in fact illegal, then it is hardly surprising if it is made to bear the responsibility as a party. That is what you argue elsewhere, but on this topic you argue the opposite. Whatever works for you, i guess, as long as it supports your preferred outcome. No need for logic or consistency. Doh!

Edited July 11, 2012 by Reasonableman

[binjalin]

%2

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

it is plain and obvious, even to a die hard yellow like yourself, that banning political parties does not happen in a developed democracy and is being USED as a political tool - ban politicians yes! but whole parties??? doh... go lie down and think about it

If a party adopts an overall election policy and strategy that is in fact illegal, then it is hardly surprising if it is made to bear the responsibility as a party. That is what you argue elsewhere, but on this topic you argue the opposite. Whatever works for you, i guess, as lng as it supports your preferred outcome. No need for logic or consistency. Doh!

Nixon? was that illegal? did they ban the whole party? I forget... you are seriously supporting banning WHOLE parties? just so they can go start another one? banning because they want to discuss something in Parliament? you know you should stop and think - your argument would be sooooo much stronger IF you said 'well that's right it should not happen and is wrong but I still think... bla bla bla' but by supporting something that would be used in dictatorships and really is 'north korea' style you really, really lose all credibility.

edit:

by the way... define for us what they did was 'illegal' and define and support your statement 'adopts an overall election policy that is in fact illegal'

Edited July 11, 2012 by binjalin

[Reasonableman]

%2

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

it is plain and obvious, even to a die hard yellow like yourself, that banning political parties does not happen in a developed democracy and is being USED as a political tool - ban politicians yes! but whole parties??? doh... go lie down and think about it

If a party adopts an overall election policy and strategy that is in fact illegal, then it is hardly surprising if it is made to bear the responsibility as a party. That is what you argue elsewhere, but on this topic you argue the opposite. Whatever works for you, i guess, as lng as it supports your preferred outcome. No need for logic or consistency. Doh!

Nixon? was that illegal? did they ban the whole party? I forget... you are seriously supporting banning WHOLE parties? just so they can go start another one? banning because they want to discuss something in Parliament? you know you should stop and think - your argument would be sooooo much stronger IF you said 'well that's right it should not happen and is wrong but I still think... bla bla bla' but by supporting something that would be used in dictatorships and really is 'north korea' style you really, really lose all credibility

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

[binjalin]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

[ThaiOats]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

What are your alternative punishments for political parties committing malfeasance? Also, what is your view on 'eradication' of a political party and revolution based on speculation where at least one half of the country doesn't agree with the other half? Do you even know what you're suggesting by being a sympathizer/supporter of the red-shirts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFOj9ck76E&feature=relmfu I'm not going to embed it because I'm not sure if it's against the forum rules or not, but copy and paste it incase you're interested. This clip was aired on Blue Sky Channel, but for those who don't understand Thai, go to the end where the guy speaks in English. He suggests that the army be done away with in Thailand, there's no need for it because all the tanks are used for is to kill citizens. Yep, let's just do away with the army! Why didn't other countries think of that... let's just get rid of all the military in the world and sing kooom bai yaa! But pay attention to the first 3 minutes to what the guy says in Thai and if you don't understand, ask your wife to translate for ya or she might already know and so do you. I'm going to assume the pro Red-Shirt already know and agree to this view and if that's the case, you better keep that sh.. in your own village.

There are many Red-Shirt leaders including Thaksin himself who support this view or rather are the ones who are propagating this view to Red Shirt followers. Strangely enough, they cheer and clap, and well... don't notice that there are many who oppose this view OTHER than the Democrats. The Red-Shirts are really stepping onto people's toes based on propaganda and not facts. Just as many of you PRO-UDD request that evidence be brought up about the rewriting of the constitution, it would be fair to ask the same of the Red Shirts to provide evidence to what the man in the video is claiming in the first 3 minutes. For something THIS strong and important, they better have evidence and not just mindlessly take it as a fact.

Edited July 11, 2012 by ThaiOats

[Buchholz]

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

I did NOT bring it up. Kerry asked if it occurred elsewhere. It was NOT answered until i showed that it has happened elsewhere.

.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Buchholz

[binjalin]

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

I did NOT bring it up. Kerry asked if it occurred elsewhere. It was NOT answered until i showed that it has happened elsewhere.

.

well same same you used poor examples trying to justify and unjustifiable and that was pointed out - have a nice day

[binjalin]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

What are your alternative punishments for political parties committing malfeasance? Also, what is your view on 'eradication' of a political party and revolution based on speculation where at least one half of the country doesn't agree with the other half? Do you even know what you're suggesting by being a sympathizer/supporter of the red-shirts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFOj9ck76E&feature=relmfu I'm not going to embed it because I'm not sure if it's against the forum rules or not, but copy and paste it incase you're interested. This clip was aired on Blue Sky Channel, but for those who don't understand Thai, go to the end where the guy speaks in English. He suggests that the army be done away with in Thailand, there's no need for it because all the tanks are used for is to kill citizens. Yep, let's just do away with the army! Why didn't other countries think of that... let's just get rid of all the military in the world and sing kooom bai yaa! But pay attention to the first 3 minutes to what the guy says in Thai and if you don't understand, ask your wife to translate for ya or she might already know and so do you. I'm going to assume the pro Red-Shirt already know and agree to this view and if that's the case, you better keep that sh.. in your own village.

There are many Red-Shirt leaders including Thaksin himself who support this view or rather are the ones who are propagating this view to Red Shirt followers. Strangely enough, they cheer and clap, and well... don't notice that there are many who oppose this view OTHER than the Democrats. The Red-Shirts are really stepping onto people's toes based on propaganda and not facts. Just as many of you PRO-UDD request that evidence be brought up about the rewriting of the constitution, it would be fair to ask the same of the Red Shirts to provide evidence to what the man in the video is claiming in the first 3 minutes. For something THIS strong and important, they better have evidence and not just mindlessly take it as a fact.

I'm sure the poster is delighted someone 'jumped in' to defend - not much of a defense though is it? just recommending a video - no argument? no debate? no evidence to support BANNING political and democratically elected parties. I support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves (wait that probably means ALL of them!) but BANNING parties??? where else is that done? oh we had an example of a Nazi party banned in Germany long, long time ago - not great correlation is it?

Let's hope the CC don't do it again because I fear we will head down the road to civil war as the Thai people will not stand for it. I hope, and think, they would not dare.

[JurgenG]

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.

We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution.

[OzMick]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

Evidence of overall election policy that is illegal? Using banned politicians in electoral advertising, putting forward as candidates persons facing serious criminal charges and ineligible candidates. BTW you have made a series of posts decrying the posting of a list of countries where political parties are banned, and then ask "Where else is this done?" Would you like the list re-posted, or should I refer you back to it?

[ThaiOats]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

What are your alternative punishments for political parties committing malfeasance? Also, what is your view on 'eradication' of a political party and revolution based on speculation where at least one half of the country doesn't agree with the other half? Do you even know what you're suggesting by being a sympathizer/supporter of the red-shirts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFOj9ck76E&feature=relmfu I'm not going to embed it because I'm not sure if it's against the forum rules or not, but copy and paste it incase you're interested. This clip was aired on Blue Sky Channel, but for those who don't understand Thai, go to the end where the guy speaks in English. He suggests that the army be done away with in Thailand, there's no need for it because all the tanks are used for is to kill citizens. Yep, let's just do away with the army! Why didn't other countries think of that... let's just get rid of all the military in the world and sing kooom bai yaa! But pay attention to the first 3 minutes to what the guy says in Thai and if you don't understand, ask your wife to translate for ya or she might already know and so do you. I'm going to assume the pro Red-Shirt already know and agree to this view and if that's the case, you better keep that sh.. in your own village.

There are many Red-Shirt leaders including Thaksin himself who support this view or rather are the ones who are propagating this view to Red Shirt followers. Strangely enough, they cheer and clap, and well... don't notice that there are many who oppose this view OTHER than the Democrats. The Red-Shirts are really stepping onto people's toes based on propaganda and not facts. Just as many of you PRO-UDD request that evidence be brought up about the rewriting of the constitution, it would be fair to ask the same of the Red Shirts to provide evidence to what the man in the video is claiming in the first 3 minutes. For something THIS strong and important, they better have evidence and not just mindlessly take it as a fact.

I'm sure the poster is delighted someone 'jumped in' to defend - not much of a defense though is it? just recommending a video - no argument? no debate? no evidence to support BANNING political and democratically elected parties. I support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves (wait that probably means ALL of them!) but BANNING parties??? where else is that done? oh we had an example of a Nazi party banned in Germany long, long time ago - not great correlation is it?

Let's hope the CC don't do it again because I fear we will head down the road to civil war as the Thai people will not stand for it. I hope, and think, they would not dare.

I'm not jumping in to defend anyone. I'm just curious about your views but I'll go ahead and give mine first. It's written in the constitution that "banning a political party" can be the consequence of malfeasance, so that makes it legal according to Thai laws. Banning a political party is no different from a 200 baht fine, 5000 baht fine, 10 years in prison or 1000 years in prison in terms of it being a penalty. It's controversial like the Death Sentence in which the extremity of the penalty is to keep people from doing wrong things although banning political parties IMHO is much less extreme. Imagine if you were neutral for a sec in which your favorite political party haven't suffered from this penalty, wouldn't you agree that it's an acceptable one? It's not taking lives of anyone and the ideal goal is to keep politicians from doing something they're not supposed to do. You even admit that "[you] support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves", so I ask you what's wrong and what's your alternative? It seems you're only against this because it goes against your bias. I would hope that the banning of political parties ensure that ALL members of the party have a clean slate. It is then the prerogative of the leader and the members to consistently check on each other and not let one get away with corruption. Of course there will be cheating and corruption and until someone gets caught red-handed, they won't suffer from the penalty. Now, when I say caught red-handed, I mean evidence which proves the party in question is going against the law, no matter how bias it may seem ie: Somchai's case. For example, if you want the Democrats dissolved, you better find something that will prove their malfeasance and not cry double standards if they haven't done anything (or caught doing) which is against the law that has party dissolution as a penalty.

Now, have you watched the video I posted? To support the Red shirts, this is what you're supporting and you can see why there are many people who will oppose you.

[Moruya]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

This is Thailand. Every country has different laws. Laws evolve and in this case anti-corrupt-scumbag laws were brought in.

If you don't like Thai laws, go back to Nixon land

[OzMick]

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.

We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution.

Or not. It is an even better reason for political parties to obey electoral law. Perhaps it should be upgraded to 5 year (possibly suspended) sentences rather than bans.

[Moruya]

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

I did NOT bring it up. Kerry asked if it occurred elsewhere. It was NOT answered until i showed that it has happened elsewhere.

.

well same same you used poor examples trying to justify and unjustifiable and that was pointed out - have a nice day

He answered the question perfectly.

It disproved the argument.

Too bad

[Moruya]

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.

We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution.

Yes. Let's paint everything in the stars and stripes and eat hamburgers.

Well done

[Moruya]

that's not fair - by supplying a list you are indicating support and you know it - if no support then don't get involved in that particular discussion right? there is no justification, in a civilized society, to ban whole parties UNLESS it is something like the Nazis etc. but I see no correlation (although some TVF posters seems to think there is). move on

Plenty of us can see the ugly face of fascism

[binjalin]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

Evidence of overall election policy that is illegal? Using banned politicians in electoral advertising, putting forward as candidates persons facing serious criminal charges and ineligible candidates. BTW you have made a series of posts decrying the posting of a list of countries where political parties are banned, and then ask "Where else is this done?" Would you like the list re-posted, or should I refer you back to it?

refer back - it was rhetorical dude - simply making the point that it isn't done anywhere in developed countries and someone thought they were being clever and posted a laughable list including a party disbanded because they were Nazis - no correlation

[binjalin]

that's not fair - by supplying a list you are indicating support and you know it - if no support then don't get involved in that particular discussion right? there is no justification, in a civilized society, to ban whole parties UNLESS it is something like the Nazis etc. but I see no correlation (although some TVF posters seems to think there is). move on

Plenty of us can see the ugly face of fascism

ah they are fascist now? are you serious? someone else said communist? so which is it? you are seriously saying Yingluck is a fascist?

[binjalin]

yup you brought it up - it was answered - and it did not suit your make-believe construct and so you then said 'oh let's not talk about that'.

I did NOT bring it up. Kerry asked if it occurred elsewhere. It was NOT answered until i showed that it has happened elsewhere.

.

well same same you used poor examples trying to justify and unjustifiable and that was pointed out - have a nice day

He answered the question perfectly.

It disproved the argument.

Too bad

no it didn't - read again doh

[binjalin]

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.

We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution.

Or not. It is an even better reason for political parties to obey electoral law. Perhaps it should be upgraded to 5 year (possibly suspended) sentences rather than bans.

electoral law? laughable... the law is it has to go through the Attorney General and they have circumvented that for their own political reasons - same as you are now by not seeing what is obvious for your own political reasons and supporting anything that get's the ELECTED party disbanded.

To be fair some of my friends see it your way too and completely forget the freedoms of democracy and so they shout about democracy in Burma and many other countries AND live in the US etc. which has a constitution that allows freedoms then come here and shout about taking AWAY those same freedoms here and support banning parties, taking over of airports and not allowing debate of the constitution by the ELECTED Parliament - it's a disgrace and hypocritical

[binjalin]

Your desperate tone is not winning you any credibility, and may be deleterious to health. Calm down and breathe slowly before you do yourself an injury. 55555

good morning,

that's it? no defense of you supporting banning political parties? no debate? no comment? no evidence of 'overall election policy that is illegal'? just plagiarize my posts? disappointing but expected

What are your alternative punishments for political parties committing malfeasance? Also, what is your view on 'eradication' of a political party and revolution based on speculation where at least one half of the country doesn't agree with the other half? Do you even know what you're suggesting by being a sympathizer/supporter of the red-shirts? www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFOj9ck76E&feature=relmfu I'm not going to embed it because I'm not sure if it's against the forum rules or not, but copy and paste it incase you're interested. This clip was aired on Blue Sky Channel, but for those who don't understand Thai, go to the end where the guy speaks in English. He suggests that the army be done away with in Thailand, there's no need for it because all the tanks are used for is to kill citizens. Yep, let's just do away with the army! Why didn't other countries think of that... let's just get rid of all the military in the world and sing kooom bai yaa! But pay attention to the first 3 minutes to what the guy says in Thai and if you don't understand, ask your wife to translate for ya or she might already know and so do you. I'm going to assume the pro Red-Shirt already know and agree to this view and if that's the case, you better keep that sh.. in your own village.

There are many Red-Shirt leaders including Thaksin himself who support this view or rather are the ones who are propagating this view to Red Shirt followers. Strangely enough, they cheer and clap, and well... don't notice that there are many who oppose this view OTHER than the Democrats. The Red-Shirts are really stepping onto people's toes based on propaganda and not facts. Just as many of you PRO-UDD request that evidence be brought up about the rewriting of the constitution, it would be fair to ask the same of the Red Shirts to provide evidence to what the man in the video is claiming in the first 3 minutes. For something THIS strong and important, they better have evidence and not just mindlessly take it as a fact.

I'm sure the poster is delighted someone 'jumped in' to defend - not much of a defense though is it? just recommending a video - no argument? no debate? no evidence to support BANNING political and democratically elected parties. I support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves (wait that probably means ALL of them!) but BANNING parties??? where else is that done? oh we had an example of a Nazi party banned in Germany long, long time ago - not great correlation is it?

Let's hope the CC don't do it again because I fear we will head down the road to civil war as the Thai people will not stand for it. I hope, and think, they would not dare.

I'm not jumping in to defend anyone. I'm just curious about your views but I'll go ahead and give mine first. It's written in the constitution that "banning a political party" can be the consequence of malfeasance, so that makes it legal according to Thai laws. Banning a political party is no different from a 200 baht fine, 5000 baht fine, 10 years in prison or 1000 years in prison in terms of it being a penalty. It's controversial like the Death Sentence in which the extremity of the penalty is to keep people from doing wrong things although banning political parties IMHO is much less extreme. Imagine if you were neutral for a sec in which your favorite political party haven't suffered from this penalty, wouldn't you agree that it's an acceptable one? It's not taking lives of anyone and the ideal goal is to keep politicians from doing something they're not supposed to do. You even admit that "[you] support banning and punishing ANY politician who cheats, lies or misbehaves", so I ask you what's wrong and what's your alternative? It seems you're only against this because it goes against your bias. I would hope that the banning of political parties ensure that ALL members of the party have a clean slate. It is then the prerogative of the leader and the members to consistently check on each other and not let one get away with corruption. Of course there will be cheating and corruption and until someone gets caught red-handed, they won't suffer from the penalty. Now, when I say caught red-handed, I mean evidence which proves the party in question is going against the law, no matter how bias it may seem ie: Somchai's case. For example, if you want the Democrats dissolved, you better find something that will prove their malfeasance and not cry double standards if they haven't done anything (or caught doing) which is against the law that has party dissolution as a penalty.

Now, have you watched the video I posted? To support the Red shirts, this is what you're supporting and you can see why there are many people who will oppose you.

the Dems case was not heard and thrown out because 'someone' had not filed it correctly within the time frame - wow how convenient

[binjalin]

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.

We have maybe here a good reason to amend the Thai constitution.

exactly but they are barred from even discussing it and, it looks like, supported by the majority of TVF posters - the same ones who predicted a Dem victory at the last elections? anyway whatever we debate here ain't going to stop the train which has well and truly 'left the station'