Public gatherings bill endorsed by the NLA

[Lite Beer]

Public gatherings bill endorsed by the NLA

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly has passed the second and final readings of public gatherings bill which will restrict freedom of public gatherings or protests.

Among the new restrictions introduced by the bill which will become law once it is published in the Royal Gazette are: requirement of the organisers of public gatherings or protests to seek permission from the chief of the police station where the protests are to be held 24 hours in advance; protests must not be held within 150 metre radius from the Grand Palace, palaces of Their Majesties the King and Queen and members of the Royal Family; no protests in the compound of the parliament, the government and the court; no blockade of the entrance and exit of government buildings, airports, ports, railway stations, bus terminals, embassies, hospitals, consular offices and offices of international organisations.

In case a permission is not granted by the police station chief, the organisers of the protests can appeal to their superiors or commanders who must make a decision within 24 hours. Their decisions are final.

The bill also introduces restriction on the use of loudspeakers at protest sites with loudspeakers to be banned after midnight until 6 am of the following day.

Protesters are banned from marching or protest site be shifted during 6 pm until 6 am of the following day. Protesters must not cover up their faces in a way to conceal their identities.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/public-gatherings-bill-endorsed-by-the-nla

-- Thai PBS 2015-05-01

[MaxLee]

In case a permission is not granted by the police station chief, the organisers of the protests can appeal to their superiors or commanders who must make a decision within 24 hours. Their decisions are final.

Oh please,.... a rule??? Wanna money???? Then forget it, business as usual.....

[oneday]

The bill seems quite reasonable, but I fear anyone belonging to the opposition party (Not a Yellow Shirt) will be denied permission with no explanation given, simply because the "Yellow Shirts" are now in charge and they have no intention of relinquishing their hold.

[smedly]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

[phoenixdoglover]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

With respect to similarity with rules in the west, these rules are not similar to those in places like New York City, for example.

In most places in the US, it is not necessary to obtain permission to have a public gathering in public spaces. In New York, you may have a gathering in a park, on the steps of City Hall, and on the sidewalks, as long as you do not impede other people from going about their business. You do need a permit to hold a march in a public street, as that will obviously impede traffic. However, the permission cant be withheld for any political reasons.

The basic philosophy in the US is the polar opposite of the philosophy expressed in this new Thai law. In the US, you have a right to protest, in most cases you don't need permission, and the authorities are required to accommodate your public activities. There are exceptions to the rule.

Under this new Thai Law, you will be REQUIRED to get permission in all circumstances. There are no exceptions.

In other words, you have no right to have a public gathering.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

nothing about not blocking public roads?

[Srikcir]

The irony of this bill is that with such tight restrictions on public protests and demonstrations, it will actually force people to more extreme measures without attempting peaceful protests first. The bill "draws a line" as to how far Thai people are willing to fight for their basic freedoms. The conflict for Malay Thais' rights and liberties in the South may pale in comparison to what might occur in the North.

Another irony of this bill is that a similar issue during the PDRC occuption of government and public property was brought to the Constiututional Court who ruled such constraints violated people's freedom of speech and unconstitutional. It also ruled that the government could not use force to interfer with such occupation. However, given Article 44 the Constitutional Court has no authority to overrule the Junta's laws.

[Srikcir]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

People in western nations allow such restraints through democratic participatory representation backed by constitutions that protect their inalienable rights and freedoms. Should authorities take extreme measures and actions with regard to such restraints, the people can resort to the courts to challenge application of the law, change the laws, and/or change the lawmakers.

Under the Thai Junta-led government and the NCPO's draft 2014 constitution, there is no check and balance available to preserve the people's sovereignty. And if by some legislative maneuvers such a law could be negated, Thailand would just have another military coup.

[phoenixdoglover]

"The irony of this bill is that with such tight restrictions on public protests and demonstrations, it will actually force people to more extreme measures.."

Indeed.

The word "reconciliation" apparently means something entirely different to Thais (well, the Junta) than it does to native English speakers.

Apparently, in Thailand, the definition is:

Reconciliation: the acts by which your parents, teachers, police officials, army leaders, and Prime Minister, tell you how you should behave, and punish you if you do not follow their instructions.

Thai "reconciliation" will lead to Thai resentment. It could be a rough ride.

[Fat Haggis]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

Are you leg pulling about this?

What about all these anti war protests in the UK, all the austerity marches and protests all over Europe? I don't think permission was asked nor required, and the UK Law was given pelters for their heavy handed responses to those tearing up London.

Don't you remember the riots cussed by the fatal shooting of a criminal that cost millions in damages a don't the biggest cry was about the coopers using force on them?

Europe has seen huge riots and I don't permission was asked for any of Those!!

[smedly]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

Are you leg pulling about this?

What about all these anti war protests in the UK, all the austerity marches and protests all over Europe? I don't think permission was asked nor required, and the UK Law was given pelters for their heavy handed responses to those tearing up London.

Don't you remember the riots cussed by the fatal shooting of a criminal that cost millions in damages a don't the biggest cry was about the coopers using force on them?

Europe has seen huge riots and I don't permission was asked for any of Those!!

absolutely not, there are laws and procedures, it is a different matter if people chose not to follow them and up to the authorities how they deal with it, pretty simple really

[smedly]

"The irony of this bill is that with such tight restrictions on public protests and demonstrations, it will actually force people to more extreme measures.."

Indeed.

The word "reconciliation" apparently means something entirely different to Thais (well, the Junta) than it does to native English speakers.

Apparently, in Thailand, the definition is:

Reconciliation: the acts by which your parents, teachers, police officials, army leaders, and Prime Minister, tell you how you should behave, and punish you if you do not follow their instructions.

Thai "reconciliation" will lead to Thai resentment. It could be a rough ride.

I am at a loss trying to understand what you are saying, every country in the world has laws and rules, the people that complain about (them) and those that enforce them are usually those that break them, now unless you were dropped off in some remote deserted island as a baby - you will have been subject to laws rules enforcement and punishment from your very first breath

[than]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

With respect to similarity with rules in the west, these rules are not similar to those in places like New York City, for example.

In most places in the US, it is not necessary to obtain permission to have a public gathering in public spaces. In New York, you may have a gathering in a park, on the steps of City Hall, and on the sidewalks, as long as you do not impede other people from going about their business. You do need a permit to hold a march in a public street, as that will obviously impede traffic. However, the permission cant be withheld for any political reasons.

The basic philosophy in the US is the polar opposite of the philosophy expressed in this new Thai law. In the US, you have a right to protest, in most cases you don't need permission, and the authorities are required to accommodate your public activities. There are exceptions to the rule.

Under this new Thai Law, you will be REQUIRED to get permission in all circumstances. There are no exceptions.

In other words, you have no right to have a public gathering.

These rules is similar like France and Germany law about protest....

In France, the demonstrations on the public place is subject to the requirement of a prior declaration indicating the purpose of the event, place, date and time of the meeting and the proposed route. The authorities may request the organizers route changes or schedule. They may ban a demonstration if they consider it likely to disturb public order or if its slogans are against the law, but such bans are rare.

Also in France, under Article 431-3 of the Criminal Code, "any gathering of persons on the public way or in a public place likely to prejudice public order (...) can be dispelled by the public force "after the customary warnings. Call in an unauthorized demonstration is considered as a crime.

[smedly]

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-11-right-protest-and-freedom-association

[phoenixdoglover]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

With respect to similarity with rules in the west, these rules are not similar to those in places like New York City, for example.

...

These rules is similar like France and Germany law about protest....

In France, the demonstrations on the public place is subject to the requirement of a prior declaration indicating the purpose of the event, place, date and time of the meeting and the proposed route. The authorities may request the organizers route changes or schedule. They may ban a demonstration if they consider it likely to disturb public order or if its slogans are against the law, but such bans are rare.

...

Read carefully.

"prior declaration" is not the same as requiring permission from the Police Chief.

In addition, in western democracies, there is always the right to appeal any adverse decision. In the case of the new law in Thailand, the appeal goes up to the Police Chief's supervisor, and then his decision is "final".

The potential for favoritism, and corruption through bribery, is huge.

Again, there is a presumption of the right of assembly and free speech in western democracies. The new law in Thailand is a presumption of no right of assembly.

[Godders]

Three questions:

1 Are we to assume the photograph accompanying this article was taken during a break in NLA proceedings?

2 If not, where are the other 260 or so other unelected members of this body with the nation's destiny in its hands?

3 If this is what "Thai-style" democracy is going to be like, does anyone other than the privileged owners of the bums warming the benches really want it?

[phoenixdoglover]

"The irony of this bill is that with such tight restrictions on public protests and demonstrations, it will actually force people to more extreme measures.."

Indeed.

The word "reconciliation" apparently means something entirely different to Thais (well, the Junta) than it does to native English speakers.

Apparently, in Thailand, the definition is:

Reconciliation: the acts by which your parents, teachers, police officials, army leaders, and Prime Minister, tell you how you should behave, and punish you if you do not follow their instructions.

Thai "reconciliation" will lead to Thai resentment. It could be a rough ride.

I am at a loss trying to understand what you are saying, every country in the world has laws and rules, the people that complain about (them) and those that enforce them are usually those that break them, now unless you were dropped off in some remote deserted island as a baby - you will have been subject to laws rules enforcement and punishment from your very first breath

Maybe I can clarify.

Thai politics is often characterized by a massive polarization between the largest political parties,and disagreements over the role of the military in politics. These various factions are not reconciled; to this day, they disagree on the form of government, they harbor deep resentments about events in the recent past, and they routinely accuse each other of bad faith.

The Junta has declared that reconciliation is one of their major aims.

Some reconciliation might be possible, but only if approached with a process that gains the trust and commitment of all parties. Some key tools for conducting such a process might be mediation, testimony, dialogue, and negotiation.

The Junta has not promoted that sort of process or used those tools of reconciliation. Instead, the Junta has doubled down on the culturally ingrained tendencies of Thailand to greatly value obedience, duty, and respect for superiors. The implicit message is, "Sit down, shut up, and follow the rules."

How could this possibly bring together the conflicting parties?

I don't think it can. I think it will do the opposite.

[phoenixdoglover]

Three questions:

1 Are we to assume the photograph accompanying this article was taken during a break in NLA proceedings?

2 If not, where are the other 260 or so other unelected members of this body with the nation's destiny in its hands?

3 If this is what "Thai-style" democracy is going to be like, does anyone other than the privileged owners of the bums warming the benches really want it?

For the past few weeks, I have been looking at these photos and I have been asking myself similar questions.

[lucky11]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

With respect to similarity with rules in the west, these rules are not similar to those in places like New York City, for example.

In most places in the US, it is not necessary to obtain permission to have a public gathering in public spaces. In New York, you may have a gathering in a park, on the steps of City Hall, and on the sidewalks, as long as you do not impede other people from going about their business. You do need a permit to hold a march in a public street, as that will obviously impede traffic. However, the permission cant be withheld for any political reasons.

The basic philosophy in the US is the polar opposite of the philosophy expressed in this new Thai law. In the US, you have a right to protest, in most cases you don't need permission, and the authorities are required to accommodate your public activities. There are exceptions to the rule.

Under this new Thai Law, you will be REQUIRED to get permission in all circumstances. There are no exceptions.

In other words, you have no right to have a public gathering.

But you DO have a right to have a public gathering - it just needs permission, to be in the right place and to be held at the right time. What is unreasonable about that?

People lost their lives in the UK (miners strike) because they protested about their mines being shut down. Those that tried to start up a union were persecuted or lost their jobs over it. Under Thatcher you were forced to hold a ballot and give notice to the government before you could hold a strike, the same as this law stipulates. Not being able to cover your face is a very sensible decision as well.

Bring it on - don't forget, Suthep wouldn't have been able to hold his protest marches under this law - fortunately, whence democracy is restored and is working properly there shouldn't be the need for protests, as power will have been returned to the people which is the ultimate aim of this government!!!

One last aspect, if you are protesting justly and peacefully then they won't stop you protesting. If you are telling people to burn down Bangkok and are cheering the deaths of children maimed and killed by murderers then that will be shut down and those law breakers should be arrested for inciting unrest and encouraging illegal acts.

[smedly]

"The irony of this bill is that with such tight restrictions on public protests and demonstrations, it will actually force people to more extreme measures.."

Indeed.

The word "reconciliation" apparently means something entirely different to Thais (well, the Junta) than it does to native English speakers.

Apparently, in Thailand, the definition is:

Reconciliation: the acts by which your parents, teachers, police officials, army leaders, and Prime Minister, tell you how you should behave, and punish you if you do not follow their instructions.

Thai "reconciliation" will lead to Thai resentment. It could be a rough ride.

I am at a loss trying to understand what you are saying, every country in the world has laws and rules, the people that complain about (them) and those that enforce them are usually those that break them, now unless you were dropped off in some remote deserted island as a baby - you will have been subject to laws rules enforcement and punishment from your very first breath

Maybe I can clarify.

Thai politics is often characterized by a massive polarization between the largest political parties,and disagreements over the role of the military in politics. These various factions are not reconciled; to this day, they disagree on the form of government, they harbor deep resentments about events in the recent past, and they routinely accuse each other of bad faith.

The Junta has declared that reconciliation is one of their major aims.

Some reconciliation might be possible, but only if approached with a process that gains the trust and commitment of all parties. Some key tools for conducting such a process might be mediation, testimony, dialogue, and negotiation.

The Junta has not promoted that sort of process or used those tools of reconciliation. Instead, the Junta has doubled down on the culturally ingrained tendencies of Thailand to greatly value obedience, duty, and respect for superiors. The implicit message is, "Sit down, shut up, and follow the rules."

How could this possibly bring together the conflicting parties?

I don't think it can. I think it will do the opposite.

you speak of sides, that is exactly the mindset that Thaksin needs, well let me tell you my friend there are no longer any sides, you have a bunch of scumbag terrorists being funded by a convicted criminal on the run who will do anything to enact his revenge for what the Thai people did to him, he very nearly started a civil war here last year, the rest and majority of the Thai people have got wise to him, he will no longer be able to manipulate government and break the rules as the new constitution won't allow it, for once we might actually see an elected government that will run the country rather than serve the master criminal Thaksin's evil agenda

Thaksins last move will be to do his utmost to stop this new constitution coming into law and even if it does he will be using his money to cause disruption likely on a similar scale to 2010 if he can, because he has only two goals - save face at any cost or if that fails destroy Thailand as payback- this mans evil knows no boundaries

[than]

In France, the demonstrations on the public place is subject to the requirement of a prior declaration indicating the purpose of the event, place, date and time of the meeting and the proposed route. The authorities may request the organizers route changes or schedule. They may ban a demonstration if they consider it likely to disturb public order or if its slogans are against the law, but such bans are rare.

...

Read carefully.

"prior declaration" is not the same as requiring permission from the Police Chief.

In addition, in western democracies, there is always the right to appeal any adverse decision. In the case of the new law in Thailand, the appeal goes up to the Police Chief's supervisor, and then his decision is "final".

The potential for favoritism, and corruption through bribery, is huge.

Again, there is a presumption of the right of assembly and free speech in western democracies. The new law in Thailand is a presumption of no right of assembly.

But french autorities can ban a demonstration if they consider it likely to disturb public order......

French autorities crackdown forbidden pro palestian protest

French autorities crackdown forbidden protest aginst police violence

[baboon]

So in other words, IF granted the right to protest (and it could well be a big 'If'), you must do so in a manner whereby your protest can be completely ignored, thus rendering it useless. No-one likes to be inconvenienced of course, but a protest without teeth is pointless.

[baboon]

Three questions:

1 Are we to assume the photograph accompanying this article was taken during a break in NLA proceedings?

2 If not, where are the other 260 or so other unelected members of this body with the nation's destiny in its hands?

3 If this is what "Thai-style" democracy is going to be like, does anyone other than the privileged owners of the bums warming the benches really want it?

For the past few weeks, I have been looking at these photos and I have been asking myself similar questions.

It hardly matters, given that politics is/will be preordained anyway. They may as well stay at home.

[yellowboat]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

If they plan to protest in areas that do infringe on the public domain, then some sort of permission may need to be sought. But for something like a rented hall or other venue, the law is absurd and reeks of Chinese like control. Fear runs deep among the privileged these days

[yellowboat]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

But you DO have a right to have a public gathering - it just needs permission, to be in the right place and to be held at the right time. What is unreasonable about that?

That depends. If the meeting takes place in a rented ballroom, car park, town hall or massage parlor, it is not the governments business as to why people are meeting. If the meeting infringes on the public domain, then yes. It should be governed for the good of "all people" not just a select few of over privileged, inbred, sycophants.

[phoenixdoglover]

Some members of this forum seem to have a misconception about "rights". They have suggested people have rights when they have to ask permission in all cases to exercise that "right".

A right is inherent in each human being, and is not granted by an authority (for example freedom of expression and freedom of assembly).

A privilege may be granted or withheld by an authority (for example drivers licenses).

Humans rights are considered universal, and applicable to all countries.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948, is a nice starting point.

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

[dcutman]

nothing unreasonable and is similar to rules in the west, thumbs up from me, nothing wrong with peaceful protest, they also need to set the rules for when it becomes nasty and enforce them

With respect to similarity with rules in the west, these rules are not similar to those in places like New York City, for example.

In most places in the US, it is not necessary to obtain permission to have a public gathering in public spaces. In New York, you may have a gathering in a park, on the steps of City Hall, and on the sidewalks, as long as you do not impede other people from going about their business. You do need a permit to hold a march in a public street, as that will obviously impede traffic. However, the permission cant be withheld for any political reasons.

The basic philosophy in the US is the polar opposite of the philosophy expressed in this new Thai law. In the US, you have a right to protest, in most cases you don't need permission, and the authorities are required to accommodate your public activities. There are exceptions to the rule.

Under this new Thai Law, you will be REQUIRED to get permission in all circumstances. There are no exceptions.

In other words, you have no right to have a public gathering.

Maybe you should read the laws in New York City before trying to convince everybody that this new bill here in Thailand is treading so heavily on human rights. In fact the laws in NYC, in ways, are way more restrictive on public gatherings than what was laid out in the OP. http://www.nyclu.org/content/know-your-rights-demonstrating-new-york-city

You are just making an assumption the police will deny any and every request for a protest gathering.

[smedly]

Some members of this forum seem to have a misconception about "rights". They have suggested people have rights when they have to ask permission in all cases to exercise that "right".

A right is inherent in each human being, and is not granted by an authority (for example freedom of expression and freedom of assembly).

A privilege may be granted or withheld by an authority (for example drivers licenses).

Humans rights are considered universal, and applicable to all countries.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948, is a nice starting point.

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

I have a right to walk in a public place, I have a right to invite my friends, I do not have a right to impose my will or beliefs on others. I do not have a right to gather a group and demand that all people with large noses should be murdered, so yes I agree we should have a right to do and say what we want but there are reasonable limits

[djjamie]

Fair enough.

Nothing outlandish here and a token to what a respectable and tolerant democracy should adhere to.

Respect for the law and no interruption of of everyday life if protests do occur is paramount to a functioning society.

It only the PTP respected this law. Don't see the Junta calling protestors garbage and threatening them with violence.

What a democratically refreshing change we are witnessing here.