impulse Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Totally agree. Unless he (on the right, btw:)) has a history in NZ, then there is no way he has been granted a passport. If he is claiming to have one when he doesn't, then I suspect the NZ immigration people will not look too kindly upon him. Sexy passport cover, dontcha think? Kao San Road and a couple hundred baht would get them shiny photo-op passports. (Not valid for travel, however) Or, they may have borrowed some from a couple of Kiwi friends, just for their selfie. Too many possibilities to even guess their actual immigration status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chotthee Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I find it highly doubtful that they would be issued a passport within half a year of applying for asylum, unless they have had previous contact with NZ. At the most, they would be more likely to be issued with a refugee travel document*, although why they would need one of them is also debateable. How many asylum seekers need to immediately travel out of the country they have fled to? In short, until he shows the photo page of the passport, I say bulls*** to this story. *From the NZ passport website: "What is a Refugee Travel Document? A Refugee Travel Document may be issued to a person who is not a New Zealand citizen and who has refugee status confirmed by Immigration New Zealand. A New Zealand Refugee Travel Document is valid for a maximum of 2 years, and is valid from the date of issue until the date of expiry". Totally agree. Unless he (on the right, btw:)) has a history in NZ, then there is no way he has been granted a passport. If he is claiming to have one when he doesn't, then I suspect the NZ immigration people will not look too kindly upon him. Sexy passport cover, dontcha think? Thais believe everything Farang post on ThaiVisa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. New in thailand are you? USA law is applied ultimately by the supreme court -- all appointed by politicos. Asylum is supposedly for people who in fear for their lives -- clearly not the case here. Maximum penalty under lese majeste is 15 Years afaik. Freedom of speech is not a right in any country. Try standing on a soapbox in NY and start shouting about how you've got a plot to kill the president -- or a soapbox in Saudi advocating bikinis for women -- etc - etc...... Edited January 6, 2015 by jpinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiSoLowSoNoSo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Hats off for the Kiwis. Not even the most respected man in this country agrees to these laws to be used as tools by the ruling Junta/government . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailiketoo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 What did the guy do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupatria Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) A sincere headline would read: Thailand demands answers why New Zealand is not obeying the kingdoms lese majest laws. And maybe in a second request they could ask the NZ government what the heck the word "sovereignty" means outside Thailand. Edited January 6, 2015 by Lupatria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Traveller Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. New in thailand are you? USA law is applied ultimately by the supreme court -- all appointed by politicos. Asylum is supposedly for people who in fear for their lives -- clearly not the case here. Maximum penalty under lese majeste is 15 Years afaik. Freedom of speech is not a right in any country. Try standing on a soapbox in NY and start shouting about how you've got a plot to kill the president -- or a soapbox in Saudi advocating bikinis for women -- etc - etc...... Wrong. Thailand would never deport a NZ national over a minor infringement. And that is what Thailand wants NZ to do. Murder perhaps and then only after years in the courts. And I'm afraid USA has nothing to do with this case. And yes the USA does have freedom of speech under the constitution it's a right. The example you suggested is not because of lack of freedom of speech, that would be classified as a threat on someone's life. Very different. But back to the original comment, thai courts are very biased in favor of the ruling party, Why? Because the government appoint the judges. Don't beleive they are biased, then ask yourself why the Thai military needed to stage coups? Certainly, if the Shinawatras were bad then one of the many dozens of court cases would have them incarcerated. The only cases they lost was when the military was in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Traveller Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. New in thailand are you? USA law is applied ultimately by the supreme court -- all appointed by politicos. Asylum is supposedly for people who in fear for their lives -- clearly not the case here. Maximum penalty under lese majeste is 15 Years afaik. Freedom of speech is not a right in any country. Try standing on a soapbox in NY and start shouting about how you've got a plot to kill the president -- or a soapbox in Saudi advocating bikinis for women -- etc - etc...... Wrong. Thailand would never deport a NZ national over a minor infringement. And that is what Thailand wants NZ to do. Murder perhaps and then only after years in the courts. And I'm afraid USA has nothing to do with this case. And yes the USA does have freedom of speech under the constitution it's a right. The example you suggested is not because of lack of freedom of speech, that would be classified as a threat on someone's life. Very different. But back to the original comment, thai courts are very biased in favor of the ruling party, Why? Because the government appoint the judges. Don't beleive they are biased, then ask yourself why the Thai military needed to stage coups? Certainly, if the Shinawatras were bad then one of the many dozens of court cases would have them incarcerated. In fact, the only cases they lost was when the military was in charge. Edited January 6, 2015 by Time Traveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 What did the guy do? In the OP it says: Ekapop, 23, was charged with insulting the Thai monarchy for a speech he made at a Redshirt rally in late 2013. He is believed to have fled Thailand shortly after the military seized power from the elected government on 22 May 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradinAsia Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. The guy would have been wise to have looked at what happened to the previous person who did whatever this trick was. New Zealand might be demonstrating their own brand of international ineptitude. Whilst they might not agree with Thailand's laws concerning lese majeste they probably don't agree with a bunch of laws in other countries but there's no fuss being made. It's distinctly possible that the situation is not as is currently being reported. Let's wait and see what the Wellington folks reply to Bangkok with............ So what would you expect NZ to do? Send them back. The 112 law is being abused. It is being used to silence all dissent, real and perceived.I could make a claim of LM against you. Would you take your chances with the Thai courts? While the intention behind the statute may be fine, the way it is now being applied is all a load of <deleted>. Good on NZ. I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of any specific law. The law exists, same as many other laws. Freedom of speech is not a right - it is a responsibility. Freedom of speech is seen as a responsibility by many authoritarian regimes, such as Thailand. In the U.S, freedom of speech used to be a much flaunted Constitutional right. Nowadays, freedom of speech in the U.S. is largely theoretical since the gov't became more repressive and authoritarian with the de facto suspension of the Constitution in Sept 2001. Edited January 6, 2015 by BradinAsia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullynagardy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Asylum is supposedly for people who in fear for their lives No it`s not. "Someone may ask for political asylum when they are frightened to live in their own country. They will then go to another country. If they are allowed to live in the new country this is called political asylum. People who seek asylum are usually victims of threats, physical harm or denigration of their human dignity as these are violating theirhuman rights." http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_asylum . When a regime is sending people to "thought readjustment camps" on the basis of their political views it`s hardly surprising civilised countries will offer asylum. Good on New Zealand, Thailand takes another step towards being a pariah state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansgruber Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Going by the logo on his shirt. He works for a little electrical company in NZ. http://www.corys.co.nz/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/corys-media-Site Edited January 6, 2015 by hansgruber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleys Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) They got their citizenship and passports very quickly. Took 2 years to get my wife out to Australia and she has to wait 4 yrs for citizenship and a passport and she has Aussie children. Then let's hope Australia comes to its senses and gives as *hit about your wife having family in Australia, doesn't give your wife any passport, and sends her right back home (unless she can prove that she can bring in every month about 3K, from her own turf). Sorry "bloke" but what get's thrown one way, should be shot right back. And if Thailand can afford being family haters and racists, then they can sure afford keeping and feeding their breed at home, by themselves, and where they rigthfully belong! NZ? BRAVO! Edited January 6, 2015 by Harleys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtomtom69 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I find it highly doubtful that they would be issued a passport within half a year of applying for asylum, unless they have had previous contact with NZ. At the most, they would be more likely to be issued with a refugee travel document*, although why they would need one of them is also debateable. How many asylum seekers need to immediately travel out of the country they have fled to? In short, until he shows the photo page of the passport, I say bulls*** to this story. *From the NZ passport website: "What is a Refugee Travel Document?A Refugee Travel Document may be issued to a person who is not a New Zealand citizen and who has refugee status confirmed by Immigration New Zealand. A New Zealand Refugee Travel Document is valid for a maximum of 2 years, and is valid from the date of issue until the date of expiry". That's what I was thinking. How can any foreigner be granted citizenship of a country like New Zealand so quickly? I thought something like 3-5 years of residency was required, and that means being on a permanent visa for at least 2-3 years first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I thought the point is that asylum is only granted to people who fear for their lives or are at risk of being executed for their crimes if the return to their countries of origin? This is not the case with 112. New Zealand is basically setting a precedent that if NZ's penalties are less than the refugee's country for a crime, then they'll protect you. No - general criteria quoted by NZ Immigration is "people who cannot return to their home country because of a well-founded fear of persecution due to their religion, race, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/general/generalinformation/media/refugeefactsheet.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomangosteen Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Perhaps he made it to NZ with UN support? He had been made 'stateless' when the Thai gov't revoked his passport 30 June 2014 UNHCR site 21 Sept 2014 Ekapop is among a number of Thai fugitives seeking refuge in Thailand's neighboring countries. By now, it is clear that Ekapop is hiding somewhere in Cambodia. He is under the protection of the Cambodian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But that does not necessarily guarantee his safety, particularly after the recent rapprochement between Thailand and Cambodia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We no import the sheep, you know. Send Thai people back or we stop to eat the gaot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 None of this rings true -- I'm still waiting to hear what Wellington responds with. Meantime -- it would appear that anyone can turn up anywhere and claim they're being persecuted by their home regime and expect to be welcomed as an asylum seeker. Then they wait some time to become a refugee. Then they they have a life in their new country. Why they would need a passport is a moot point -- didn't they just run away from their oppressors? BTW -- the whole concept of political refugee appears to be so much abused to have become a joke -- as possibly in this case....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtomtom69 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The caption underneath the picture reads: "Ekapop Luara (L) and his alleged New Zealand passport." Umm so is the "girl" on the left actually a good looking ladyboy? Because this is what the caption implys, that the person on the left is actually a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie Paul Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 It is the right of any sovereign state to issue to whomever it wishes, passport documentation, but one would hope it is done to serve basic humans rights etc. What is not realised is that often when a state issues documentation or gives asylum on political grounds - the person to whom they give it, becomes a state security "asset". I don't mean to be too cynical but NZ is part of the "five eyes" info exchange, so it's hard to know. I'd prefer to think that certain authorities in NZ just flat-out decided to protect a person they thought was endangered. And if that's the case, good on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtomtom69 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We no import the sheep, you know. Send Thai people back or we stop to eat the gaot. Well OK then, but we stop importing your rubbish pickup trucks then. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Freedom of speech is not a right in any country. Try standing on a soapbox in NY and start shouting about how you've got a plot to kill the president -- or a soapbox in Saudi advocating bikinis for women -- etc - etc...... 1.Saudi Arabia is not the US. 2. Freedom of speech in the US stops at liable, making threats or public nuisance (speeches at 3am). Your freedoms stop where they cause harm to others 112 is seen as a political weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.As long as the law is being applied in the incorrect manner, activists will keep claiming persection and the lack of a fair trial.I dont know what this bloke said, but, the world didn't stop because he said it, did it? I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. The guy would have been wise to have looked at what happened to the previous person who did whatever this trick was. New Zealand might be demonstrating their own brand of international ineptitude. Whilst they might not agree with Thailand's laws concerning lese majeste they probably don't agree with a bunch of laws in other countries but there's no fuss being made. It's distinctly possible that the situation is not as is currently being reported. Let's wait and see what the Wellington folks reply to Bangkok with............ No one would know what the previous blokes said. All the hearings are closed....and repeating the statements is illegal in Thailand at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biplanebluey Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I find it highly doubtful that they would be issued a passport within half a year of applying for asylum, unless they have had previous contact with NZ. At the most, they would be more likely to be issued with a refugee travel document*, although why they would need one of them is also debateable. How many asylum seekers need to immediately travel out of the country they have fled to? In short, until he shows the photo page of the passport, I say bulls*** to this story. *From the NZ passport website: "What is a Refugee Travel Document? A Refugee Travel Document may be issued to a person who is not a New Zealand citizen and who has refugee status confirmed by Immigration New Zealand. A New Zealand Refugee Travel Document is valid for a maximum of 2 years, and is valid from the date of issue until the date of expiry". Yes you are right----that is not their passports,they have not been in NZ long enough to that entitlement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisY1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws. Rubbish.......Thais should be able to speak about any subject.....whether military rule, the monarchy or otherwise...... NZ is portraying how most civilised, democratic countries react to dictatorial, draconian laws that have simply been used to quieten people and quash opponents. There are many more vastly important issues that Thailand needs to face, and act upon, other than chasing some kid who spoke his 2 cents worth.........! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chotthee Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws. Rubbish.......Thais should be able to speak about any subject.....whether military rule, the monarchy or otherwise...... NZ is portraying how most civilised, democratic countries react to dictatorial, draconian laws that have simply been used to quieten people and quash opponents. There are many more vastly important issues that Thailand needs to face, and act upon, other than chasing some kid who spoke his 2 cents worth.........! NZ cannot survive without cheap Thai exports, and revenue from Thai students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisY1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws. Rubbish.......Thais should be able to speak about any subject.....whether military rule, the monarchy or otherwise...... NZ is portraying how most civilised, democratic countries react to dictatorial, draconian laws that have simply been used to quieten people and quash opponents. There are many more vastly important issues that Thailand needs to face, and act upon, other than chasing some kid who spoke his 2 cents worth.........! NZ cannot survive without cheap Thai exports, and revenue from Thai students. Your avatar says it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 A post containing a derogatory generalization toward New Zealand people has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Lese Majeste has been illegal in Thailand since forever and is a well-known law to all Thais and a lot of foreigners. You might not like the law, but you must abide by it. Many laws are not popular and are in place for reasons not always agreeable to everyone, but that's just the way things are. New Zealand are setting a very bad example by not respecting a countrys right to create and apply its own laws.As long as the law is being applied in the incorrect manner, activists will keep claiming persection and the lack of a fair trial.I dont know what this bloke said, but, the world didn't stop because he said it, did it? I have no need to know what he did or said, but laws are applied/interpreted by the courts, usually based on precedent - not the current government nor the police/army. The guy would have been wise to have looked at what happened to the previous person who did whatever this trick was. New Zealand might be demonstrating their own brand of international ineptitude. Whilst they might not agree with Thailand's laws concerning lese majeste they probably don't agree with a bunch of laws in other countries but there's no fuss being made. It's distinctly possible that the situation is not as is currently being reported. Let's wait and see what the Wellington folks reply to Bangkok with............ No one would know what the previous blokes said. All the hearings are closed....and repeating the statements is illegal in Thailand at least. I agree with the last poster on this. So to the upholders of how the law is being applied, if you cannot know what was actually said or is the focus of the 112 claim, how can you know that the courts are not locking up innocent people? Simply, you can't. So true justice cannot be claimed in the application of the law. Only when the charges are open and the actual defamatory statements made public can one make a decision as to whether the party was actually guilty. Of course, to argue that judges have ruled incorrectly and are following a political agenda in any particular case is also illegal. MODS IF OVER THE BOUNDS PLEASE DELETE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 What did the guy do? I'm not sure what a person said verbatim can be repeated or else LM kicks in again. Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now