Ruling sought on coup call

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Former senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana yesterday petitioned the Constitution Court to rule on whether an anti-government protest can call for a military coup.

If not, the court should order an end to more unconstitutional protests and protest leaders arrested by the DSI for committing treason under Article 113 of the Criminal Code, he said. The move was aimed at retired Gen Boonlert Kaewprasert, leader of the Siam Pitak group, who personally urged the military to topple the Yingluck Shinawatra administration, which Boonlert claimed had become corrupt and antithetical to the monarchy.

Former intelligence chief Prasong Soonsiri, who also spoke at the group's anti-government rally, was also accused by Ruangkrai of acting against the charter.

Since the group was seeking to stage another demonstration later month, the court must consider the case quickly, as according to his understanding, demanding a coup is tantamount to pressing for the overthrow of the democratic system and committing treason and is punishable by death or life imprisonment, he said.

The court should once and for all set a standard for future anti-government protests, he said. Parts of speeches by two men on stage quoted by the media were submitted.

-- The Nation 2012-11-06

Shame no one arrested or charged the reds on stage during 2010 for exactly the same thing... even though they flowered it by inciting to burn the city as well, which they did. No treason there at all...

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

..No treason there at all...

since redshirts appeared on thai political scene they never ever organized a coup, if you were a bookmaker would have noticed it, so consequentely the odds for a coup leaded by them would be a four digit number/1

Shame no one arrested or charged the reds on stage during 2010 for exactly the same thing... even though they flowered it by inciting to burn the city as well, which they did. No treason there at all...

Maybe the yellows should not of shown how to do it

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

There is a difference between publicly approving, and even calling for an illegal action, and actually plotting and/or carrying it out.

Did you not notice " the court should order an end to more unconstitutional protests" - should they ban them because they might call for a coup?

Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer.

And again, if it's not unconstitutional now, it may well be soon.

Calling for a coup is surely inciting violence, not many coups without violence, surely this would be against the law!

Calling to reject the government democratically is one thing, freedom of speech etc. This should be an inalienable right.

Calling for a military coup is a completely different ballgame and should definitely be illegal.

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

There is a difference between publicly approving, and even calling for an illegal action, and actually plotting and/or carrying it out.

Did you not notice " the court should order an end to more unconstitutional protests" - should they ban them because they might call for a coup?

Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer.

And again, if it's not unconstitutional now, it may well be soon.

"Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer."

i agree but are you absolutely sure calling for the illegal overthrowing of the government is not against the constitution?

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

There is a difference between publicly approving, and even calling for an illegal action, and actually plotting and/or carrying it out.

Did you not notice " the court should order an end to more unconstitutional protests" - should they ban them because they might call for a coup?

Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer.

And again, if it's not unconstitutional now, it may well be soon.

"Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer."

i agree but are you absolutely sure calling for the illegal overthrowing of the government is not against the constitution?

I am not absolutely sure about most things. If it is illegal, then you arrest those making the call. That is no reason to ban gathering as is requested in the OP.

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

I doubt the calling in itself is unconstitutional, the plotting, active preparing, etc. would be a different matter all together though. While we are into the finer details of the constitution, what about government officials visiting a fugitive criminal, or the PM admitting she accept help from one?

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

There is a difference between publicly approving, and even calling for an illegal action, and actually plotting and/or carrying it out.

Did you not notice " the court should order an end to more unconstitutional protests" - should they ban them because they might call for a coup?

Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer.

And again, if it's not unconstitutional now, it may well be soon.

"Banning public gatherings on the apprehension of an illegal act is just a tad draconian, or dictatorial if you prefer."

i agree but are you absolutely sure calling for the illegal overthrowing of the government is not against the constitution?

I am not absolutely sure about most things. If it is illegal, then you arrest those making the call. That is no reason to ban gathering as is requested in the OP.

nor did i say it was.

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to protest government policies and waste...........are all now unconstitutional, according to the senator. He's a few months ahead of himself, the constitution reform hasn't been done yet.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

I doubt the calling in itself is unconstitutional, the plotting, active preparing, etc. would be a different matter all together though. While we are into the finer details of the constitution, what about government officials visiting a fugitive criminal, or the PM admitting she accept help from one?

neither are unconstitutional.

Calling for a coup is surely inciting violence, not many coups without violence, surely this would be against the law!

Calling to reject the government democratically is one thing, freedom of speech etc. This should be an inalienable right.

Calling for a military coup is a completely different ballgame and should definitely be illegal.

The last coup wasn't violent. I would expect that the next one will be. (if there is a next one).

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

Banning a party for electoral fraud? How is that relevant?

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

Banning a party for electoral fraud? How is that relevant?

it's relevant to the conversation i was having with someoene else.

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

Banning a party for electoral fraud? How is that relevant?

it's relevant to the conversation i was having with someoene else.

The conversation you were having was about calling for a coup and associating with known criminals.

How do you feel about section 190?

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

Banning a party for electoral fraud? How is that relevant?

it's relevant to the conversation i was having with someoene else.

The conversation you were having was about calling for a coup and associating with known criminals.

How do you feel about section 190?

look at back at what was said.. maybe you'll figure it out.

I am not absolutely sure about most things. If it is illegal, then you arrest those making the call. That is no reason to ban gathering as is requested in the OP.

nor did i say it was.

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

A failed attempt at controlling unconstitutional electioneering. Rather than ban the party, now with an executive staff of disposable muppets, I'd rather see the perpetrators jailed and banned for life.

BTW banned politicians participating in an election campaign is unconstitutional, which brings me back to the above.

I am not absolutely sure about most things. If it is illegal, then you arrest those making the call. That is no reason to ban gathering as is requested in the OP.

nor did i say it was.

how do you feel about article 237 out of interest?

A failed attempt at controlling unconstitutional electioneering. Rather than ban the party, now with an executive staff of disposable muppets, I'd rather see the perpetrators jailed and banned for life.

BTW banned politicians participating in an election campaign is unconstitutional, which brings me back to the above.

well i agree with that stance, deal with people who committ the acts.

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

I doubt the calling in itself is unconstitutional, the plotting, active preparing, etc. would be a different matter all together though. While we are into the finer details of the constitution, what about government officials visiting a fugitive criminal, or the PM admitting she accept help from one?

neither are unconstitutional.

The senator calls for the Constitutional Court to rule whether or not an anti-government protest can call for a coup. This might be interpreted as people speaking during a protest which is not anti-government may ask for a coup?

Anyway the CC needs to rule on Part 13 Right to Protect the Constitution, specifically section 68 (I think). It starts with

"No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

http://www.asianlii....7/1.html#C03P13

calling to overthrow the government by undemocratic means, is that against the constiution?

it must be there somewhere i would hope.

I doubt the calling in itself is unconstitutional, the plotting, active preparing, etc. would be a different matter all together though. While we are into the finer details of the constitution, what about government officials visiting a fugitive criminal, or the PM admitting she accept help from one?

neither are unconstitutional.

The senator calls for the Constitutional Court to rule whether or not an anti-government protest can call for a coup. This might be interpreted as people speaking during a protest which is not anti-government may ask for a coup?

Anyway the CC needs to rule on Part 13 Right to Protect the Constitution, specifically section 68 (I think). It starts with

"No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

http://www.asianlii....7/1.html#C03P13

Not that two wrongs make a right, but did not a prominent Democrat MP go visit Thaksin when he was in Denmark i think/

I doubt the calling in itself is unconstitutional, the plotting, active preparing, etc. would be a different matter all together though. While we are into the finer details of the constitution, what about government officials visiting a fugitive criminal, or the PM admitting she accept help from one?

neither are unconstitutional.

The senator calls for the Constitutional Court to rule whether or not an anti-government protest can call for a coup. This might be interpreted as people speaking during a protest which is not anti-government may ask for a coup?

Anyway the CC needs to rule on Part 13 Right to Protect the Constitution, specifically section 68 (I think). It starts with

"No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

http://www.asianlii....7/1.html#C03P13

Not that two wrongs make a right, but did not a prominent Democrat MP go visit Thaksin when he was in Denmark i think/

The prominent MP was Sanan Kachornprasart who was a Deputy Prime Minister under PM Abhisit. The general was a member of Chart Thai Pattana at that time, the 'Banharn' party which is again a coalition party. The meeting took place in November 2010 and was part of an unofficial Sanan initiated reconciliation move of dubious standing and result. He's one of the 'dinosaurs' in politics.

http://en.wikipedia...._Kachornprasart

Statistically, Thailand has a coup or coup attempt every 4 years. It's part of their democratic process. It's not how things are done back home.....but I'm not back home. Who am I to criticize how democracy is done in Thailand.

The numbers of various sections of the constitution have been given in this thread: 68, 113, 190, 237. Here is a copy of an English translation of the current constitution:

Constitution 2007.pdf

Doesn't the good senator know that the PTP/red-shirts declared the Constitutional Court unconstitutional a little while ago?

This is like the hypocrisy of using the courts that 'politically convicted me' to sue individuals who make embarrasing accusations.

Inciting people to break the law, any law, is ordinarily illegal in most countries. But then TIT.

If he incited everyone to litter the street, presumably that would be illegal......

Inciting people to break the law, any law, is ordinarily illegal in most countries. But then TIT.

If he incited everyone to litter the street, presumably that would be illegal......

With the police force in Bangkok very satisfied with the ability to charge people THB 2000 for littering it sometimes seems like a patriotic thing to do, the littering that is

Inciting people to break the law, any law, is ordinarily illegal in most countries. But then TIT.

If he incited everyone to litter the street, presumably that would be illegal......

So we would expect the majority of the Red Shirt leaders to get tried for Inciting their Protestors back in 2010 to "burn down Bangkok" etc?

Somehow methinks that just ain't gunna happen

The relatively old Chinese cash is offended by the nouveau snouts ,the Thais will be shafted either way while the largest US Embassy in Asia whistles Dixie