NLA passes public gathering bill

[webfact]

NLA passes public gathering bill



BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly today overwhelmingly passed the first reading of a bill that restricts political demonstrations.

The bill that will regulate public gathering was passed with 182:0 votes while four NLA members abstained.

A 22-member committee was set up to complete the bill scrutiny in 30 days. Among other things, the bill prohibits demonstrators from rallying inside the Parliament, the Government House and courts’ compound.

Currently, public gatherings of more than five people is banned by martial law.

Under the bill, police would have to be informed of a protest at least 24 hours in advance and gatherings between 6 pm and 6 am would be banned unless protesters got permission.

Meanwhile critics say if the bill becomes law, it will help the current military regime to stifle dissent.

The law was seen to replace martial law and control political protests which infringes on people’s rights, a strong critics said.

The bill still needs two readings by the NLA before it becomes law. Once it becomes law, it will ban protests outside courts, parliament and the prime minister’s offices, he said.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/284863-imagepng-444833-wpcf_728x413.jpg


-- Thai PBS 2015-02-26

[Plowman]

They know the Reds will be coming, and when the time arrives, this law won't stop them.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Plowman

[barry51]

They know the Reds will be coming, and when the time arrives, this law won't stop them.

This law is to stop reds, yellows, blue, greens and pinks from holding the country to ransom. I think this is a good move from the military again.

[Plowman]

They know the Reds will be coming, and when the time arrives, this law won't stop them.

This law is to stop reds, yellows, blue, greens and pinks from holding the country to ransom. I think this is a good move from the military again.

They know the Reds will be coming, and when the time arrives, this law won't stop them.

[webfact]

Junta's Lawmakers Approve Bill to Restrict Rallies

By Khaosod English

BANGKOK – The Thai junta’s rubber-stamp parliament has unanimously approved the first draft of a bill that would restrict political demonstrations in Thailand.

The bill, named the Public Rallies Act, was approved today in a 182-0 vote by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), whose members were hand-picked by the ruling junta.

The bill will now go to a 22-member subcommittee before it returns to the assembly for a second vote one month from now.

According to a draft of the bill, public rallies will required to be peaceful and respect the "boundary of rights and liberties ascribed by the Constitution."

If approved and enforced, the act will also place the following restrictions on protests:

The area within a 150-meter radius of any royal palace and residences of guests who are formally invited by the Royal Thai Family will be declared off-limits to any protest.

No protest can take place in the premises of the Government House, Parliament, and courts, except with approval from relevant state agencies.

The Commander of the Royal Thai Police has the power to declare the area within 50-meter radius of the Government House, Parliament, and courts off-limits to any protest.

Organizers of potential rallies are required to alert authorities at least 24 hours before the demonstrations take place. They are required to state the purpose, date, time, and place of the rallies.

Security officers can obtain orders from courts to disperse rallies in which "demonstrators commit any act of violence that may cause danger to the lives and property of others, and lead to chaos in the country."

In the event of an order to declare any area off-limit to protests, violators face a maximum jail term of 10 years.

Speaking to the assembly before the vote this morning, NLA member and Thammasat University rector Somkid Lertpaitoon said he supported the bill, but had some reservations.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1424943587

-- Khaosod English 2015-02-26

[brucec64]

There is a certain irony in the fact that protests were used to create the situation that allowed the army to step in and create the NLA, and now the NLA is closing that avenue.

[chainarong]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

[NongKhaiKid]

It's our ball so we make the rules and choose the teams.

[Fatty123]

182-0. Now, didn't PT get a vote like that once? That was an outrage. Meanwhile...

The whole legal process in Thailand is just a huge rubber stamp for the General. He now owns Thailand. Kneel before him.

[iReason]

Told you.

It's only gonna get worse.

Next up:

Social Media.

They've already started with registering your phones.

[thesetat2013]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

Maybe you can give them the finger but you can not impede workers for the gov nor can you storm their offices looting and being destructive. So your point is mute

[tbthailand]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

Maybe you can give them the finger but you can not impede workers for the gov nor can you storm their offices looting and being destructive. So your point is mute

like the PAD and the PDRC...

others have already pointed out the irony involved in this rubber-stamp legislation.

I find the comparison between the protests of the 2 political factions and the respective responses of the governments interesting. Just the 2014 to 2010 events are interesting. 2010, 2 months of protests, aggressive government response, ends with violent military crack down. 2014, 6 months of protests, "restrained" government response (voluntarily but also imposed by the courts), ends with military 'intervention'...

Superficially, the 2 "public gatherings" seem similar, yet they were diametrically opposed, eg: calling for elections vs blocking elections. The only true point in common between the two is the military holding all the cards in the end...

[WhizBang]

Well, of course, they can make all the new laws they like, but will the police actually enforce them?

The previous excesses of political rallies could have been nipped in the bud had the police moved in and stopped them. In fact, during the previous rallies the RTP were MIA.

[tomacht8]

I think this is a form of practical demonstration law.

In many countries of the world, there is a right to demonstrate.

This is a fundamental right.

And demonstrations must be registered before.
Police must plan to block the streets from traffic, etc.

Furthermore then we must ask, who decides whether a demonstration can take place or not?

Edited February 26, 2015 by tomacht8

[sweatalot]

There is a certain irony in the fact that protests were used to create the situation that allowed the army to step in and create the NLA, and now the NLA is closing that avenue.

This law would be very good.

With this law in place we wouldn't have the 2010 crackdown because the red shirt rallye would have taken place in a peaceful manner or not at all.

The democratic government would have had time to change things. Probably the shin governments after that would not have been in place and Thailand would have had a chance of developing democracy.

Edited February 26, 2015 by sweatalot

[sweatalot]

Well, of course, they can make all the new laws they like, but will the police actually enforce them?

The previous excesses of political rallies could have been nipped in the bud had the police moved in and stopped them. In fact, during the previous rallies the RTP were MIA.

The RTP did not do anything because those rallyes were in favour of their patron

This issue has to be cleared first and foremost.

Edited February 26, 2015 by sweatalot

[phoenixdoglover]

Just another cudgel in a burgeoning collection.

Thank goodness these small devices are in the hands of "good people".

Because if the poorly regarded police were to be part of the restrictions, and action or inaction in the face of protests, there might be an issue.

Oh, wait.

[waitforusalso]

They forgot to report the clause that this only applies to rallies that are anti current establishment. For rallies in support of their side they would provide off-duty soldiers as guards.

[tbthailand]

There is a certain irony in the fact that protests were used to create the situation that allowed the army to step in and create the NLA, and now the NLA is closing that avenue.

This law would be very good.

With this law in place we wouldn't have the 2010 crackdown because the red shirt rallye would have taken place in a peaceful manner or not at all.

The democratic government would have had time to change things. Probably the shin governments after that would not have been in place and Thailand would have had a chance of developing democracy.

and then you mean that with this law, we would not have had an intervention in 2014 because the protests would not have occupied government buildings or blocked elections.... or as you say, the PDRC rallies would have taken place in a peaceful manner or not at all...

[tomacht8]

Well, of course, they can make all the new laws they like, but will the police actually enforce them?

The previous excesses of political rallies could have been nipped in the bud had the police moved in and stopped them. In fact, during the previous rallies the RTP were MIA.

I seem to recall a officer getting his legs blown to pieces when the PDRC scum threw a grenade at police lines. Every man and his dog knew heavily armed military were embedded amongst the PDRC looking to spill a bit of blood to provide justification for a coup. Yingluck handled the situation exceptionally well as we can see by the fact that even though the military kangaroo court is in full swing there has been not a single charge laid against the last democratically elected government of Thailand for its treatment of criminal protestors. Lets of course also not forget that the courts ruled the police could not take action against the protestors as the protestors had a right to hold the nation to ransom to their own fascistic desires. Thailand woes are all consequences of the military overstepping its role since 1932.

This is like one image from a running movie.

Do you remember the massacre of Trat?

Where the police officer enters the stage and said: He has good news?

[casualbiker]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

I don't know where your from but I'm from the UK and if people want to do a protest march around Parliament for example then they need authority from the Met and if blocking any roads while marching also the local authority.. It obviously depends on how its handled but on past experience in Thailand I think its a good thing.

Met website : http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Organising-a-protest-march-or-static-demonstration/1400002380711/1400002380711

[baboon]

^^

Fair enough. Time will tell, one way or another.

[Srikcir]

Does this bill then require the next military coup to notify the police least 24 hours in advance and gatherings between 6 pm and 6 am would be banned unless it got permission?

Now that would be revolutionary!

[rametindallas]

gatherings between 6 pm and 6 am would be banned unless protesters got permission.

This is a good thing. Citizens can gather, be on television, make their speeches and then go home for the night. People in the neighborhood can get some much-needed rest. No more permanent protest encampments like the ones we saw in 2010 with the UDD and 2014 with the PDRC. No more squalor of people living on the streets for months at a time. How civilized.

p.s. It will be a lot more difficult to smuggle weapons into a group without the cover of darkness.

Edited February 26, 2015 by rametindallas

[rametindallas]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

Maybe you can give them the finger but you can not impede workers for the gov nor can you storm their offices looting and being destructive. So your point is mute

like the PAD and the PDRC...

others have already pointed out the irony involved in this rubber-stamp legislation.

I find the comparison between the protests of the 2 political factions and the respective responses of the governments interesting. Just the 2014 to 2010 events are interesting. 2010, 2 months of protests, aggressive government response, ends with violent military crack down. 2014, 6 months of protests, "restrained" government response (voluntarily but also imposed by the courts), ends with military 'intervention'...

Superficially, the 2 "public gatherings" seem similar, yet they were diametrically opposed, eg: calling for elections vs blocking elections. The only true point in common between the two is the military holding all the cards in the end...

Seems you conviently left out the fact that the 2010 group were using military weapons.

[tbthailand]

The strong basis for a democracy is the freedom of expression , where I come from you can give the Prime Minister the finger , at the moment some of his inner circle Ministers are doing just that, however where you cannot protest or the rules are so strict you can't move, it could be construed as stifling debate, the rights of humans besides elephants in Thailand needs investigating by the UN.

Maybe you can give them the finger but you can not impede workers for the gov nor can you storm their offices looting and being destructive. So your point is mute

like the PAD and the PDRC...

others have already pointed out the irony involved in this rubber-stamp legislation.

I find the comparison between the protests of the 2 political factions and the respective responses of the governments interesting. Just the 2014 to 2010 events are interesting. 2010, 2 months of protests, aggressive government response, ends with violent military crack down. 2014, 6 months of protests, "restrained" government response (voluntarily but also imposed by the courts), ends with military 'intervention'...

Superficially, the 2 "public gatherings" seem similar, yet they were diametrically opposed, eg: calling for elections vs blocking elections. The only true point in common between the two is the military holding all the cards in the end...

Seems you conviently left out the fact that the 2010 group were using military weapons.

I didn't conveniently leave out anything.

However, you do state that (1) explaining the relevance to my comparison, and (2) as if there were no military grade weapons among the protesters in 2014...

You seem to miss the fact that the final result of any conflict depends on the attitudes and actions of both sides. As I point out, the government response in 2010 was very aggressive. That undoubtedly contributed significantly to the level of violence and the government's actions clearly increased the number of casualties.

[tbthailand]

The royalists have a bit of history with courts, laws, and protests... Interesting that they now have control and want to limit the ability to protest.

Somkid Lertpaitoon said he supported the bill, ... He ... pointed to a Constitutional Court verdict in 2006 that ruled against requiring citizens to ask permission to protest in public . The court ruled that such a law would violate the constitutional provision on freedom of assembly.

"I am not sure how much the verdict of the Constitutional Court will affect this law," Somkid said.

2006 would have been the courts giving free rein to the PAD to protest. Not terribly unlike the courts prohibiting measures to control the protesters in 2014.

Some things come back to bite you in the butt...

[webfact]

NLA gives go ahead to bill on protests
The Nation

RestrIctIons on publIc assembly to make demonstrations more orderly without impinging on freedom of expression

BANGKOK: -- The public Assembly Bill, which requires protesters to inform authorities in advance of their activities and imposes restrictions on them and the authorities, sailed through its first reading at the National Legislative Assembly yesterday.

The vote was 182-0 with four abstentions.

Protesters will need to give authorities at least 24 hours in advance details on the purpose of their gathering, the venue and the duration

Protests will be prohibited within 150 metres of any palace, royal residence or residence of guests of the royal family.

Protesters will also be barred from gathering anywhere closer than 50 metres of Government House, Parliament House and other important government buildings, including courthouses.

Court approval needed to end protest

If a rally is judged as violent and a threat to life and property, authorities can seek court approval to end the protest.

While waiting for the court ruling, officers in charge can order an end to the protest and declare the area a restricted zone.

Offenders could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Deputy Prime Minister Visanu Krua-ngam told the assembly that the bill is based on four principles.

First is allowing demonstrators to only notify authorities, which is different from forcing them to seek permission.

Second is encouraging local authorities both in Bangkok and the provinces to provide a space specifically designated for demonstrations that would not require protesters to inform the authorities ahead of time.

Third is guaranteeing the right to freedom of assembly in accordance with international norms.

Security officers cannot disperse a demonstration even if it is deemed illegal unless they get court approval.

Fourth is making demonstrations more orderly.

Authorities will learn about rallies in advance and can find ways to deal with the situation. Police will be trained to be patient in handling the crowd and plans will have to be submitted by the National Police for Cabinet approval on how to handle crowds.

There is no guarantee that there will be fewer demonstrations under the law in the future, but they will be more orderly, he added.

Concerns expressed by some NLA members include a call to require the time to inform authorities to be lengthened to 72 hours, as 24 hours is not considered adequate for authorities to make preparations.

NLA member Somkid Lertpaitoon asked if the banning of gatherings on state highways and roads under the bill is constitutional, as the Constitutional Court has ruled in the past that it is constitutional.

A call was also made to have the Administrative Court assume the role of granting permission to disperse crowds instead of other courts.

Key points in proposed bill

l Protesters have to inform related authorities 24 hours in advance as to why, when, where and how long they plan to protest;

l No demonstration within a 150-metre radius of palaces, royal residences and the residents of guests of the royal family would be allowed.

l Protesters cannot gather closer than a 50-metre radius of Government House, Parliament and the courts.

l Police will have to seek a court order to disperse a crowd even if it were deemed illegal.

l The maximum penalty for an infringement would be 10 years in prison.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NLA-gives-go-ahead-to-bill-on-protests-30254956.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-27

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

They know the Reds will be coming, and when the time arrives, this law won't stop them.

This law is to stop reds, yellows, blue, greens and pinks from holding the country to ransom. I think this is a good move from the military again.

So you are a person that likes your freedoms to be cut down to the bone ? This law is an instrument that the junta will use to uplift the martial law to please the US, but will then use the new law to curtail our freedom. Do you think the rest of the world will be too stupid to see right through the juntas plans or is it only you thats blind ?

[oneday]

It should apply to all sides and if they can be successful with this law then I think it is good for the country. It doesn't prohibit or stop rallies, it just provides some sanity in how and where they are conducted. Nothing unreasonable about that.