Thailand asks New Zealand to clarify status of Thai exiles

[jpinx]

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

Whilst I agree that the system is not perfect, it is no worse, and arguably considerably better, than being seized in a foreign land without charges, transported to undisclosed locations, questioned by physically cruel methods and locked up without representation or possibility of appeal. All done by the worlds supposed "leading nation" who now has the audacity to comment on other nations implementation of their own laws within their own borders. NZ has been a party to that regime and now tries to play the "other side" ???

I am expressly not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any specific law, only about the hyprocrísy of people who claim to be persecuted in their own country when in fact they merely broke some laws which have been in existence for a long time and are well-known. Whether they like the law or not is immaterial -- whether the law is reasonable or not is irrelevant -- it is the law. You can not choose to obey some laws and not others.

Does this mean that a person can claim some kind of asylum seekers status in one of the USA states that allows cannabis use, because he can not use it in his own country?

[surangw]

just to show who's in charge, they didn't flee, they were exiled

[rjcampbe]

Freedom of speech is not a right - it is a responsibility.

Jpinx,

Not sure how you formed that opinion, but in my opinion, you comment clearly defines the problem.... Freedom of Speech is a right in any civilized country in the modern world. I find it interesting that the places where it is most strongly suppressed are the places where it is needed most.

You are partially correct that freedom of speech also requires responsibility in its use. In the US it's not always used correctly, or intelligently, and sometimes it can be downright ugly... but I, for one, agree with Voltaire who said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

In the US or out of the US, verbally or in writing, I have the right to say that I think Barack Obama is a complete fool with a dimwitted approach to foreign policy and he should never have been elected president in the first place. I can also say that I think that "W" was an 8 year embarrassment to the nation and I pray to god that we don't get yet another incompetent Bush in the White House next year. And, Mr. Can't-keep-his-slick-willie-in-his-pants Clinton and his wife Hillary? Don't even get me started.

There is nothing in any of those statements that would not be covered by my first amendment rights, and in fact ...should I choose to... I could go MUCH further with my criticism and still be within my rights. Unless I were to threaten harm or commit slander or libel (and for a public figure even that would have to be fairly egregious...) there is nothing that can be done to me for expressing my opinion. If there is one thing that I can honestly say that I miss about the US, it would be the Bill of Rights.

The most relevant ones being: Freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Protections from illegal search and seizure. Warrants based on probable cause. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment and self incrimination.

But in Thailand, by contrast, even respectful disagreement or intellectual debate is sufficient to draw charges. Even intellectual debate about the pros and cons of the law itself is sufficient to draw charges. And by extension of this principle, a person can be charged with, AND FOUND GUILTY OF, defamation for reporting 100% factual information about a person or business even if you have documented proof it is 100% true.

How can you possibly expect to make progress in addressing any of the various issues that Thailand is faced with unless this most fundamental right is assured?

[yardrunner]

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.

New Zealand is an independent country with its own laws and has the right to grant asylum to whom whoever it wishes and if the Thai government doesn't like it tough. Where would the west be now if governments had not given asylum to scientists and engineers being persecuted by the Nazis

[GarryP]

Freedom of speech is not a right - it is a responsibility.

Jpinx,

Not sure how you formed that opinion, but in my opinion, you comment clearly defines the problem.... Freedom of Speech is a right in any civilized country in the modern world. I find it interesting that the places where it is most strongly suppressed are the places where it is needed most.

You are partially correct that freedom of speech also requires responsibility in its use. In the US it's not always used correctly, or intelligently, and sometimes it can be downright ugly... but I, for one, agree with Voltaire who said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

In the US or out of the US, verbally or in writing, I have the right to say that I think Barack Obama is a complete fool with a dimwitted approach to foreign policy and he should never have been elected president in the first place. I can also say that I think that "W" was an 8 year embarrassment to the nation and I pray to god that we don't get yet another incompetent Bush in the White House next year. And, Mr. Can't-keep-his-slick-willie-in-his-pants Clinton and his wife Hillary? Don't even get me started.

There is nothing in any of those statements that would not be covered by my first amendment rights, and in fact ...should I choose to... I could go MUCH further with my criticism and still be within my rights. Unless I were to threaten harm or commit slander or libel (and for a public figure even that would have to be fairly egregious...) there is nothing that can be done to me for expressing my opinion. If there is one thing that I can honestly say that I miss about the US, it would be the Bill of Rights.

The most relevant ones being: Freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Protections from illegal search and seizure. Warrants based on probable cause. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment and self incrimination.

But in Thailand, by contrast, even respectful disagreement or intellectual debate is sufficient to draw charges. Even intellectual debate about the pros and cons of the law itself is sufficient to draw charges. And by extension of this principle, a person can be charged with, AND FOUND GUILTY OF, defamation for reporting 100% factual information about a person or business even if you have documented proof it is 100% true.

How can you possibly expect to make progress in addressing any of the various issues that Thailand is faced with unless this most fundamental right is assured?

Spot on.

[airconsult]

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............

And by the use of the one word "precedent" you have shown you don't know c*ap about the legal system here.

Good luck with that.

[HerbalEd]

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.

If "all" people "always" obeyed "every" law ... including the oppressive ones that deny freedom, the world would be a very bad place. E.g., French Revolution, Magna Carter, American Revolution, India, Mexican, etc. independence, civil rights demonstrations, abolishment of slavery, etc., etc., etc.

Do you think NZ should also respect North Korea's and Syria's "right to create and apply it's own laws"?

Edited January 6, 2015 by HerbalEd

[cookee68]

I notice Thaksin was not on this list, It only breaks Thai law, which in effect is only valid when in Thailand, then even tried to have Farang outside of Thailand, to be deported to Thailand because of les majestic laws they broke in their own country, does Thailand not know that when in another country of free speech they have not broken the Thai law, as their laws do not apply in a foreign country

[kiwikeith]

This has been going on since May. Get yourself to civilization and claim asylum on the grounds of political persecution. Good lurk for reds who have the cash and want a valued passport. But don't try it in Aussie or we'll send ya to PNG and maybe even to Kampuchea. These MFA bozos are just proving to the Kiwi's that anyone who criticises the Junta also has grounds for asylum.

New Zealand does not grant asylum easily, there might be more to this , someone should go to Cory's electrical and ask him, the Thai in the PIC, he has the tee shirt on.

He also must have had money to get to NZ and may have employed a corrupt immigration company to act for him, one of these is owned by an ex MP for National who is known to guarantee you a visa for certain amounts of cash.

The country also jailed a Labour MP for taking backhanders to get Thais visas.

Many of the MP's involved are still MP's.

New Zealand is not clean and green it is as corrupt as any other country and something or someone pulled some strings to get these 2 passports if this is true.

At least Aussie sends them into detention pending.

What do we do with them ?, deport them or give them a house to live in and a benefit to live on.

But if you are a European with just cause to stay or retire in Thailand you fight immigration for a lousy one year visa or one month ect , then if your Russian you can come and go as you please.

[wirat69]

His Facebook page is no longer available.... not available for last 2 - 3 days.

https://www.facebook.com/Eakapop.Luara.GOON

New Zealand needs to note this guy is not an Ahmed Zoaui (excuse spelling). This guy is fully involved in political agitation in is native country, not a benign displaced citizen.

Prime Minister John Key will need big balls if he wishes to continue to aggravate NZ's 10th largest trading partner!!

[englishoak]

All blacks 1 Thainess 0

[wirat69]

New Zealand does not grant asylum easily, there might be more to this , someone should go to Cory's electrical and ask him, the Thai in the PIC, he has the tee shirt on.

I already checked that out.... Cory's say he works for a contractor and is wearing a giveaway T-Shirt

Cory's were seeking legal advice, as of Saturday last

[Thai at Heart]

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

Whilst I agree that the system is not perfect, it is no worse, and arguably considerably better, than being seized in a foreign land without charges, transported to undisclosed locations, questioned by physically cruel methods and locked up without representation or possibility of appeal. All done by the worlds supposed "leading nation" who now has the audacity to comment on other nations implementation of their own laws within their own borders. NZ has been a party to that regime and now tries to play the "other side" ???

I am expressly not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any specific law, only about the hyprocrísy of people who claim to be persecuted in their own country when in fact they merely broke some laws which have been in existence for a long time and are well-known. Whether they like the law or not is immaterial -- whether the law is reasonable or not is irrelevant -- it is the law. You can not choose to obey some laws and not others.

Does this mean that a person can claim some kind of asylum seekers status in one of the USA states that allows cannabis use, because he can not use it in his own country?

You nor I have any idea what he said, so it is utterly moot.

[Leung Falang]

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.

from wikipedia: Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ,,,,,,

Edited January 6, 2015 by Leung Falang

[Christie Paul]

The use of the word "law" seems a bit loose here.

The is a strong delineation between "law" i.e. principled, non contradictory and universally accepted conventions, expressed as Common, Torts, Cannon, UCC, Napoleonic etc., as opposed to rules and regulations, which have the force of law.

The latter are not laws, they are all too often contracts obtained by trickery, thuggery and augmented by ignorance. And having them enshrined on official looking bits of paper and enforced with armed men dressed is military costume, does not make them law.

Even so, often it is better to obey than have your face smashed in or be locked up in a cage.

[tbthailand]

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............

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 a right.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

[tbthailand]

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.

LM is an archaic, draconian law and is exclusively a political / ideological weapon.

Case in point, if you do 'something', then in every other case, it is possible to look at the laws and regulations and have a good idea if that 'something' is legal or illegal.

With LM, if you do 'something' and someone else thinks that this 'something' is LM, then in Thailand that person can file a complaint of LM against you. When it comes before a court, if the judge in front of you agrees, then you go to jail (actually in Thailand under LM charges, you are extremely likely to still be in jail).

LM is a law where you go to jail not based on what you did but based on how someone else feels about what you did.

[jayboy]

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.

New Zealand is in no way disrespecting Thailand's right to create and apply its own laws within its own borders. The MFA should respect the Kiwi's right to honour their obligations towards political refugees. If the MFA, or anyone else, are expecting a modern and progressive society to take any action on the basis of 112 they are demented.

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.

Not quite.The crime has also to be a crime in the country from which extradition is sought.In the case under discussion the New Zealanders would not even regard it as an offence.

[tropo]

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".

Plus he'd need to become a New Zealand citizen to get a NZ passport.... and he's even claiming a New Zealand passport for his GF. He'd have to be a bona fide resident (not a refugee) for at least 5 years to get citizenship.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[jpinx]

Still no word from Wellington. That will be an acid test for a country to give refuge to a long-term political activist. This guy is not - as has been pointed out already -- just a victim. He has created his own situation with full awareness of what he was doing. For any western country to allow such a person to seek refuge from the consequences of his actions makes a mockery of the whole asylum system. But I suppose they can always quote the precedent of the USA allowing known IRA activists in. The lack of reciprocal agreements didn't stop USA just going in and getting whoever they wanted, without charges, legal representation or trial. Maybe Thailand could take a leaf out of that book

Edited January 7, 2015 by jpinx

[rjcampbe]

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

Whilst I agree that the system is not perfect, it is no worse, and arguably considerably better, than being seized in a foreign land without charges, transported to undisclosed locations, questioned by physically cruel methods and locked up without representation or possibility of appeal. All done by the worlds supposed "leading nation" who now has the audacity to comment on other nations implementation of their own laws within their own borders. NZ has been a party to that regime and now tries to play the "other side" ???

I am expressly not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any specific law, only about the hyprocrísy of people who claim to be persecuted in their own country when in fact they merely broke some laws which have been in existence for a long time and are well-known. Whether they like the law or not is immaterial -- whether the law is reasonable or not is irrelevant -- it is the law. You can not choose to obey some laws and not others.

Does this mean that a person can claim some kind of asylum seekers status in one of the USA states that allows cannabis use, because he can not use it in his own country?

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

[gomangosteen]

Still no word from Wellington

^ I guess you are expecting a direct call??

****************************

I expect that any facts presented around NZ's refugee quota will not be digested well by the experts here, but such as they are.

Put simply, yes NZ takes approx 750 refugees per year who are given permanent residence on arrival.

7065 over the past 10 years (source)

Above this number, asylum seekers may also apply.

Apart from a mention on Facebook, there is no official mention of 'political asylum' apart from the posters whose diapers appear to be in a knot today. Why the rage/hate, about a topic it is patently obvious you are neither informed about, nor can make the effort to eg Google accurate information?

Each year New Zealand accepts 750 refugees for resettlement through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as part of its commitment to being a good international citizen.

New Zealand has been accepting refugees for resettlement since World War II, and now accepts 750 (plus or minus 10 percent) annually. In recent years, a focus on refugees in special need of protection – as identified by the UNHCR – has resulted in the resettlement of a diverse range of nationalities from regions as far afield as East Africa and the Middle East. More recently, increasing numbers of refugees have come from the Asia-Pacific region. A three-year quota has been put in place to assist with long-term planning and to provide more certainty for agencies resettling refugees.

Quota refugees are given permanent residence on arrival in New Zealand and spend their first six weeks at the Department’s Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre.

In addition to quota refugees, New Zealand considers claims from asylum seekers who claim refugee status when they arrive in New Zealand. Where appropriate, they too are initially accommodated at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre. In 2011/12, 364 (claims and subsequent claims) were decided, with 115 of them approved.

Source: Immigration NZ Refugee Resettlement Factsheet

[baboon]

Still no word from Wellington. That will be an acid test for a country to give refuge to a long-term political activist. This guy is not - as has been pointed out already -- just a victim. He has created his own situation with full awareness of what he was doing. For any western country to allow such a person to seek refuge from the consequences of his actions makes a mockery of the whole asylum system. But I suppose they can always quote the precedent of the USA allowing known IRA activists in. The lack of reciprocal agreements didn't stop USA just going in and getting whoever they wanted, without charges, legal representation or trial. Maybe Thailand could take a leaf out of that book

So when will you be handing in your passport? I will happily photograph the event for you free of charge.

[jpinx]

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

Whilst I agree that the system is not perfect, it is no worse, and arguably considerably better, than being seized in a foreign land without charges, transported to undisclosed locations, questioned by physically cruel methods and locked up without representation or possibility of appeal. All done by the worlds supposed "leading nation" who now has the audacity to comment on other nations implementation of their own laws within their own borders. NZ has been a party to that regime and now tries to play the "other side" ???

I am expressly not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any specific law, only about the hyprocrísy of people who claim to be persecuted in their own country when in fact they merely broke some laws which have been in existence for a long time and are well-known. Whether they like the law or not is immaterial -- whether the law is reasonable or not is irrelevant -- it is the law. You can not choose to obey some laws and not others.

Does this mean that a person can claim some kind of asylum seekers status in one of the USA states that allows cannabis use, because he can not use it in his own country?

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

Of course you can disagree and express opinion in Thailand, but you need to do it within the law. In Oz, US, UK, etc that would be covered by the draconian laws which exist under the range of headings from "prevention of terrorism" to "libel". There are many laws which are applied selectively in western countries - including NZ. Freedom of the press is a figment of the publics imagination -- the press is bought and paid for in every country in the world. Ask the Murdochs how that goes The law might not explicitly say it in your country, but for every freedom you claim, you must also accept the responsibility of the consequences of exercising that freedom. Everyone wants freedom, but they are all slaves to the ones who lead the mindless chanting of the crowd. Thailand is not the same as other countries and it has a right to make it's own way in the world. If you don't like that -- leave. If the locals don't like it - they have their own social systems to sort out their differences.

[GarryP]

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

Whilst I agree that the system is not perfect, it is no worse, and arguably considerably better, than being seized in a foreign land without charges, transported to undisclosed locations, questioned by physically cruel methods and locked up without representation or possibility of appeal. All done by the worlds supposed "leading nation" who now has the audacity to comment on other nations implementation of their own laws within their own borders. NZ has been a party to that regime and now tries to play the "other side" ???

I am expressly not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any specific law, only about the hyprocrísy of people who claim to be persecuted in their own country when in fact they merely broke some laws which have been in existence for a long time and are well-known. Whether they like the law or not is immaterial -- whether the law is reasonable or not is irrelevant -- it is the law. You can not choose to obey some laws and not others.

Does this mean that a person can claim some kind of asylum seekers status in one of the USA states that allows cannabis use, because he can not use it in his own country?

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

Of course you can disagree and express opinion in Thailand, but you need to do it within the law. In Oz, US, UK, etc that would be covered by the draconian laws which exist under the range of headings from "prevention of terrorism" to "libel". There are many laws which are applied selectively in western countries - including NZ. Freedom of the press is a figment of the publics imagination -- the press is bought and paid for in every country in the world. Ask the Murdochs how that goes The law might not explicitly say it in your country, but for every freedom you claim, you must also accept the responsibility of the consequences of exercising that freedom. Everyone wants freedom, but they are all slaves to the ones who lead the mindless chanting of the crowd. Thailand is not the same as other countries and it has a right to make it's own way in the world. If you don't like that -- leave. If the locals don't like it - they have their own social systems to sort out their differences.

You cannot express a negative opinion of the royal institution in Thailand. There is no possible way to do so within the bounds of the law, even if that opinion is well thought out and presented in a non-contentious manner (couldn't think of a better word). Can one comment on what is supposedly going on behind the scenes now without putting yourself at risk of falling foul of 112? To conclude, you cannot express a negative opinion, on the subject matter, within the bounds of the law. And stop trying to compare apples with oranges. Freedom of the press? We are talking about freedom of speech in Thailand. Strawman arguments at best.

Finishing off with the old "accept it or leave" just shows your inability to accept differing opinions. Many foreigners love the country, but it does not mean that they have to accept everything as it stands. There are many things that could be improved.

And "If the locals don't like it" - they do NOT have their own social systems to sort out their differences when it comes to this subject. They are locked up before they are even brought before the court. Guilty until proven innocent (see the vindictive brother case).

[rjcampbe]

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

Of course you can disagree and express opinion in Thailand, but you need to do it within the law. In Oz, US, UK, etc that would be covered by the draconian laws which exist under the range of headings from "prevention of terrorism" to "libel". There are many laws which are applied selectively in western countries - including NZ. Freedom of the press is a figment of the publics imagination -- the press is bought and paid for in every country in the world. Ask the Murdochs how that goes The law might not explicitly say it in your country, but for every freedom you claim, you must also accept the responsibility of the consequences of exercising that freedom. Everyone wants freedom, but they are all slaves to the ones who lead the mindless chanting of the crowd. Thailand is not the same as other countries and it has a right to make it's own way in the world. If you don't like that -- leave. If the locals don't like it - they have their own social systems to sort out their differences.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Is the press in the US and elsewhere controlled, or at least influenced, by money and politics? Of course it is... But the freedoms of speech and press enable me to start my own paper, blog, website, post on TVF, or just stand on the corner and say whatever I want to say. You go down to Victory Monument today and give that a try. When we don't see you posting on TVF anymore we'll have a pretty good idea how that went for you.

Yes, there ARE some things you are allowed to disagree about, unless your disagreement offends Khun Prayuth... But the issue is that there are also many things that you can not even address and you know what they are. They are so forbidden that they can't even be named. You can respond with the standard "Thainess" answer of "Thailand is not the same as other countries..." but that doesn't change the reality that this issue is fundamental to the growth and development of Thailand. Not to impose somebody else's rules on Thailand to make it exactly like any other country, but to make it a better place for all of the Thai people so they can live better, happier, healthier lives and be able to share in the richness of this beautiful country.

As I said... no country or individual lives up to its principles 100% of the time. The issue is that you have to have the rules in place to allow for corrections to happen because all humans are fallible. It should not be against the law to say so.

[rjcampbe]

Jpinx,

Thank you for making my point for me.

I also think that the US policy that allows "enemy combatants" to be detained in secret prisons outside US borders so they can be tortured and tried in military courts without the right to attorneys and other protections of due process is disgusting and reprehensible. Those practices have stained the reputation of the country and incited our enemies to even more violence.

The difference is that, because of the Bill of Rights, I can raise my voice against this policy and the people who implement it. I can say that my government is wrong for doing it. I can say that this practice violates every principle that the country was founded on, and that it makes me sick that the country has gone so far from its founding principles that it is nothing but a hollow shell of the country it once was. I can also say that George W and Barack Obama (and all their various minions) should be tried for war crimes for doing it (Or at the minimum they should be held accountable for violating the civil rights of these prisoners under US law.)

And, FYI, I'm no radical... I know that no country is perfect, certainly not the US, and I know that no matter how high minded their principles may be, people rarely live up to their ideals 100% of the time. But, I grew up to believe in the vision of the country and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal", and I raised my hand and took an oath to support and defend the the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Today, the country does not even resemble the country I swore to defend because they are treating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like its written on an etch-a-sketch.

But in Thailand, you are not even allowed to disagree. You can not express your opinion, no matter how thoughtfully, or how intellectually, or how respectfully it is presented. And in cases like LM, you are not even allowed know the details of what was said or done so you can even FORM an opinion.

I simply can not fathom how you can suggest that this is "arguably considerably better".

Of course you can disagree and express opinion in Thailand, but you need to do it within the law. In Oz, US, UK, etc that would be covered by the draconian laws which exist under the range of headings from "prevention of terrorism" to "libel". There are many laws which are applied selectively in western countries - including NZ. Freedom of the press is a figment of the publics imagination -- the press is bought and paid for in every country in the world. Ask the Murdochs how that goes The law might not explicitly say it in your country, but for every freedom you claim, you must also accept the responsibility of the consequences of exercising that freedom. Everyone wants freedom, but they are all slaves to the ones who lead the mindless chanting of the crowd. Thailand is not the same as other countries and it has a right to make it's own way in the world. If you don't like that -- leave. If the locals don't like it - they have their own social systems to sort out their differences.

You cannot express a negative opinion of the royal institution in Thailand. There is no possible way to do so within the bounds of the law, even if that opinion is well thought out and presented in a non-contentious manner (couldn't think of a better word). Can one comment on what is supposedly going on behind the scenes now without putting yourself at risk of falling foul of 112? To conclude, you cannot express a negative opinion, on the subject matter, within the bounds of the law. And stop trying to compare apples with oranges. Freedom of the press? We are talking about freedom of speech in Thailand. Strawman arguments at best.

Finishing off with the old "accept it or leave" just shows your inability to accept differing opinions. Many foreigners love the country, but it does not mean that they have to accept everything as it stands. There are many things that could be improved.

And "If the locals don't like it" - they do NOT have their own social systems to sort out their differences when it comes to this subject. They are locked up before they are even brought before the court. Guilty until proven innocent (see the vindictive brother case).

GarryP,

Spot on.

I guess maybe the Thai "social systems" Jpinx is referring to are the graft and corruption and protests and violence and coup after coup after coup that have been tearing this country apart for a couple of decades...

Jpinx, Mea culpa... Forgive me for suggesting that their might be a better way forward...

[jpinx]

You cannot express a negative opinion of the royal institution in Thailand. There is no possible way to do so within the bounds of the law, even if that opinion is well thought out and presented in a non-contentious manner (couldn't think of a better word). Can one comment on what is supposedly going on behind the scenes now without putting yourself at risk of falling foul of 112? To conclude, you cannot express a negative opinion, on the subject matter, within the bounds of the law. And stop trying to compare apples with oranges. Freedom of the press? We are talking about freedom of speech in Thailand. Strawman arguments at best.

Finishing off with the old "accept it or leave" just shows your inability to accept differing opinions. Many foreigners love the country, but it does not mean that they have to accept everything as it stands. There are many things that could be improved.

And "If the locals don't like it" - they do NOT have their own social systems to sort out their differences when it comes to this subject. They are locked up before they are even brought before the court. Guilty until proven innocent (see the vindictive brother case).

Innocent until proven guilty is by no means a right in most countries. Take a look at UK tax law for a good example of bad laws and presumed guilt.

How the LM laws are applied is no worse than how US decided to apply is "war on terrorism" or how the UK applied it's anti-terrorism laws in Northern Ireland.

Thailand has a very structured society from village chiefs right up to the top. The thing they unfortunately don't have is good education so bully-boys tend to get in positions of power -- but that is not so strange. Take a look at the characters in many so-called democracies.

You are a guest in a foreign land -- accept the conditions as they are or leave. You can not cherry-pick the laws you like and you have no rights to vote for change because you (and I) are only guest.

Someone else mentioned freedom of the press -- sorry for that confusion. Freedom of speech in ALL countries is governed by the laws of that country. Everything from prevention of terrorism to libel. Negative commentary is not allowed about religion in Islamic countries. Is that internationally condemned?

Keep it coming. I appreciate the debate and the fact that it is civil.

[Seastallion]

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".

Agreed. Every Thai-Kiwi relationship knows the hoops that one has to jump through and the time it takes, for a valid, married-to-a-Kiwi Thai to even get a temporary visa. Passports (ie citizenship) takes a lot. The background looks very NZ. his T shirt is NZ, I have no doubt that they are in NZ, but I have serious doubts as to the authenticity of the passports being theirs....the writer of the article does too, by the wording and tone.

My guess is that it's a ploy to get the Thai authorities to think they're gone for good.

Or maybe they're just jumping the gun, having submitted an application for citizenship.