Charter court rejects Pheu Thai petition against protest leaders

The Constitution Court has dismissed a Pheu Thai party’s petition for the court to rule the protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee and the Network of Students and People for Thailand’s Reform as an attempt to overthrow democratic system.

The court said that protesting was the right of the people which stemmed from their resistance against the amnesty bill and from their distrust of the administration of the government.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

Hence, there was no ground for the charter court to rule that the conduct and activities undertaken by Suthep constituted an attempt to overthrow democratic administration.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/charter-court-rejects-pheu-thai-petition-protest-leaders/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=charter-court-rejects-pheu-thai-petition-protest-leaders

-- Thai PBS 2014-02-05

Just another brick in the wall.

The Law is the Law .... For ALL sides of politics ..... Beyond that is Anarchy ....

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

But if you are a farang...keep moving and keep your mouth shut or be deported.

What a democracy!

Sent from above

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

Got it! Thanks buddy.

"The Constitution Court has dismissed a Pheu Thai party’s petition for the court to rule the protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee and the Network of Students and People for Thailand’s Reform as an attempt to overthrow democratic system."

Whereas an attempt to amend the constitution on the election of Senators is?

These judges are in charge of interpreting the Constitution................................................ and they're doing a fine job of interpretation.......................

Edited February 5, 201412 yr by fab4

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

Hmm, blocking people from their constitutional right to vote is not a violation of the constitution...

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Right reasoning, wrong party.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

Hmm, blocking people from their constitutional right to vote is not a violation of the constitution...

It would appear, according to this court, that is a criminal issue.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

Correct, but that's a bit hard for some to grasp.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

try reading it again...

The Charter court has said its not their responsibility to rule on the criminal code...

I guess they only rule on consitution/charter related cases.

Correct, but that's a bit hard for some to grasp.

Meh, fairly easy mistake ot make, i had to read it twice

Why bother these folks, since all they do is send whatever they are asked back to the sender.

Where would the messiah come from?

It's getting fuzzy and the morale is low, enough provisions though.

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

Which is not dissimilar to the events of 2010.

Still some posters who like "democratic" elections Hun Sen, Marcos, Mugabe style.

Their delusion will weaken.

The Law is the Law .... For ALL sides of politics ..... Beyond that is Anarchy ....

That's correct. This is where the UDD supporters start to slip back into blindly supporting the PTP while inadvertently falling back into a dictatorial argument without even realizing it.

No respect for the law is Anarchy. Anarchy is not democracy. Basic stuff really that completely slips their mind.

The elected senate argument is one that makes me laugh. Sure, in most countries elected senates are the way to go, but as usual because the PTP want an elected senate and the supporters without freedom of thought just blindly just go along with the regime.

In Thailand an appointed senate is essential to their democracy. The people appointed to the senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They don't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation.

The senate currently boasts a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process. The appointed senators are economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Many would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by PT puppets funded with PTP money. Don’t forget PT has access to more money than the DEM party does (tax money). Money wins elections. The Senate would effectively become a mirror image of the PTP. People argue it was DEM inclined before. Now they argue that being an elected senate thus PT inclined is better. It is an irrational and undemocratic argument.

An appointed senate reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities are too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The Deputy PM called minority groups garbage and do not respect minority groups.

Improving Policy. An appointed senate could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They hate compromise. Look no further than the World bank, Moody's, UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, the environmentalists, the corn farmer, the rubber farmers, academics, global economists, EC, IMF.

Balancing Power. An appointed senate serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. Thaksin want complete control.

I chuckle sometimes and think the Constitution Court may have a sense of humor and didn't allow an elected senate because they could not make a senate hall big enough for all of Thaksin's in-laws.

The senate is a workshop. Not a circus. Look no further than parliament as to what the senate would look like if it was full of elected officials.

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

Which is not dissimilar to the events of 2010.

Yawn.......

and this is exactly why some sort of amnesty bill needs to be passed. Too many blinkered, unforgiving, narrow minded people around.

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

Which is not dissimilar to the events of 2010.

Yawn.......

and this is exactly why some sort of amnesty bill needs to be passed. Too many blinkered, unforgiving, narrow minded people around.

How about, instead of an amnesty to 'forgive' past wrong doings, we go for the opposite, complete crack down on any/all violations of the law, regardless of who, political affiliation or time the offence happened?

Instead of 'forgiving' everyone for past crimes, which in turn will make them feel like they can get away with it in the future, we show every person in the country that the Rule of Law must be respected, or face the consiquences?

Then, and only then... will we see the country start to move forward...

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

They're saying - 'Keep us out of this' and very plainly too. They are washing their hands of the idiotic PTP ...

Pheu Thai has encountered another ruling they clearly won't like, but the Constitution Court has never outlawed protest - on either side of the political divide. The opinion that protest is part of a free society is not exactly controversial. They are correct in pointing out that the amnesty bill and general distrust of the administration has fueled the protests.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

Which is not dissimilar to the events of 2010.

Yawn.......

and this is exactly why some sort of amnesty bill needs to be passed. Too many blinkered, unforgiving, narrow minded people around.

How about, instead of an amnesty to 'forgive' past wrong doings, we go for the opposite, complete crack down on any/all violations of the law, regardless of who, political affiliation or time the offence happened?

Instead of 'forgiving' everyone for past crimes, which in turn will make them feel like they can get away with it in the future, we show every person in the country that the Rule of Law must be respected, or face the consiquences?

Then, and only then... will we see the country start to move forward...

Good idea! Except that it will never work. It's, you know, human nature?

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

So your saying people don't have the right to protest about: corruption, nepotism, tricky attempts at 4:00 am to get amnesty for convicted criminals ... ... ...?

How about, instead of an amnesty to 'forgive' past wrong doings, we go for the opposite, complete crack down on any/all violations of the law, regardless of who, political affiliation or time the offence happened?

Instead of 'forgiving' everyone for past crimes, which in turn will make them feel like they can get away with it in the future, we show every person in the country that the Rule of Law must be respected, or face the consiquences?

Then, and only then... will we see the country start to move forward...

Good idea! Except that it will never work. It's, you know, human nature?

And the Amnesty isnt working either, as neither side support it...

... nothing seems to be working, so whats the solution?

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

So your saying people don't have the right to protest about: corruption, nepotism, tricky attempts at 4:00 am to get amnesty for convicted criminals ... ... ...?

Protest ? Yes

Closing streets with barricades? No

Cutting water and power supplies? No

Cutting internet connections? No

Breaking into government buildings? No

Damaging government property? No

Seizing voting ballots? No

Closing polling stations? No

Threatening to arrest members of parliament? No

Armed militias on the streets of Bangkok? No

Harboring Suthep to prevent the murder trials from moving forward? No

Edited February 5, 201412 yr by ShannonT

I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Right reasoning, wrong party.

How about, instead of an amnesty to 'forgive' past wrong doings, we go for the opposite, complete crack down on any/all violations of the law, regardless of who, political affiliation or time the offence happened?

Instead of 'forgiving' everyone for past crimes, which in turn will make them feel like they can get away with it in the future, we show every person in the country that the Rule of Law must be respected, or face the consiquences?

Then, and only then... will we see the country start to move forward...

Good idea! Except that it will never work. It's, you know, human nature?

And the Amnesty isnt working either, as neither side support it...

... nothing seems to be working, so whats the solution?

The way I see it, an amnesty bill (ie forgive and forget) gives the country a chance to be reconciled.

The other option? Civil war and a real possibility of North and South Thailand.

Both are solutions. Which is your preference?

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the courts responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

Oddly enough, the criminal court is responsible for violations of the criminal code.

Not the constitutional court.

Mind-boggling stuff, isn't it?

.

Edited February 5, 201412 yr by Howard150