The right to gather promises a tough debate - Thai politics

[webfact]

The right to gather promises a tough debate
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Opinions differ as to whether a Pubic Gathering Bill is needed to ensure that protesters in the future will not get out of control and violate other people's rights.

Some observers, including multi-coloured-shirt group leader Tul Sitthisomwong, said such a law was welcome if it could balance the rights of protesters and the public and was not designed specifically to limit the freedom of assembly.

"We should have one [such law] so demonstrations can be orderly," said Tul, adding that sometimes protest leaders are not around to ensure order and safety. And perhaps there should be a law requiring there must always be an identifiable leader at protest sites to control the protesters.

A draft bill to control public assemblies is being considered by police and is expected to be submitted eventually to the National Legislative Assembly. Details of the draft bill are still being vetted and are not yet finalised.

Tul said there should be a timeframe to demonstrations so protesters can't surround important government offices or public places indefinitely. Tul admitted he went to the yellow-shirt blockade of the Suvarnabhumi Airport back in 2011, but he insisted he only went there to prevent other protesters from entering the tarmac as they could be accused of being terrorists. He was personally not supportive of the blockade of airports.

Asked if he was concerned about the new bill possibly designed to restrict the freedom of assembly, Tul said if such was the case when it came to a time to protest, demonstrators wouldn't heed the law anyhow.

Information recently revealed the latest details of the draft bill which has not yet been finalised, includes a requirement that protesters inform the authorities at least 24 hours in advance and that demonstrators must not block government offices, hospitals or embassies. Also, a protest could only take place between 6am and 10pm.

Red shirt co-leader Weng Tojirakarn said he was totally against the passing of any bill that would control public protest, adding that relevant criminal laws already exist to deal with unruly protesters who trespass on government compounds or use weapons, but the authorities have failed to uphold those laws. Weng led the red-shirt protest in 2010 to block Rajprasong Intersection and was captured by the military junta while leading a demonstration west of Bangkok on the eve of the coup.

"Freedom of expression is an important part of being human, but surely it must not violate others' rights," he said.

Weng claimed the authorities applied double standards when it came to treating various groups of protesters. He said he might accept some organic law, but not a bill, which is truly aimed at making demonstrations more orderly.

He was asked if the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) would publicly make any statement if the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly passed such a bill. Weng responded that it was futile because the junta would have things their own way anyhow - and such an issue was minor compared to the greater scheme for things the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) wanted to shape.

For Thankhun Jitt-itsara, a former Democrat MP, having a law to regulate protest was desirable although the spirit behind the law must be to promote democracy and not restrict it.

He was also a prominent member of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), which occupied parts of Bangkok for half a year before the May 22 coup.

Like Tul, Thankhun discounted concerns of those who feared such a bill might eventually restrict rights to freedom of assembly significantly.

"If people do not respect [such a law], it won't mean anything," he warned.

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) member Niran Pitakwatchara said he personally disagreed with the move as it could lead to the violation of rights to freedom of assembly, particularly amongst the rural poor.

"Villagers would face greater rights violations," said Niran. "Villagers tend to be dealt with swiftly by the authorities."

He said the NHRC agreed with the passing of such a bill in principle if it would protect demonstrators' rights - which Niran thinks is difficult to visualise.

He argued that existing regulations, including traffic law, should suffice.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/The-right-to-gather-promises-a-tough-debate-30242754.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-08

[ramrod711]

Asked if he was concerned about the new bill possibly designed to restrict the freedom of assembly, Tul said if such was the case when it came to a time to protest, demonstrators wouldn't heed the law anyhow.

Like Tul, Thankhun discounted concerns of those who feared such a bill might eventually restrict rights to freedom of assembly significantly.

"If people do not respect [such a law], it won't mean anything," he warned.

Debate over, is a bill required, yes. Will anyone respect the rights of the average citizen trying to get to work, no. Why will no one respect the law, because there is no enforcement.

[Mango Bob]

What we need is the police to do it job. Protesters in the past should have never been able to block highways in the south. Block and take over streets in Bangkok where citizens could not go to work or students go to school. But if the police even touch a protester people are screaming about it. That is bull crap. Necessary force should be used to remove protesters and if they get hurt, well it just too damn bad. Rules are needed to say where a group can protest and how long they can protest. Taken of government building should be met with force if needed to protest the interest of the government. If the police don't have the balls to do it then the military should step in.

[tbthailand]

"Weng responded that it was futile because the junta would have things their own way anyhow - and such an issue was minor compared to the greater scheme for things the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) wanted to shape."

someone with eyes and ears connected to a brain.

[NongKhaiKid]

What we need is the police to do it job. Protesters in the past should have never been able to block highways in the south. Block and take over streets in Bangkok where citizens could not go to work or students go to school. But if the police even touch a protester people are screaming about it. That is bull crap. Necessary force should be used to remove protesters and if they get hurt, well it just too damn bad. Rules are needed to say where a group can protest and how long they can protest. Taken of government building should be met with force if needed to protest the interest of the government. If the police don't have the balls to do it then the military should step in.

Do you mean the same police who protected the reds, allowed their drunks to set up unofficial roadblocks, I know because I was stopped, and generally do as they liked ?

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What we need is the police to do it job. Protesters in the past should have never been able to block highways in the south. Block and take over streets in Bangkok where citizens could not go to work or students go to school. But if the police even touch a protester people are screaming about it. That is bull crap. Necessary force should be used to remove protesters and if they get hurt, well it just too damn bad. Rules are needed to say where a group can protest and how long they can protest. Taken of government building should be met with force if needed to protest the interest of the government. If the police don't have the balls to do it then the military should step in.

Do you mean the same police who protected the reds, allowed their drunks to set up unofficial roadblocks, I know because I was stopped, and generally do as they liked ?

You got it Kid same same police.

[NongKhaiKid]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What we need is the police to do it job. Protesters in the past should have never been able to block highways in the south. Block and take over streets in Bangkok where citizens could not go to work or students go to school. But if the police even touch a protester people are screaming about it. That is bull crap. Necessary force should be used to remove protesters and if they get hurt, well it just too damn bad. Rules are needed to say where a group can protest and how long they can protest. Taken of government building should be met with force if needed to protest the interest of the government. If the police don't have the balls to do it then the military should step in.

Do you mean the same police who protected the reds, allowed their drunks to set up unofficial roadblocks, I know because I was stopped, and generally do as they liked ?

You got it Kid same same police.

Maybe, just maybe, with the junta breathing down their necks they might do something resembling what they're supposed to do.

I won't add ' without fear or favour ' because that would mean they would stop taking bribes, as if that will happen.

[gk10002000]

Sadly, it does not matter if a right to gather law is passed. There is no law. There is no constitution. And the next military coup can simply issue decrees as it sees fit.

[khunken]

Sadly, it does not matter if a right to gather law is passed. There is no law. There is no constitution. And the next military coup can simply issue decrees as it sees fit.

It's surprising when both sides admit that protestors ignore the law that you don't get it. Nothing to do with the coup.

There have been are are laws but the law enforcers don't uphold them. It doesn't just apply to protestors but to traffic violators, casinos, after hours pubs & bars, Ferrari drivers, and so on and so on.