British activist braces for Thai libel trial

[dunque]

when people/companies use the antiquated thai laws to silence anyone telling the truth about them we really have to wonder, in any other country when you tell the truth you are respected but here if you tell the truth and someone loses face or worse still, money, they take you to court. Until such time that the law backs up the honest people and not just the rich this country can never improve. The courts need to be able to base their decisions on actual facts and the truth, not on how much it cost someone to have the truth about them exposed. Corruption is the reason it is till ongoing and this needs to be stopped, ethics need to be implemented and the guilty parties instigating these trumped up charges made to face the law themselves, this case will show the world what Thailand really stands for, a wrong decision could cause real problems for all thai companies and the country itself.

.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "any other country" but I know in at least one there's what's called a whistle blower program that even awards those who expose corruption and crime.

Yes, here a whistle blower is punished.

"in any other country when you tell the truth you are respected but here if you tell the truth and someone loses face or worse still, money, they take you to court."

Edward Snowden anyone?

[Thai at Heart]

not about whether the NCPO/ army junta interferes in the trial, its a case of does a "foreigner" get a fair trial and a verdict from the court based on evidence,in a "libel trial" Thai vs falang? let's see if there is a first.

Another one who doesn't think it matters if the junta interferes with the justice system so long as he gets what he wants out of it.

Shame on you, too. Once for being that incredibly selfish to all the other people before the court. And again for backing a junta's iron first and threats over the courts. Shame and shame again on you.

So far as this case, have you looked at the law? Are you familiar with criminal defamation? This is a straightforward case, and I'm about 98% certain the court will decide - WITHOUT MILITARY INTERFERENCE - based on the law, without considering nationality. Mr Hall is in deep trouble, and if he has excellent representation he has a chance. I don't rate the chance of government interference above 2%, and that's only because they are, at root and at heart, jack-booted thugs so they may act, who knows, really? But not likely.

When you get a moment, have a look at the relevant laws. They're very similar to most countries (except the US) - and also except most countries don't put the guilty party in prison. But defamation is defamation pretty well everywhere, including Thailand. Hall is a Brit. He's being charged under a law that is almost exactly the same as the one back home - just the consequences are a lot higher.

Well it will be interesting to see what evidence for his allegations he presents at trial. I am not opposed to anti-defamation laws in general but unfortunately here in Thailand the truth of what has been alleged is not a defense, it is the intent to defame that matters.

Except in the United States, truth is NEVER a defence against defamation/libel/slander. It's not the truth that's a matter for the trial. It's a matter of whether defamation occurred, and if so, what the motivation was for uttering it. Truth may or may not be a mitigating circumstance but is NEVER a defence outside the USA.

..

When you get a moment, have a look at the possible defenses to a charge of defamation, slander and libel in the UK. Then check and see if you think they would be accepted by a Thai court.

I cannot find any similarity between British defamation law and Thailand. Criminal defamation is incredibly rare under British law.

[Triplebank999]

Doesn't say just when the case was brought to the court but apparently the report is over a year old so the charge could well have been laid before the army took over.

Just what Govt withdrew his passport is also unclear but I don't see how any Govt can withdraw someone's passport in the case of what should be a civil matter, IE a company saying they have been slandered.

However I suppose the company complained to whoever was in Govt at the time that the country name had been blackened and it was taken seriously by some civil servant or politician.

I can think of a host of others on far more serious matters deserving of having their passports taken from them.

Seeking 10 millionB from whom?

How can they, whoever they are, appropriate his passport, when he is not ' convicted' of anything? I think he is a twit to stay here, bur I admire the courage of his convictions. Don't suppose the Democratic Party are losing any sleep over this?

What It has to do with the Dem party I don't know but there is always someone has to be in for a cheap shot.

His passport wasn't withdrawn, why would you think that? It's being held pending the trial which is normal practice when a foreigner faces a trial here.

[Triplebank999]

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

A lot of rhetoric being said at the moment in Thailand, but there is no way I would want to go up against the elites in a court battle. It still remains an old boys network?

I bet the court system could teach the jet ski operators and taxi's a thing or too; but nothing is being said about judicial reform, or more to the point nothing is being done about reform.

This Hall guy has pulled down the pants of the food giant on the world stage, and now he has to pay?

You have to wait to see the outcome of the court case, right now he doesn't have to pay anything

[ksamuiguy]

Any facts, did they actually take his passport, is the case still active.

Reading the posts most seems to be "hearsay"

A year is a long time in Thailand!

[wandasloan]

When you get a moment, have a look at the possible defenses to a charge of defamation, slander and libel in the UK. Then check and see if you think they would be accepted by a Thai court.

You quoted me, but you aren't replying me. All I said is that truth is not a defense in a defamation/libel/slander type of trial anywhere in the world except the USA. I didn't make any other claim. You didn't address that claim at all, so I'm not sure why you involved me.

However, since you raised the issue and put my name into it, the Thai defamation laws are based on the English ones. You (and I) have absolutely no idea what defence "a Thai court" might accept, and won't know until after a defendant offers it. Where "absolutely" is an absolute word. That's the way courts work everywhere, including in Thailand.

The trials of Andy Hall will proceed. When they finish, you will know what defence he offered if any, and what the courts did with it. Until then, your statement only is an attack or strong comment on the courts without any knowledge about it at all.

I am extremely familiar with English libel-type laws and I strongly hope I never am a defendant in that unfair, biased procedure where truth is not a defence or even usually admissible. I have been directly involved in Thai defamation cases and they were not pleasant mornings at all.

.

[Thai at Heart]

When you get a moment, have a look at the possible defenses to a charge of defamation, slander and libel in the UK. Then check and see if you think they would be accepted by a Thai court.

You quoted me, but you aren't replying me. All I said is that truth is not a defense in a defamation/libel/slander type of trial anywhere in the world except the USA. I didn't make any other claim. You didn't address that claim at all, so I'm not sure why you involved me.

However, since you raised the issue and put my name into it, the Thai defamation laws are based on the English ones. You (and I) have absolutely no idea what defence "a Thai court" might accept, and won't know until after a defendant offers it. Where "absolutely" is an absolute word. That's the way courts work everywhere, including in Thailand.

The trials of Andy Hall will proceed. When they finish, you will know what defence he offered if any, and what the courts did with it. Until then, your statement only is an attack or strong comment on the courts without any knowledge about it at all.

I am extremely familiar with English libel-type laws and I strongly hope I never am a defendant in that unfair, biased procedure where truth is not a defence or even usually admissible. I have been directly involved in Thai defamation cases and they were not pleasant mornings at all.

.

Can find no document stating that the Thai defamation laws are based on British ones.

Yes, he may well be in hot water legally. He's a brave bloke and he will have done Thailand a great service if he succeeds in holding these laws up to ridicule so that they may be changed.

[wandasloan]

Can find no document stating that the Thai defamation laws are based on British ones.

Yes, he may well be in hot water legally. He's a brave bloke and he will have done Thailand a great service if he succeeds in holding these laws up to ridicule so that they may be changed.

Yes, see, to me, that is the problem here - that Mr Hall has done no service, appeals only to a tiny, tiny number of almost exclusively foreign people, and most certainly will bring neither ridicule nor change. I do not say this in any mocking way, but indeed in some sorrow, he is the Sancho Panza of human trafficking. To me, he is proof that if you are going to fight, you should pick your battles very, very carefully. I don't believe he even realised he was in any kind of battle, was stunned to find out he was, and really doesn't know what to do. His bravery isn't any issue at all.

The criminal defamation law NEEDS reform. I don't believe for a single New York nanosecond that Hall or his cases will provide the slightest dent, any more than horrible, terrible lese majeste prosecutions have caused any reform. In this, Hall is a ship passing in the night, noticed by few and - more importantly - by no one influential. NGOs and the Grauniad are upset - well, yes, when aren't they?

For how Thai law developed, chiefly in the Mongkut/Chulalongkorn era, I personally suggest the Baker/Pasuk books.

.

Edited August 31, 2014 by wandasloan

[Thai at Heart]

Can find no document stating that the Thai defamation laws are based on British ones.

Yes, he may well be in hot water legally. He's a brave bloke and he will have done Thailand a great service if he succeeds in holding these laws up to ridicule so that they may be changed.

Yes, see, to me, that is the problem here - that Mr Hall has done no service, appeals only to a tiny, tiny number of almost exclusively foreign people, and most certainly will bring neither ridicule nor change. I do not say this in any mocking way, but indeed in some sorrow, he is the Sancho Panza of human trafficking. To me, he is proof that if you are going to fight, you should pick your battles very, very carefully. I don't believe he even realised he was in any kind of battle, was stunned to find out he was, and really doesn't know what to do. His bravery isn't any issue at all.

The criminal defamation law NEEDS reform. I don't believe for a single New York nanosecond that Hall or his cases will provide the slightest dent, any more than horrible, terrible lese majeste prosecutions have caused any reform. In this, Hall is a ship passing in the night, noticed by few and - more importantly - by no one influential. NGOs and the Grauniad are upset - well, yes, when aren't they?

For how Thai law developed, chiefly in the Mongkut/Chulalongkorn era, I personally suggest the Baker/Pasuk books.

.

How Thai law developed and whether the current Thai defamation law is based on current British defamation law is hardly related.

Many Thai laws are based on British and other laws, but I cannot find anything specific about defamation and it appears they are poles apart from any original comparison. The use of criminal defamation in Thailand and the UK in the modern day is in no way comparable.

Maybe he naively caused this problem I don't know. Maybe he has some very hard proof of statements made, in which case the company will be made to look very stupid, but he will still be guilty under Thai law.

Who knows if he even caused tangible damage to the company. If there is no damage there is no defamation. It will be an exercise on legalese and very precious face.

It may well bring some change though which would be a good thing.

[wandasloan]

How Thai law developed and whether the current Thai defamation law is based on current British defamation law is hardly related.

Many Thai laws are based on British and other laws, but I cannot find anything specific about defamation and it appears they are poles apart from any original comparison. The use of criminal defamation in Thailand and the UK in the modern day is in no way comparable.

Well, there you go. I personally can't see any real difference. The penalties are massively different of course, but not the definitions.

And you have struck the root of both the Hall case and defamation cases worldwide.

Maybe he naively caused this problem I don't know. Maybe he has some very hard proof of statements made, in which case the company will be made to look very stupid, but he will still be guilty under Thai law.

Who knows if he even caused tangible damage to the company. If there is no damage there is no defamation. It will be an exercise on legalese and very precious face.

It may well bring some change though which would be a good thing.

First para: Exactly right. Truth has nothing to do with defamation.

But you're wrong in the second if you mean what it seems to mean. It's not necessary to cause physical damage in order to defame - not anywhere in the world, including a Thai (or British or American) court. Defamation deals with reputation. In this case, for example, if the company can produce a witness (hahaha) who says her opinion of the company was lowered after she read Mr Hall's work, well, that's a strong indicator, perhaps proof of defamation right there. Defamation in England and in Thailand is entirely, completely and solely about face.

See the British verdict in the McLibel case, where a couple was found guilty by the UK court even though what they said about McDonald's was true - because McDonald's face was harmed. And see Sally Morgan's case against The Daily Mail. Her REPUTATION was harmed by the newspaper's allegation, never mind if she was (and is) a total fraud. She lost face, so in England she got the money. In Thailand, she probably would have won, too.

And please don't tell me about how the McLibel case was overturned by the European Court, because my point is precisely that the Thai verdicts in defamation-type cases are modeled on traditional English lines, not 21st century European ones.

Actual damage (loss of sales, say) may be a mitigation and factor to be considered on the company's side, just as truth may be accepted as mitigation on the defendants' side. But neither is part of the defamation trial/charge per se, which is wholly about face.

I think, and it's my STRONG opinion, there are two chances the Hall cases will bring, cause or influence legal changes: fat and slim. I agree it would be a good thing, but I don't agree there is a chance. But we're both just repeating.

.

[timewilltell]

Do all of you "freedom fighters" take a stand against corruption and injustice throughout the world, or have you become obsessed with the Thai system for some unknown reason.

If someone doesn't actively protest every injustice, they aren't allowed to comment on any particular one? There are only so many hours in the day.

When the military takeover took place, there were many on this forum who felt very uncomfortable, and still do - including myself. At the same time there were also many - it seemed to me like a majority - who applauded the general and who still do. That debate however has finished - we are where we are.

Why this issue is important is for the reasons set out by many posters. That is, we will now see a tangible sign of how the junta judicial system is going to proceed. Make no mistake, Al Jazeera are going to come down hard on Thailand if there appears to be any jiggery pokery surrounding this matter. The already have 3 journalists imprisoned by the military in Egypt as you know, so they are no fans of military juntas.

As a previous poster stated, this is a Thailand forum, but I know a great many contributors express views and concerns about human rights and injustice elsewhere in the world when they are raised. This is a thai issue.

I understand your comments about the junta but your idea that the courts are run by the junta is simply not correct.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[wandasloan]

I understand your comments about the junta but your idea that the courts are run by the junta is simply not correct.

Exactly. This bears repeating:

... your idea that the courts are run by the junta is simply not correct.

Everything about the Hall case took place well before the military took over the country. The case is in front of a standard civilian court. The junta has no dog in the fight that anyone knows of. There are no known incidents, charges or allegations from anywhere that the junta has got involved.

... your idea that the courts are run by the junta is simply not correct.

It is a libel on the court to even imply that the junta, the NCPO or the new government is involved, let alone that it will direct how the trial proceeds to a verdict. If that charge were made outside of an internet forum, an alert court might well take some sort of action on it. Thai courts are notoriously sensitive to this sort of allegation - which in this particular case is untrue so far as anyone knows, including the several posters libelling the court with this suggestion.

... your idea that the courts are run by the junta is simply not correct.

Exactly right, and there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary, including in this Andy Hall case. And to be clear, there also was no evidence of a government hand in the case before the coup, either - by any party or person.

.

[timewilltell]

Do all of you "freedom fighters" take a stand against corruption and injustice throughout the world, or have you become obsessed with the Thai system for some unknown reason.

If someone doesn't actively protest every injustice, they aren't allowed to comment on any particular one? There are only so many hours in the day.

When the military takeover took place, there were many on this forum who felt very uncomfortable, and still do - including myself. At the same time there were also many - it seemed to me like a majority - who applauded the general and who still do. That debate however has finished - we are where we are.

Why this issue is important is for the reasons set out by many posters. That is, we will now see a tangible sign of how the junta judicial system is going to proceed. Make no mistake, Al Jazeera are going to come down hard on Thailand if there appears to be any jiggery pokery surrounding this matter. The already have 3 journalists imprisoned by the military in Egypt as you know, so they are no fans of military juntas.

As a previous poster stated, this is a Thailand forum, but I know a great many contributors express views and concerns about human rights and injustice elsewhere in the world when they are raised. This is a thai issue.

Duplicate post by aberrant app deleted.

Edited September 1, 2014 by timewilltell

[timewilltell]

Like many contributors to this thread I find the actions if National Fruit Co. Distasteful in the extreme, I do not find them surprising though. The criminal defamation laws are routinely abused and the lack of moral fibre and responsibility in this society makes such laws frankly unsuitable for it. Civil defamation laws are fine as long as they are based on punishing people who lie willfully to damage a third party.

The computer crimes act is another law that is abused along with lese majeste laws all of which are often times used to bully and crush people who are acting in a morally reasonable way. Unless you have the idea that Thai morals adopt lying and bully tactics for political and business protection then these laws are not serving society well.

The retention of Andy's passport is in direct contradiction to the International Human Rights Treaty to which Thailand is a signatory. It is also disgraceful that this racist practice continues since no Thai has to surrender his ID or passport. It is also telling that the person whose passport is detained is fully responsible for continuing to make his 90 days reports at immigration and comply with visa renewals and so on. Try getting a job with you passport held at the court! It is sad that the UK does not make representations against the continuance of this practice. Since our immigration status is held very well on the Thai immigration computer system there is no need now lawful reason for retention of passports.

I think the Thai courts courts and judges come under a lot of unfair criticism. The judges are there to uphold the law of the land and not make the laws. I don't think so many judges are corrupt though plainly there are some evidenced by the recent dismissal of a couple of Supreme Court judges. However there are two other serious issues which are the incompetence and corruption absolutely rife through the lawyers who mis-file, cheat, intentionally fail to make applications and so on in order to lose or partially lose cases for their clients - especially so with foreign clients because of the racism that infects Thailand. This perverts the course of justice and if course is all aimed at screwing the client for fees whilst working for the other side. It also lists the number of cases in the system.

That along with the pathetic defamation and other laws is where attention should be directed as those two factors are IMHO vastly more important and widespread in their affect on justice being served.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[AGareth2]

justification i.e. truth is a defence under English law

US law of defamation is based on English law

[wandasloan]

The retention of Andy's passport is in direct contradiction to the International Human Rights Treaty to which Thailand is a signatory. It is also disgraceful that this racist practice continues since no Thai has to surrender his ID or passport. It is also telling that the person whose passport is detained is fully responsible for continuing to make his 90 days reports at immigration and comply with visa renewals and so on. Try getting a job with you passport held at the court! It is sad that the UK does not make representations against the continuance of this practice. Since our immigration status is held very well on the Thai immigration computer system there is no need now lawful reason for retention of passports.

I won't tackle your opinions, which are yours and pretty reasonable anyhow, and I won't re-quote them. But it's not wise to let untrue statements stand. They fester and spread and people take them as fact.

People charged in criminal cases are sometimes forced to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. This is a worldwide practice, and is well within the bounds of human rights. US and UK prosecutors, police and courts do this, for example. Your statement that Thais are not subject to this is simply untrue. In the world generally, and in Thailand specifically, there is no particular standard for this - it is up to authorities and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Hall claims right today that he lives in Myanmar. That seems like a reasonable grounds for considering him a flight risk, even if there are no others.

Also, while this is not strictly fact, it's a brilliantly crimson red herring: A defendant facing 5 to 10 years in prison might find it difficult to get a job, with or without a passport. Also, it would be very difficult, almost impossible for Andy Hall to find a job since he isn't looking for one.

.

[belg]

tell the truth, go to jail ... thainesssssssssssssssssssss

it is easier than to tackle the real problem that those major companies are part of the human trafficking ring in the end, supplying cheap labour that can be deposed off easely with the co-operation of the immigration department for jailing & deportation, when those big companies sees fit ...

paying a descent wager, would "hurt" to much in their huge profits

rich want to be richer, not share or give to the poor

[timewilltell]

The retention of Andy's passport is in direct contradiction to the International Human Rights Treaty to which Thailand is a signatory. It is also disgraceful that this racist practice continues since no Thai has to surrender his ID or passport. It is also telling that the person whose passport is detained is fully responsible for continuing to make his 90 days reports at immigration and comply with visa renewals and so on. Try getting a job with you passport held at the court! It is sad that the UK does not make representations against the continuance of this practice. Since our immigration status is held very well on the Thai immigration computer system there is no need now lawful reason for retention of passports.

I won't tackle your opinions, which are yours and pretty reasonable anyhow, and I won't re-quote them. But it's not wise to let untrue statements stand. They fester and spread and people take them as fact.

People charged in criminal cases are sometimes forced to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. This is a worldwide practice, and is well within the bounds of human rights. US and UK prosecutors, police and courts do this, for example. Your statement that Thais are not subject to this is simply untrue. In the world generally, and in Thailand specifically, there is no particular standard for this - it is up to authorities and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Hall claims right today that he lives in Myanmar. That seems like a reasonable grounds for considering him a flight risk, even if there are no others.

Also, while this is not strictly fact, it's a brilliantly crimson red herring: A defendant facing 5 to 10 years in prison might find it difficult to get a job, with or without a passport. Also, it would be very difficult, almost impossible for Andy Hall to find a job since he isn't looking for one.

.

You might like to read Article 2.1 and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Basically every person within a state, signatory to that Covenant, shall be treated equally regardless of race, nationality etc., etc. Thailand does not restrict travel nor subject its citizens to surrender their passport or ID card upon being accused of a criminal act. Thailand does however require this as a matter of course for all non-Thais regardless of the severity of the crime. Being accused of defamation Mr Hall must surrender his passport as well as post bail, yet Thai murderers and rapists need surrender nothing except post bail. This is clearly not equal treatment.

I think that is in direct conflict with the clauses I mention above, don't you? The risk of flight governs the amount of bail set - there is no need to withhold the passport since Thailand already has computer records to prevent flight for accused persons. Bail should be enough and the amount should be assessed on flight risk not on ones nationality.

It may be the case that in exceptional cases a passport should be withheld as you point out. The point here is that passports of foreigners are withheld as a matter of course not as a matter of exception.

I do not think a person should be denied work simply on the grounds of being accused of something. If found guilty then I could understand your point.

The grounds for whether Mr Hall COULD get a job has nothing to do with whether he is actively looking for one.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited September 1, 2014 by timewilltell

[brucec64]

The retention of Andy's passport is in direct contradiction to the International Human Rights Treaty to which Thailand is a signatory. It is also disgraceful that this racist practice continues since no Thai has to surrender his ID or passport. It is also telling that the person whose passport is detained is fully responsible for continuing to make his 90 days reports at immigration and comply with visa renewals and so on. Try getting a job with you passport held at the court! It is sad that the UK does not make representations against the continuance of this practice. Since our immigration status is held very well on the Thai immigration computer system there is no need now lawful reason for retention of passports.

I won't tackle your opinions, which are yours and pretty reasonable anyhow, and I won't re-quote them. But it's not wise to let untrue statements stand. They fester and spread and people take them as fact.

People charged in criminal cases are sometimes forced to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. This is a worldwide practice, and is well within the bounds of human rights. US and UK prosecutors, police and courts do this, for example. Your statement that Thais are not subject to this is simply untrue. In the world generally, and in Thailand specifically, there is no particular standard for this - it is up to authorities and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Hall claims right today that he lives in Myanmar. That seems like a reasonable grounds for considering him a flight risk, even if there are no others.

Also, while this is not strictly fact, it's a brilliantly crimson red herring: A defendant facing 5 to 10 years in prison might find it difficult to get a job, with or without a passport. Also, it would be very difficult, almost impossible for Andy Hall to find a job since he isn't looking for one.

.

You might like to read Article 2.1 and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Basically every person within a state, signatory to that Covenant, shall be treated equally regardless of race, nationality etc., etc. Thailand does not restrict travel nor subject its citizens to surrender their passport or ID card upon being accused of a criminal act. Thailand does however require this as a matter of course for all non-Thais regardless of the severity of the crime. Being accused of defamation Mr Hall must surrender his passport as well as post bail, yet Thai murderers and rapists need surrender nothing except post bail. This is clearly not equal treatment.

I think that is in direct conflict with the clauses I mention above, don't you? The risk of flight governs the amount of bail set - there is no need to withhold the passport since Thailand already has computer records to prevent flight for accused persons. Bail should be enough and the amount should be assessed on flight risk not on ones nationality.

It may be the case that in exceptional cases a passport should be withheld as you point out. The point here is that passports of foreigners are withheld as a matter of course not as a matter of exception.

I do not think a person should be denied work simply on the grounds of being accused of something. If found guilty then I could understand your point.

The grounds for whether Mr Hall COULD get a job has nothing to do with whether he is actively looking for one.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Generally, conditions of bail in Thailand are that travel is restricted and a court order signed by a judge is required to get past the outgoing customs control. The system is computerized and immigration will see a flag when scanning the passport. If a person is considered a flight risk, they will not be able to get a court order to leave the country. This applied to Thais and non-Thais.

[timewilltell]

The retention of Andy's passport is in direct contradiction to the International Human Rights Treaty to which Thailand is a signatory. It is also disgraceful that this racist practice continues since no Thai has to surrender his ID or passport. It is also telling that the person whose passport is detained is fully responsible for continuing to make his 90 days reports at immigration and comply with visa renewals and so on. Try getting a job with you passport held at the court! It is sad that the UK does not make representations against the continuance of this practice. Since our immigration status is held very well on the Thai immigration computer system there is no need now lawful reason for retention of passports.

I won't tackle your opinions, which are yours and pretty reasonable anyhow, and I won't re-quote them. But it's not wise to let untrue statements stand. They fester and spread and people take them as fact.

People charged in criminal cases are sometimes forced to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. This is a worldwide practice, and is well within the bounds of human rights. US and UK prosecutors, police and courts do this, for example. Your statement that Thais are not subject to this is simply untrue. In the world generally, and in Thailand specifically, there is no particular standard for this - it is up to authorities and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Hall claims right today that he lives in Myanmar. That seems like a reasonable grounds for considering him a flight risk, even if there are no others.

Also, while this is not strictly fact, it's a brilliantly crimson red herring: A defendant facing 5 to 10 years in prison might find it difficult to get a job, with or without a passport. Also, it would be very difficult, almost impossible for Andy Hall to find a job since he isn't looking for one.

.

You might like to read Article 2.1 and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Basically every person within a state, signatory to that Covenant, shall be treated equally regardless of race, nationality etc., etc. Thailand does not restrict travel nor subject its citizens to surrender their passport or ID card upon being accused of a criminal act. Thailand does however require this as a matter of course for all non-Thais regardless of the severity of the crime. Being accused of defamation Mr Hall must surrender his passport as well as post bail, yet Thai murderers and rapists need surrender nothing except post bail. This is clearly not equal treatment.

I think that is in direct conflict with the clauses I mention above, don't you? The risk of flight governs the amount of bail set - there is no need to withhold the passport since Thailand already has computer records to prevent flight for accused persons. Bail should be enough and the amount should be assessed on flight risk not on ones nationality.

It may be the case that in exceptional cases a passport should be withheld as you point out. The point here is that passports of foreigners are withheld as a matter of course not as a matter of exception.

I do not think a person should be denied work simply on the grounds of being accused of something. If found guilty then I could understand your point.

The grounds for whether Mr Hall COULD get a job has nothing to do with whether he is actively looking for one.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Generally, conditions of bail in Thailand are that travel is restricted and a court order signed by a judge is required to get past the outgoing customs control. The system is computerized and immigration will see a flag when scanning the passport. If a person is considered a flight risk, they will not be able to get a court order to leave the country. This applied to Thais and non-Thais.

Yes - so why take the passports of foreigners at all then and more particularly why take the passports of foreigners but take nothing from Thai people in the same (and far more serious) circumstances. That is what is contrary to the International Covenant to which Thailand is a signatory - it is racially or maybe more properly discriminative by nationality without good reason.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Deacon Bell]

Truth....

.... a massive faux pas in Thailand.

Smile, accept, wai, lub Thailand, Thai people good.

[Deacon Bell]

Perhaps he can do a piece on the Thai authorities allegedly involved in the human trade of the Rohingya people for cash, when they're not stripping them of food and water and towing them out to sea to die.

Oh right, there's another Westerner already up on charges of Trying To Make Thailand Look Bad after reporting on that already.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Deacon Bell

[metisdead]

An offensive post has been removed.

[Jonmarleesco]

'... the right way to handle such criticism [is] to be presenting facts and engaging in constructive dialogue ...' That'll only work if the facts will actually contradict the allegations.

[tingtongtourist]

Another sad (moronic) day for Thailand . . . grow up please . . . the truth hurts I know, but suck it up . . . face is not everything . . .

TSK, TSK, TSK!!!! Farang will never understand Thainess.

Face is everything to Thais. To keep it and not to lose it.

Image, not substance is of paramount important to a society ruled by archaic feudal customs.

Just wait until they start floundering when ASEAN is going full blast next year.

They will be crying wolf and demand extra perks and priveliges or else... they will stop breathing and turn blue and, whatever happens to Thailand will be ASEAN fault. There!

They have a long way to go before they grow up.

no..it will not be the fault of ASEAN

Once more it will be the fault of the farang!

!

Just look..nearly everything that is having a crackdown now can be linked to farang. Prostitute,farang on overstay,visa abuse,drugs,obesity.all these things introduced by the farang!

When the poor english ability of Thai puts them at the bottom ladder of ASEAN once again it will so be farangs fault for not teaching English properly !!

[fasteddie]

Andy is now facing new charges and his legal bills are rocketing, please help him out with a donation.

Yes, I'll chip in £6 to help defend Andy against Natural Fruit.

You can use paypal if you want.

Edited September 4, 2014 by fasteddie