Charter court rejects Pheu Thai petition against protest leaders

[djjamie]

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

I'm confused. Are you referring to the brutal terrorists in 2010 or the anti dictatorship protestors in 2013/14?

[SoilSpoil]

om moving forward? No

I'm confused. Are you referring to the brutal terrorists in 2010 or the anti dictatorship protestors in 2013/14?

Don't forget the acts of terrorism in 2006 and especially 2009 (LPG tanker in street of Bangkok, Asean Summit Pattaya)

[MunterHunter]

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?

So you see forgiving Thaksin, returning all his money, throwing out all of his pending cases and forgiving his jail scentence as a 'chance to reconcile'?

If that were to happen, youd see the PDRC group swell in number and become more forceful...

So you see throwing out the (bogus, IMHO) charges of murder against suthep and abhisit as a 'chance to reconcile'?

If that were to happen, youd see the red shirts out protesting (again) - possibly in greater numbers than before

When you consider the amnesty bill is/was the main catylst for this current round of problems, youd have to agree that Amnesty isnt the way forward for Thailand.

So i'd come back to my approach... fine, They wont accept amnesty? Here, we throw the book at *everyone* - of course this isnt without its issues, the two sides wouldnt like it, there wouldnt be many politicians left to run the country... but a reboot of the political scene in thailand with a mass cleanup of corruption and crime, with a reformed political system would be a good thing

... perhaps a more realistic possibility is put the country back to Absolute Monachy, or have HRH step in with an interim governing body until things can be cleaned up... or to float another idea i just had, the Senate runs things for a while?

bottom line is there is no good solution... things have gone too far... civil war is inevitable (sadly)

[Howard150]

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.

Yawn.... "some sort of amnesty bill" WAS set to pass as it had bi-partisan support.

And then, it got modified by some narrow-minded people who tried to include some that were very underserving of amnesty and the new blinkered version was rejected.

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Howard150

[ggold]

Just another brick in the wall.

hey Thaksin leave them kids alone!

[focus27]

Wrong court - not sure if the PTP are being mildly vindictive or plain stupid.

The Constitution has fairly brief statements about freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and in both cases refers to the appropriate laws for details. So it's off to the criminal court first - step one was getting those arrest warrants. Bye bye CC - cya again soon!

[ggold]

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.

surely if it is democratic to protest against the corruption etc of the PTP government, then it must follow that the criminal issue may be questionable, it must make PTP's case weaker, they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting! So they may not have a case against Suthep, he himself wasn't violent. He may have said things that were questionable, but then PTP are as guilty of that with the various threats and innuendo towards the opposition. IMO

[3NUMBAS]

can you see the puppet strings over their heads with someone up above getting them to perform like puppets on a string

[The Dancer]

surely if it is democratic to protest against the corruption etc of the PTP government, then it must follow that the criminal issue may be questionable, it must make PTP's case weaker, they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting! So they may not have a case against Suthep, he himself wasn't violent. He may have said things that were questionable, but then PTP are as guilty of that with the various threats and innuendo towards the opposition. IMO

"they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting!"

Well, of course. As a poster above pointed out your right to protest doesn't extend to curbing my rights as a citizen.

"have said things that were questionable". You've got to be kidding. He was inciting insurrection. That's an offense against the constitution (easy, because it begs subversion of the constitution) but the CC thinks otherwise.

So now you tell me what all this says about the constitution, the CC, PTP, PDRC, Dems et al? Take your time.

[Gweiloman]

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?

So you see forgiving Thaksin, returning all his money, throwing out all of his pending cases and forgiving his jail scentence as a 'chance to reconcile'?

If that were to happen, youd see the PDRC group swell in number and become more forceful...

So you see throwing out the (bogus, IMHO) charges of murder against suthep and abhisit as a 'chance to reconcile'?

If that were to happen, youd see the red shirts out protesting (again) - possibly in greater numbers than before

When you consider the amnesty bill is/was the main catylst for this current round of problems, youd have to agree that Amnesty isnt the way forward for Thailand.

So i'd come back to my approach... fine, They wont accept amnesty? Here, we throw the book at *everyone* - of course this isnt without its issues, the two sides wouldnt like it, there wouldnt be many politicians left to run the country... but a reboot of the political scene in thailand with a mass cleanup of corruption and crime, with a reformed political system would be a good thing

... perhaps a more realistic possibility is put the country back to Absolute Monachy, or have HRH step in with an interim governing body until things can be cleaned up... or to float another idea i just had, the Senate runs things for a while?

bottom line is there is no good solution... things have gone too far... civil war is inevitable (sadly)

Your last sentence.... let's hope it won't come to that (but like you, i don't any other way out of this predicament).

Back to the first part of your post. Of course it is not feasible the way you have outlined it, in that it's just a one way street. But the idea of an amnesty is that it's a two way street, give and take, negotiation, towards a win - win scenario. i believe that the amnesty bill as it was presented actually represented an initial agreement between the two parties. If I may, I would like to repost here from Khun Channil's open letter.

There is more to the Amnesty Bill than meets the eye. For you to say that it is obvious that “this law was passed solely to pave way for Thaksin’s return as a free man with all his wealth restored” shows nothing but shallowness. You have allowed your deeply enshrined political partisanship to blur your analysis. You claim to speak as a “US-trained lawyer,” while it is your prejudice that is doing the actual talking. Mr. Obama deserves better.

For all his weaknesses, Thaksin is not so strategically inept as to think that he could unilaterally push through the Amnesty Bill. Make no mistake; there was undoubtedly some sort of “deal” or at least an understanding in place between the Thaksin camp and key establishment figures before the bill was passed by the Lower House.

“To state the obvious”:

1) There were many enemies of Thaksin who would have benefited from and may have quietly welcomed the Amnesty Bill, but also wanted to appear to the public that they were ready to accept responsibility for their crimes. For example, the 2006 coup leaders (who under the annulled 1997 Constitution in force at the time would have been tried for treason) and several members of the Abhisit administration (who were facing murder charges for the excessively violent 2010 protest crackdowns), to name but a few.

2) Since the bill would still have to pass through the half-appointed and predominantly “anti-Thaksin” Senate before being presented for Royal Assent, it is unlikely that there had been no acknowledgement behind the scenes from those outside the Thaksin camp.

It is also interesting, although not necessarily relevant, to note that prisoners of conscience serving sentences for lese-majeste were for some unknown reasons not included in the amnesty plans, despite many of them being die-hard supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra.

The more logical explanation is that the conservatives, seeing massive popular reaction against the Amnesty Bill, saw the situation as an opportunity to abandon the reconciliation efforts and instead attempt to bring down Thaksin yet again by employing street politics.

Agree or disagree, the logic of his points are hard to fault, IF one is willing to be objective.

With regards to monarchy, I think TV forbids discussion on this subject (although off the record, I don't disagree except for that part about the Senate).

So all this brings us to today.... no light at the end of the tunnel, no viable and acceptable govt to all the people of Thailand, no way out of the mess of the rice pledging scheme, the uncountable number of pending court cases, the non acceptance of the election results (when finally announced), the complete loss of trust of the courts, police and military, the ever present presence of the third hand, the disparity of wealth and standard of living among the 60+ millions of Thais, the trouble in the Deep South..............

North / South Thailand anyone?

[The Dancer]

can you see the puppet strings over their heads with someone up above getting them to perform like puppets on a string

Exactly! Pretty boy Abhisit was a little too nice, well weak-kneed, to be assistant puppetmaster. A thug was needed. So we got Suthep.

[ggold]

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

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

charges which are false! charged so that when Thaksin included them in the amnesty bill, was done as a form of blackmail towards Suthep and Abhisit. He was hoping they would agree to the amnesty to avoid charges! That is why parts of the Red Shirt movement rebelled against PTP, because they believed the Thaksin lies. At the very least they are not guilty till proven so.

[ggold]

surely if it is democratic to protest against the corruption etc of the PTP government, then it must follow that the criminal issue may be questionable, it must make PTP's case weaker, they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting! So they may not have a case against Suthep, he himself wasn't violent. He may have said things that were questionable, but then PTP are as guilty of that with the various threats and innuendo towards the opposition. IMO

"they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting!"

Well, of course. As a poster above pointed out your right to protest doesn't extend to curbing my rights as a citizen.

"have said things that were questionable". You've got to be kidding. He was inciting insurrection. That's an offense against the constitution (easy, because it begs subversion of the constitution) but the CC thinks otherwise.

So now you tell me what all this says about the constitution, the CC, PTP, PDRC, Dems et al? Take your time.

As far as the political parties go, I would ban the majority of the MP's especially the corrupt ones for life. I think the Constitution Court has it about right, even though there are claims of sides being taken. It is the politicians who are trying to take advantage of the constitution, not the courts!

That's not to say the constitution doesn't need re writing, it does. But IMO that should have been done first, then an election could have been held. I think a royally appointed caretaker PM could have been selected to replace this shambles of caretaker government, with bureaucrats running the administration till new elections.

On the other hand you need a thug to fight a thug in that regard Suthep and Thaksin are well matched.

[Cricketnut]

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?

The monkey court.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[The Dancer]

surely if it is democratic to protest against the corruption etc of the PTP government, then it must follow that the criminal issue may be questionable, it must make PTP's case weaker, they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting! So they may not have a case against Suthep, he himself wasn't violent. He may have said things that were questionable, but then PTP are as guilty of that with the various threats and innuendo towards the opposition. IMO

"they could charge individuals for crimes committed during the protests but not for protesting!"

Well, of course. As a poster above pointed out your right to protest doesn't extend to curbing my rights as a citizen.

"have said things that were questionable". You've got to be kidding. He was inciting insurrection. That's an offense against the constitution (easy, because it begs subversion of the constitution) but the CC thinks otherwise.

So now you tell me what all this says about the constitution, the CC, PTP, PDRC, Dems et al? Take your time.

As far as the political parties go, I would ban the majority of the MP's especially the corrupt ones for life. I think the Constitution Court has it about right, even though there are claims of sides being taken. It is the politicians who are trying to take advantage of the constitution, not the courts!

That's not to say the constitution doesn't need re writing, it does. But IMO that should have been done first, then an election could have been held. I think a royally appointed caretaker PM could have been selected to replace this shambles of caretaker government, with bureaucrats running the administration till new elections.

On the other hand you need a thug to fight a thug in that regard Suthep and Thaksin are well matched.

"Constitution Court has it about right, even though there are claims of sides being taken." You are not serious? This is the court that ejected a fairly-elected PM for the mortal sin of indulging his passion for cooking on public TV.

"appointed caretaker PM" Why? This is (still) supposed to be a democracy. Like her or not YL was elected. No org, Thai or international, has ever imputed that the 2010 elections were for not fair. So, it's Thai law she continues as caretaker PM after dissolution of Parliament.

You need a thug to fight Thaksin only if you are lazy. The man won 5 elections because he delivered. No, those N and NE votes weren't bought. The economic stats don't lie. Microloans, healthcare, infrastructure - call it populism, Thaksinism, whatever you like - brought millions out of poverty. Of course, they'll vote for Thaksin. But that doesn't mean they'll vote for him for ever if another party makes a case.

The trouble with the Dems is that they are hooked on shortcuts to power. Oddly, the coups and courts seem to have damaged them most. Because they've made them lazy and unwilling to go out and win elections the hard and honest way.

Edited February 5, 2014 by The Dancer

[bigbamboo]

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?

Thaksin used to refer to himself as Thailand's CEO so he would know that when a company becomes a lame duck due to incompetent management, corruption, infighting etc. ( like Thailand is now) the solution is to bring someone in from outside without any baggage to shake things up.

So lets bring in some foreigners and see if they can get the kingdom ship shape again.

[mightyatom]

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.

Yes but if you read the OP properly, you will see that they are saying that in their view the protests are legal because they stemmed from the amnesty bill fiasco, and that is their way of saying that they agree with the protests.

Some may say they are showing partiality, so what?

Isn't CAPO, CMPO, The Police and the armed forces meant to also be impartial? But the government tries to keep them partial, so monkey see, monkey do.,

[NCFC]

PTP have gone about this in the wrong way. They should have secured the criminal convictions first and then used that as evidence in the constitution court.

As the CC rightly says they can't make a judgement on criminality.

A procedural cockup by PT in my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[ggold]

"Constitution Court has it about right, even though there are claims of sides being taken." You are not serious? This is the court that ejected a fairly-elected PM for the mortal sin of indulging his passion for cooking on public TV.

You need a thug to fight Thaksin only if you are lazy.

.

Apparently Samak wasn't thuggish enough and too lazy because his own party ejected him as PM, not the Constitution Court, as he could have returned to PM following his conviction, but instead his party dumped him in favor of Thaksin's brother-in-law.

.

He's just ranting off, It's hard to take him seriously when he expects others to see things his way, But refuses to see the others point of view. Even twisting things to validate his comments! All I get from his ranting is, That its OK to be corrupt just as long as you were elected fairly! that any questioning of those activities are undemocratic! to protest is seditious!

Maybe it's not the politicians that people should support, Maybe they should support the constitution first!

[Thailand]

PTP have gone about this in the wrong way. They should have secured the criminal convictions first and then used that as evidence in the constitution court.

As the CC rightly says they can't make a judgement on criminality.

A procedural cockup by PT in my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I think the right to protest would still be upheld. The criminality, as the judges rightly said is a different matter. As usual it's amazing how many posters have skipped over that very important piece of information.

[englishoak]

In order to scrap the paragraph excluding the leaders from the original amnesty bill, the House Committee alleged non-observance of the principle of equality before the law and enjoyment of equal protection under the law. This imo was a mistake as in its original form it didnt allow for the return of the man from Dubai it seems.

The problem with the Thai bill is that it granted amnesty for actions related to political offences without further defining this concept, or without providing a list of criteria to decide whether an action is associated with a political objective. The result is that it is not clear which are these actions beyond those offences that are political by their very nature, such as rebellion, treason, sedition, subversion or membership in a banned political party, among others (or lèse majesté and hence the need to explicitly exclude it from the scope of the bill). The amnesty bill even implied that political offences also encompassed economic crimes, as they were politically motivated.

Left with this vagueness, political offence comes to encompass each and every crime committed during political conflict. The argument here has evolved: as the amnesty covers all the offences, everyone should benefit.

What follows is that amnesty has to be granted to everyone who has committed a political offence or, else, be considered discriminatory. But, is this accurate?

i do think there has to be some give and begin healing at some point. cant have the bill as it is or in name but would it be so divisive to start by opening some door and while at it include lèse majesté which for some bizarre reason was never included.

Probably have to change the entire name as it carrys too much feeling tagged as it is. Wouldnt it be an option as long as it excluded certain parties that bring on the hot sweats here ? such as maybe being convicted of corruption or leaders as in the original form ?

the alternative is this and maybe far worse. Don't shoot me im just thinking aloud.

Edited February 5, 2014 by englishoak

[webfact]

Court rejects complaints filed by Democrat, Pheu Thai
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Court has rejected a complaint submitted by members of the Democrat Party to have the Pheu Thai Party dissolved.

The Democrats claimed that by holding the February 2 election while parts of the country were placed under the emergency decree, Pheu Thai caused the election to be unfair and not free. The court, by a majority ruling, said there were insufficient grounds to conclude that the imposition of the emergency decree during the election violated Article 68 of the Constitution as claimed by the complainants - Wirat Kalayasiri, former Songkhla MP for the Democrat Party, and Paiboon Nititawan, former Democrat party-list MP.

Article 68 of the charter stipulates that it is one's right to protect the Constitution and also prohibits any act that would seek change or the obtaining of power through unconstitutional means.

The article also permits dissolution of political parties found to have done this, and can ban party executives from participating in political activities for five years.

In a related development, the court also rejected a complaint filed by a member of the Pheu Thai Party, Singthong Buachum, accusing the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and its affiliates of wanting to overthrow the political system. The court said the charges could be laid against figures within PDRC, or specific actions by the movement which violated the criminal code or other laws - but the right to freedom of assembly is guaranteed under the Constitution and the PDRC protest stemmed from its opposition to the government's bid to pass the blanket amnesty bill.


-- The Nation 2014-02-06

[ShannonT]

Article 68 of the charter stipulates that it is one's right to protect the Constitution and also prohibits any act that would seek change or the obtaining of power through unconstitutional means.

Aren't the PDRC and the Democrats violating this article 68 with their unelected "people's council"?

Edited February 5, 2014 by ShannonT

[Neurath]

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. alt=cheesy.gif>

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. applicable to the house of representatives also.

Pretty much all of these points are applicable to the house of representatives as well. It's an old argument, as old as ideas of democracy. People need to be governed by good - and by extension, honest - people. Since elections can't guarantee that, obtained senators otherwise - by appointment through another appointed group. Of course then there's the problem of who appoints the anointed. Before you know it you end up with a fully appointed government for the very same reasons that you originally wanted a partially appointed senate and a system of government extraordinarily distanced from any proximate control by citizenry. It's a sad way to go. Especially since recent history in a country starting with "T" indicates that buying appointees isn't that much more difficult than buying a political party or electoral candidate.

[aussieinthailand]

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

And with the right connections, one here in LOS can buy any result can't they...

just the same as a connected young lady and the 9 dead bus victims had a just outcome in court yeah,,,

But ok, the umpire has made a decision and now time to get on with it, unlike Suthep and Mark...

[icommunity]

It is fair enough for CC to rule : "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."

I don't know the evidence given by PTP CC. They may have to resubmit their petition based on new evidence

My observation under the current situation:

There is no amnesty for the DEM's PDRC/PCAD to protest. Reconciliation for Thailand has gone back to square one. Reconciliation or unity is not the interest of the dem and its PDRC/PCAD. They are interested only in the hate of Thaksin and the fear of him

However, the only valid reason is a vague "Their distrust of the administration of the government" may seems valid, but

1. The Constitution does not cover the rights of the people to protest using intimidation, threat, violation of other people's rights, cutting power and water supply, invading of government offices and demanding government officers to stop works. Therefore the activities were unconstitutional as well as criminal.

2. The Constitution does not cover the rights of the people to protest using intimidation, threat and force to impede and blocking of election processes. This is criminal as well as unconstitutional.

3. Demanding a PM elected under a democratic process is not democratic since the PM and her government had returned power to the people for a new mandate. Royal Decree also demanded PM YS stay on as a caretaker PM and a GE on 2 Feb 2014. Therefore not constitutional.

4. An unelected 'people council' to replace a people elected government is an unconstitutional demand and in violation of section 68.

I think CC wanted to be sure and PTP can submit their petition again with new evidence to protect the democratic system of government with the King as the head of State.

[pisico]

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.

QUOTE

"...amnesty bill and general distrust of the administration has fueled the protests."

PROTEST: protest [prō test, prətest; ] also, and for n. always [ prōtest΄] vt.

ME protesten < MFr protester < L protestari < pro-, PRO-2 + testari, to affirm < testis, witness: see TESTIFY

1. to state positively; affirm solemnly; assert

2. to make objection to; speak strongly against

3. to make a written declaration of the nonpayment of (a bill of exchange or a promissory note)

vi.

1. to make solemn affirmation

2. to express disapproval; object; dissent.

SOURCE: Webster's New World Dictionary.

Nothing about occupying thoroughfares, government building, blocking access to government buildings, blocking access to voting venues, etc.

Is this a protest also?

MOM: "Why did you stab your brother with a pencil?"

CHILD: "I was protesting because He hit me first, Mom!"

MOM: "OK, now I understand. It serves him right."

[pisico]

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

And with the right connections, one here in LOS can buy any result can't they...

just the same as a connected young lady and the 9 dead bus victims had a just outcome in court yeah,,,

But ok, the umpire has made a decision and now time to get on with it, unlike Suthep and Mark...

QUOTE: "unlike Suthep and Mark" Tradition and patronage... and connections too.

ME: I can't understand it. High ranking police officers were caught running illegal casinos in Bangkok. Why were they not arrested, charged and prosecuted?

THAI FRIEND: They were removed from their positions and placed in other areas in inactive duty. Can't you see? Their careers are ruined.

TSK, TSK, TSK! Will Farang ever understand Thainess?

[GeorgeO]

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

... and, as pointed out by these learned gentlemen, it is the constitutional right of every citizen in Thailand to protest against what they see as a crooked, inept government...!!

Edit to add: We may not have the 'perfect' systems in our own countries, but our systems have been continually improved, over periods of decades and centuries, as a result of people power. No one should be allowed to take that away from people in Thailand.

Edited February 6, 2014 by GeorgeO

[fab4]

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.

Quite a bit disimilar to the events of 2010. Which, if you remember resulted in the holding of an election which the protesting body's political party contested and won.

Here we have a protesting body demanding the overthrow of an elected government and the imposition of an unelected council.

Nothing like the same.

Edited February 6, 2014 by fab4