Ban on expression of political views will likely not be lifted

[webfact]

Ban on expression of political views will likely not be lifted

BANGKOK, 6 May 2015 (NNT) - The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has brushed off requests for the cancellation of its announcement banning political parties from organizing political activities, saying they can express their political views through the Center for Reconciliation and Reform.

NCPO Spokesman Col. Winthai Suwaree on Sunday stressed that the Center for Reconciliation and Reform was a mechanism of the council to listen to opinions from all sides including politicians, academics and college students. They were encouraged to express their views on the draft charter and reform issues, the spokesman added.

As for the requests that the NCPO cancel the ban on expression of political opinions, Col. Winthai said the NCPO would consider the pros, cons as well as necessity of canceling the ban.

Everyone could express their opinions freely at the Center for Reconciliation and Reform, the spokesman said. He added that the NCPO had already assured political parties that there were forums provided for them to voice their opinions.


-- NNT 2015-05-06

[Emster23]

"Center for Reconciliation and Reform was a mechanism of the council to listen to opinions from all sides including politicians, academics and college students." and then do what they jolly well please....

[wabothai]

quite a reconcilliation, well done boys.

[LannaGuy]

freedom and democracy 'thai style'

'you can have an opinion but not express it'

[NongKhaiKid]

Express your views through such a channel and expect a visit plus ... ?

An innocent but thoughtful comment with no agenda or affiliations ends up with your name being added to a list somewhere.

[Yunla]

I was one of the million people who marched (or in my case, hobbled painfully!) to go tell Blair that we didn't want him to spend our tax money on bombing Iraqi children, and turning their modern secular nation into a pile of smoking rubble.

He didn't listen to our political views. RIP millions of innocent people. He now enjoys his reward of lucrative public speaking tours, and the rest of us can sit around knowing that our freedom to voice our political views ultimately boiled down to "I feel slightly less guilty because I tried" which means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Point being that even in those nations with the most freedom to voice your views, you can't expect those voices being heard. The best you can hope for in those nations is to pray that the person who will totally ignore your views, will go and do something good anyway. Not the optimum situation really.

[LannaGuy]

I was one of the million people who marched (or in my case, hobbled painfully!) to go tell Blair that we didn't want him to spend our tax money on bombing Iraqi children, and turning their modern secular nation into a pile of smoking rubble.

He didn't listen to our political views. RIP millions of innocent people. He now enjoys his reward of lucrative public speaking tours, and the rest of us can sit around knowing that our freedom to voice our political views ultimately boiled down to "I feel slightly less guilty because I tried" which means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Point being that even in those nations with the most freedom to voice your views, you can't expect those voices being heard. The best you can hope for in those nations is to pray that the person who will totally ignore your views, will go and do something good anyway. Not the optimum situation really.

at least you had the right of expression

ask yourself 'how would I feel if I could not have marched against Blair, that it was illegal?' people died fighting for democracy and many, many demos have resulted in better conditions from woman's rights to national liberations - don't forget that

[tifino]

has Suthep been muffled yet? I see he's opinion-ating again!

[Yunla]

at least you had the right of expression

ask yourself 'how would I feel if I could not have marched against Blair, that it was illegal?' people died fighting for democracy and many, many demos have resulted in better conditions from woman's rights to national liberations - don't forget that

Re; women's rights, many of the very first human societies were matrifocal and indeed goddess-worshipping. Women's rights are not something that arrived with suffragettes and voting etc. Women's rights are paleolithic, women were not only equal in many of those early tribes, they were often seen as sacred objects of worship. This all changed with the arrival of land-ownership, lifestock-ownership, shortly followed by wife-ownership. The suffragette movement was to correct this fall from grace, but only to inch slowly back to how society was in the beginning.

I am convinced that debate is the lifeblood of healthy societies, things need to be talked about for equilibrium to be maintained. People are more productive workers when they feel they are part of a team. So I totally agree with you in principle. My last post was more about the practical situation, in many societies where free speech and political views are a universal right, it doesn't actually change the direction on even the biggest decisions, like travelling to the ME and bombing civilians in their own home countries, for no reason at all.

So I think we agree, but that there is a stark difference between philosophy and practice. It would be nice to have the voice, but in practice it often doesn't mean you will be listened to.

[LannaGuy]

at least you had the right of expression

ask yourself 'how would I feel if I could not have marched against Blair, that it was illegal?' people died fighting for democracy and many, many demos have resulted in better conditions from woman's rights to national liberations - don't forget that

Re; women's rights, many of the very first human societies were matrifocal and indeed goddess-worshipping. Women's rights are not something that arrived with suffragettes and voting etc. Women's rights are paleolithic, women were not only equal in many of those early tribes, they were often seen as sacred objects of worship. This all changed with the arrival of land-ownership, lifestock-ownership, shortly followed by wife-ownership. The suffragette movement was to correct this fall from grace, but only to inch slowly back to how society was in the beginning.

I am convinced that debate is the lifeblood of healthy societies, things need to be talked about for equilibrium to be maintained. People are more productive workers when they feel they are part of a team. So I totally agree with you in principle. My last post was more about the practical situation, in many societies where free speech and political views are a universal right, it doesn't actually change the direction on even the biggest decisions, like travelling to the ME and bombing civilians in their own home countries, for no reason at all.

So I think we agree, but that there is a stark difference between philosophy and practice. It would be nice to have the voice, but in practice it often doesn't mean you will be listened to.

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

[phoenixdoglover]

"Everyone could express their opinions freely at the Center for Reconciliation and Reform, the spokesman said. He added that the NCPO had already assured political parties that there were forums provided for them to voice their opinions."

"Will you walk into my parlour?",

said the spider to the fly.

Edited May 7, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Yunla]

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

We totally agree on these basic rights, and their importance. But also we have to take things in context. There was right to expression, and voting rights, but alongside them there was little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence. Currently there are no little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence, alongside no voice/votes. So it is really contextual, we have to view things in the context of how they were unfolding under the old system, and how they're unfolding in the new one.

As I am more concerned with an end to bloodshed than anything else, I will take that cessation of violence alongside a temporary loss of voice. If stability, prosperity and security can be delivered with a loss of voice, then I consider that better than having a voice while surrounded by bloody carnage.

[LannaGuy]

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

We totally agree on these basic rights, and their importance. But also we have to take things in context. There was right to expression, and voting rights, but alongside them there was little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence. Currently there are no little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence, alongside no voice/votes. So it is really contextual, we have to view things in the context of how they were unfolding under the old system, and how they're unfolding in the new one.

As I am more concerned with an end to bloodshed than anything else, I will take that cessation of violence alongside a temporary loss of voice. If stability, prosperity and security can be delivered with a loss of voice, then I consider that better than having a voice while surrounded by bloody carnage.

don't agree - fascism, in any form, is bad

the only reason 'little girls in noodle stands' might be killed is lack of LAW equally applied

all I observe is the 'old order' defending their 'rights to rule'

[lovelomsak]

at least you had the right of expression

ask yourself 'how would I feel if I could not have marched against Blair, that it was illegal?' people died fighting for democracy and many, many demos have resulted in better conditions from woman's rights to national liberations - don't forget that

Re; women's rights, many of the very first human societies were matrifocal and indeed goddess-worshipping. Women's rights are not something that arrived with suffragettes and voting etc. Women's rights are paleolithic, women were not only equal in many of those early tribes, they were often seen as sacred objects of worship. This all changed with the arrival of land-ownership, lifestock-ownership, shortly followed by wife-ownership. The suffragette movement was to correct this fall from grace, but only to inch slowly back to how society was in the beginning.

I am convinced that debate is the lifeblood of healthy societies, things need to be talked about for equilibrium to be maintained. People are more productive workers when they feel they are part of a team. So I totally agree with you in principle. My last post was more about the practical situation, in many societies where free speech and political views are a universal right, it doesn't actually change the direction on even the biggest decisions, like travelling to the ME and bombing civilians in their own home countries, for no reason at all.

So I think we agree, but that there is a stark difference between philosophy and practice. It would be nice to have the voice, but in practice it often doesn't mean you will be listened to.

You are right in a free society your opinion makenot be heard.. There is no law stating it has to be heeded. But you are given the freedom to express it and hopefully influence the issue in some way. Sometimes people arenot heard the first time and must work hard to be heard. The thing is they have the opportunity to do just that Tommy Douglas and Medicare in Canada is a very good example of fortitude used inside democracy to get things done,with freedom. Freedoms allow you to go the route." if at first you donot succeed try,try again" Lack of freedoms donot even let you have a say.

[rametindallas]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

Edited May 7, 2015 by rametindallas

[Yunla]

You are right in a free society your opinion makenot be heard.. There is no law stating it has to be heeded. But you are given the freedom to express it and hopefully influence the issue in some way. Sometimes people arenot heard the first time and must work hard to be heard. The thing is they have the opportunity to do just that Tommy Douglas and Medicare in Canada is a very good example of fortitude used inside democracy to get things done,with freedom. Freedoms allow you to go the route." if at first you donot succeed try,try again" Lack of freedoms donot even let you have a say.

I agree on the basic principles, and I'm happy that progress was made in cases such as in Canada. However you have to work with the situation you've got, and this situation is different to that in Canada.

I do know that during the more intense troubles of recent times, often during voting phases, I was scared for my Thai friends and their kids who were out trotting to work and school while all the angry political theatre played-out in the streets around them. I was on my knees praying every single day that the fighting would end. And now it has ended. So I don't have to worry about my friends and their kids now, they can go about their lives free of factional violence. I see that as a completely positive thing, and I hope that the future will remain peaceful and gradually see the return of voice/votes when stability and security has been established.

I realise I'm probably alone in these views lol.

[NongKhaiKid]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

I can only speak for myself but I can assure you i was critical of a lot the YL govt got up to including trying to muscle opponents.

You'd bet I didn't well you've just lost the bet and your post is very presumptuous.

[heybruce]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

From your reference:

"Minister Anudith Nakornthap of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) should not overstep his authority by threatening to shut down websites that carried allegedly defamatory remarks against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra by cartoonist Chai Rachawat on Facebook."

"The MICT minister insisted that he was doing his duty and that he had the authority to do so.

He urged anyone who finds offensive messages on the Internet to report them so they could be "immediately removed"."

"The ministry insisted the message comparing Yingluck to a prostitute selling away Thailand was vulgar and did not constitute proper criticism."

Under Yingluck the MICT threatened to shut down a website comparing the PM to a prostitute. Do you have any references showing this threat was carried out?

Under the junta hundreds of people have been detained without charge, often for nothing more than calling for elections. Not just words from a minister, but harsh actions defended by the unelected PM. Do you think that is comparable to what took place under the PTP government?

How do you think Prayuth would react if anyone compared him to a prostitute?

[baboon]

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

We totally agree on these basic rights, and their importance. But also we have to take things in context. There was right to expression, and voting rights, but alongside them there was little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence. Currently there are no little girls at noodle stalls being killed in political violence, alongside no voice/votes. So it is really contextual, we have to view things in the context of how they were unfolding under the old system, and how they're unfolding in the new one.

As I am more concerned with an end to bloodshed than anything else, I will take that cessation of violence alongside a temporary loss of voice. If stability, prosperity and security can be delivered with a loss of voice, then I consider that better than having a voice while surrounded by bloody carnage.

It is all working out marvellously in the south, isn't it? The worst of both worlds...

[Yunla]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

I can't remember any time that I ever supported Yingluck, except in your post just now obviously.

I live in this dusty old hanging-round-libraries kind of scene, where people don't feel they have to support either side in political factionalism, while still holding polite and softly-spoken opinions on the world around them.

[Yunla]

It is all working out marvellously in the south, isn't it? The worst of both worlds...

No, it is horrible, and I often sit here crying when I read the news from down there. But I don't live there, and I was talking about my friends and their families, who don't live down south. Where we live, it is quiet and peaceful now, and it wasn't in the past. That was my point.

[NongKhaiKid]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

I can't remember any time that I ever supported Yingluck, except in your post just now obviously.

I live in this dusty old hanging-round-libraries kind of scene, where people don't feel they have to support either side in political factionalism, while still holding polite and softly-spoken opinions on the world around them.

Too much of " not for us you must be against " at times on the forum. I enjoy being a neutral and will prraise or criticise as I see fit not to suit others, all within the current application of laws and forum rules of course.

I don't need another suspension or AA.

[phoenixdoglover]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

You would lose your bet, as a quick perusal of the actual TVF thread reveals.

Beyond that, your post engages in typical "false choice" rhetoric to criticize others - "Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too?"

Here's one back at you - "Are you too lazy to use convincing arguments or just a partisan hack"?

[JAG]

Two years ago: Govt threatens webmasters with fines & jail if they allow people to post messages criticising Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/MICT-threat-a-rights-violation-30205554.html

I wonder how many of the above posters, and those who 'liked' their opinions, (Suffinator, ExPratt, Siamesecarper, NongKhaiKid, Emster23, sgtsabai, heybruce, joebrown, lildragon, disambiguated, emilymat, DM07, LannaGuy, Yunla, wabothai, phoenixdoglover) were posting their objections to Yingluck's government restrictions on 'free speech'. I'd bet, NONE on the list I just compiled complained when it was Yingluck's government doing the censoring. Are you hypocrites or just ignorant that Yingluck's government had censorship too? Which is it?

That's a humdinger of a list - ready to pass it on to the appropriate authorities when the time comes are you?

[halloween]

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

You forgot getting rid of the corrupt Yingluk government. Was that intentional?

[heybruce]

well... leaving behind your reflections on the pagan point of view, which, I actually have great empathy with (Gai/Goddess etc.) great marches HAVE achieved great things (think MLK, Berlin wall, Gandhi and salt march etc.). My point is the right to do so, no matter what the outcome, is a BASIC human right we should all defend.

You forgot getting rid of the corrupt Yingluk government. Was that intentional?

Wasn't that the voters job? Oh yeah, the junta and its supporters don't like elections.

In view of the fact that the military is as corrupt as any institution in Thailand, and even more above the law, I don't think they got rid of a corrupt administration, they just replaced it.

[tbthailand]

Funny how an article about a military ___ship's censorship and suppression of basic human rights must be compared to actions of a previous government - as if that had anything to do with the current situation...

Posters like NKKid were quick to point this out and note that they object to censorship in any form. I join those folks.

The example cited was interesting in that (1) the reaction to shut down web sites was clearly an over-reaction, and also apparently never happened, and (2) the insults against Yingluck were typical for her opposition to put out there. Both sides of the political divide hate each other here, and I have seen really tasteless comments regarding Yingluck from the yellow shirts ... they tend to be even worse that Republicans spewing Obama nonsense about a muslim, kenyan-born, socialist dictator....

Whereas the current regime has suppressed numerous basic human rights and anyone who wants to go down the list can see if they need to look down at their flip-flops to finish the count...

[rametindallas]

There is no guarantee of free speech, as in the US, anywhere in Asia. Britain has very tough laws against insulting other nationalities, races, etc..

Teen YouTube Rant Tests Singapore’s Censorship Limits

http://www.wsj.com/articles/teen-youtube-rant-tests-singapores-censorship-limits-1431081983

The current government needs to keep the populace focused on reconciliation and not on the divisions of the past. There will be plenty of time to renew those old hatreds later.

[heybruce]

There is no guarantee of free speech, as in the US, anywhere in Asia. Britain has very tough laws against insulting other nationalities, races, etc..

Teen YouTube Rant Tests Singapore’s Censorship Limits

http://www.wsj.com/articles/teen-youtube-rant-tests-singapores-censorship-limits-1431081983

The current government needs to keep the populace focused on reconciliation and not on the divisions of the past. There will be plenty of time to renew those old hatreds later.

Is suppression of all dissent supposed to cause reconciliation?

If not, is the junta doing anything else to promote reconciliation?

BTW, I haven't heard of anyone in the US, Britain, or Singapore being detained for calling for elections. It's true that all countries have some limits on freedom of speech, but only repressive autocracies have them to the degree of the junta.

[djjamie]

One can express there views as long as it does not violate attempts for reconciliation, does not promote hate and division, does not fosters segregation of the North and the South and does not try to feebly attempt to thrust themselves into the limelight through a false ironic ethos of majority backing at the behest of a govt that have put the majorities (not 7%, but the majorities) best interests at heart. Reform for farmers being the latest example of this sincere concern for the people that have shown through facts that they support a govt that listen to their plight. (not the plight of 7% of the population mind you, but the real majority…They other 93%. i.e the non violent ones)

It is a very constructive opportunity to express views to benefit the majority through a controlled, non violent platform such as what the NCPO is proposing. I can guarantee it will not result in 28 dead and over 700 injured.

Edited May 8, 2015 by djjamie