NCPO slammed for banning talks on violation of rights

[webfact]

Junta slammed for banning talks on violation of rights
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- BANNING talk on human rights violations under the military junta only proves that the human rights situation is not getting better one year after the coup, said human rights lawyer Yaowalak Anuphan, a key member of the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

The group's panel discussion and report presentation on human rights violations under the military junta, scheduled to be held at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand in Bangkok yesterday evening, was cancelled after the National Council for Peace and Order issued a written order forbidding the FCCT from providing a venue for the group.

"We realise that one year on [since the coup] the NCPO still violate rights continuously and, in fact, it is getting worse," Yaowalak told The Nation.

Yaowalak and her colleagues still planned to visit the FCCT last night to casually converse with people.

"We'll chat and drink but there will be no [political] activity," said Yaowalak, adding that she didn't expect that there would be any arrests.

Earlier yesterday, police arrived at the FCCT to demand the club deny the lawyers entry.

In response, the FCCT demanded a written order banning the event.

"We are not happy of course. We are, of course, very sorry that the event has been cancelled," said Jonathan Head, FCCT president and the BBC's correspondent for Southeast Asia, adding that the FCCT prided itself for being a forum for free debate.

Head said he was aware that the group would still be paying a visit.

"The club is open as usual to all members and non-members but we're not having a public event … I understand that a lot of people who would have come tonight [for the panel discussion] will [still] come."

The group held an impromptu press conference outside the FCCT shortly after 6pm.

Yaowalak said Article 44 of the interim charter had "completely destroyed the rule of law".

She added that students arrested after protesting against one year of military rule were facing charges.

The lawyer said violating the group's right to hold a panel discussion on rights violations by the NCPO was "a bad joke".

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Junta-slammed-for-banning-talks-on-violation-of-ri-30261648.html

-- The Nation 2015-06-05

[smedly]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Edited June 5, 2015 by smedly

[Tywais]

Post removed due to this pinned topic rule.

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

[aussieinthailand]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Question?

Why do you do it?

Do you support the banning people from talking about the issues of violating HR?

Do you have a relevent opinion on the subject

The OP is saying that having bans on talks on violation of human rights is a bad joke, but you want to turn this into a "label" story, What the?

Now on your last paragraph, I would sugest you to apply all those pionts to the current powers that be and useing a little critical thinking see what you come out with. But maybe this should be applyed to any and all who wish to controle a nation?

[FangFerang]

There have been no violations of human rights. Thais don't have human rights, unless they can fund those rights.

[smedly]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Question?

Why do you do it?

Do you support the banning people from talking about the issues of violating HR?

Do you have a relevent opinion on the subject

The OP is saying that having bans on talks on violation of human rights is a bad joke, but you want to turn this into a "label" story, What the?

Now on your last paragraph, I would sugest you to apply all those pionts to the current powers that be and useing a little critical thinking see what you come out with. But maybe this should be applyed to any and all who wish to controle a nation?

I see you again criticize me but offer nothing constructive to the thread, but I will ask you a question and also explain in more detail my point as it seems you missed it or it was beyond you

has anyone ever been banned in your country from public speaking or indeed arrested for such a speech or writings, you are all for freedom of speech and so am I but it also has restrictions, there are divisive people in Thailand who don't like the current government because they are limiting their pocket and will do anything to return this country to mob rule or by the gun mafia and murders, getting the current government out of their way is a primary objective

labelling yourself as a human rights activist doesn't cut it for me, maybe you can give us all some insights into this group mentioned in the OP and tell us all about their history agenda and achievements, if they turn out to just another wing of the redshirt thaksin funded terrorists then I rest my case, but I don't know the answer as I stated in my post above

[Rimmer]

A troll post discussing moderation has been removed

[EnglishJohn]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

[brewsterbudgen]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

[EnglishJohn]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

[smedly]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I would not label the whole organisation (BBC) because of this persons divisive biased selective reporting, it is however something the BBC should have investigated - I suspect that Mr Head is on someones payroll and taking considerable backhanders or he genuinely just has no clue what is going on but nobody will ever know until he is investigated

Some of his reporting in the past has made me considerably angry due the flagrant disregard for accurate facts

[dageurreotype]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I would not label the whole organisation (BBC) because of this persons divisive biased selective reporting, it is however something the BBC should have investigated - I suspect that Mr Head is on someones payroll and taking considerable backhanders or he genuinely just has no clue what is going on but nobody will ever know until he is investigated

Some of his reporting in the past has made me considerably angry due the flagrant disregard for accurate facts

Head's reporting was no worse than any other international media outlet at that time, including the likes of the New York Times and The Guardian UK. It all came down to 'poor people attempting to overthrow their oppressors'. Which was clearly bullshit. Same as the 'reforming' admin we have now.

[tbthailand]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

if you are wondering whether the group is legit or not, then do a bit of research.

They've been rather active lately and you can find them in the news...

ps: they've been pointing out the obvious.

Edited June 5, 2015 by tbthailand

[NangrongJ]

The BBC is well known and widely respected for its inmpartiality worldwide which is why it gets into countries others do not. However, I have detected an element of dumbing down in reporting outside of the UK. The BBC is publically funded in the UK but is subject to the usual copetition abroad, this is why, at least I believe why it has become more 'Americanised' and provocative in coverage. Journalists have to make comments even they don't agree with, they have to provoke as it sell papers, or to be more accurate - adverising space. If only we could have wonderful investagtive journalism like Panorama or Hard Talk in Thailand, Yeah ok!

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I would not label the whole organisation (BBC) because of this persons divisive biased selective reporting, it is however something the BBC should have investigated - I suspect that Mr Head is on someones payroll and taking considerable backhanders or he genuinely just has no clue what is going on but nobody will ever know until he is investigated

Some of his reporting in the past has made me considerably angry due the flagrant disregard for accurate facts

[brewsterbudgen]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I've lived here 10 years and read many different reports in English, obviously including the BBC. If you can post a link showing bias please do. Are you claiming the anti-government protests were not violent and people did not die? Which anti-government protests are you referring to? 2010? 2014?

[smedly]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

if you are wondering whether the group is legit or not, then do a bit of research.

They've been rather active lately and you can find them in the news...

ps: they've been pointing out the obvious.

I have no interest in doing any research a fact that has no bearing on my original post as I stated such at the end, if you want to do it go right ahead ..........up to me - right ?

keep the feet for dancing

[ThaiUser]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

There is a thin line between having an opinion and trying to push an agenda by all necessary means. You are really one of the people I have encountered on this board that actually use inflammatory language that would be banned in most European countries from forum sites.

Inflammatory language is a form of speech that is used with the intent to stir up emotions, elicit anger, or invoke a physical reaction. Name calling is one form, but the use is generally wider in scope, in the sense that it is used to attack, oppress, or denigrate groups of people, or focus hate or anger on a public.

See Wikipedia: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Inflammatory_language

Two of your comments:

"United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin.

to return this country to mob rule or by the gun mafia and murders

I personally cannot believe that our current PM would condone your remarks since he always expresses his wishes to bring reconciliation and peace back to our country. Your remarks certainly don’t support that goal but are counter productive. What you are doing is hiding behind the protection the NCPO has given itself not to be attacked in the same manor you seem you are permitted to do when attacking groups that don’t have that protection.

I agree that some of the elements within the UDD have been acting like criminals but that can also be said about the yellow shirt movement; to label the million followers of the red shirts and the UDD in the way you do is only spreading abhorrence and hatred that might come to haunt this country again. We Thais have enough problems without foreigners pouring fuel into the smouldering ashes that still remain from the recent past.

--------------------------------

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has proposed that hate speech be illegal - to prevent social division and hatred in society.

If passed, the legislation will call for restrictions on hate speech in all media.

The committee cited development over the recent years in which various forms of media - from cable and satellite television to radio, print and online media - had been used by various political groups to incite hatred against their opponents, thus, drawing the country into a political quagmire.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/move-outlaw-hate-speech-thailand-needs-careful-handling

[smedly]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

There is a thin line between having an opinion and trying to push an agenda by all necessary means. You are really one of the people I have encountered on this board that actually use inflammatory language that would be banned in most European countries from forum sites.

Inflammatory language is a form of speech that is used with the intent to stir up emotions, elicit anger, or invoke a physical reaction. Name calling is one form, but the use is generally wider in scope, in the sense that it is used to attack, oppress, or denigrate groups of people, or focus hate or anger on a public.

See Wikipedia: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Inflammatory_language

Two of your comments:

"United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin.

to return this country to mob rule or by the gun mafia and murders

I personally cannot believe that our current PM would condone your remarks since he always expresses his wishes to bring reconciliation and peace back to our country. Your remarks certainly don’t support that goal but are counter productive. What you are doing is hiding behind the protection the NCPO has given itself not to be attacked in the same manor you seem you are permitted to do when attacking groups that don’t have that protection.

I agree that some of the elements within the UDD have been acting like criminals but that can also be said about the yellow shirt movement; to label the million followers of the red shirts and the UDD in the way you do is only spreading abhorrence and hatred that might come to haunt this country again. We Thais have enough problems without foreigners pouring fuel into the smouldering ashes that still remain from the recent past.

--------------------------------

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has proposed that hate speech be illegal - to prevent social division and hatred in society.

If passed, the legislation will call for restrictions on hate speech in all media.

The committee cited development over the recent years in which various forms of media - from cable and satellite television to radio, print and online media - had been used by various political groups to incite hatred against their opponents, thus, drawing the country into a political quagmire.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/move-outlaw-hate-speech-thailand-needs-careful-handling

I call it as I see it - my opinion, disagree if you like, I am fully aware of what terrorism is and how it is used - any person or group that sanctions or employs the threat or murder of innocent people to further a political cause are terrorists - cut and paste all you like, it changes nothing, now you can go back to being silent as you have contributed nothing worthwhile under the above id.

[dageurreotype]

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

Well, thank you for gracing us with your presence and deigning to return

[waitforusalso]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I find it very amusing that a nobody keyboard warrior residing in Nakorn Nowhere thinks they are more of an authority on the situation than one of the most respected news agencies in the world. They unlike you were not subjected to the twisted yellow propaganda being forced down people's throats by the courts, army & yellows. The foreign news' take on the situation was far more accurate than the rubbish I hear from you and your buddies in the yellow cheer-leading squad.

[ThaiUser]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

There is a thin line between having an opinion and trying to push an agenda by all necessary means. You are really one of the people I have encountered on this board that actually use inflammatory language that would be banned in most European countries from forum sites.

Inflammatory language is a form of speech that is used with the intent to stir up emotions, elicit anger, or invoke a physical reaction. Name calling is one form, but the use is generally wider in scope, in the sense that it is used to attack, oppress, or denigrate groups of people, or focus hate or anger on a public.

See Wikipedia: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Inflammatory_language

Two of your comments:

"United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin.

to return this country to mob rule or by the gun mafia and murders

I personally cannot believe that our current PM would condone your remarks since he always expresses his wishes to bring reconciliation and peace back to our country. Your remarks certainly don’t support that goal but are counter productive. What you are doing is hiding behind the protection the NCPO has given itself not to be attacked in the same manor you seem you are permitted to do when attacking groups that don’t have that protection.

I agree that some of the elements within the UDD have been acting like criminals but that can also be said about the yellow shirt movement; to label the million followers of the red shirts and the UDD in the way you do is only spreading abhorrence and hatred that might come to haunt this country again. We Thais have enough problems without foreigners pouring fuel into the smouldering ashes that still remain from the recent past.

--------------------------------

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has proposed that hate speech be illegal - to prevent social division and hatred in society.

If passed, the legislation will call for restrictions on hate speech in all media.

The committee cited development over the recent years in which various forms of media - from cable and satellite television to radio, print and online media - had been used by various political groups to incite hatred against their opponents, thus, drawing the country into a political quagmire.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/move-outlaw-hate-speech-thailand-needs-careful-handling

I call it as I see it - my opinion, disagree if you like, I am fully aware of what terrorism is and how it is used - any person or group that sanctions or employs the threat or murder of innocent people to further a political cause are terrorists - cut and paste all you like, it changes nothing, now you can go back to being silent as you have contributed nothing worthwhile under the above id.

any person or group that sanctions or employs the threat or murder of innocent people to further a political cause are terrorists

Certainly you have the evidence to support your claim that red shirts and UDD and their supporters are terrorist organisations that has expressed what you claim they have.

Your form of labelling groups in that way has been proven fatal after 1933 in Germany but you seem to be one of the new breed that thinks that there is nothing wrong in using that kind of language.

By the way it takes more to silence me as your advice since I am in my country and allowed to have an opinion, how limited that might be at this moment in time.

[phoenixdoglover]

This debate about the journalistic integrity of the BBC and Jonathan Head is of course just a distraction from the main topic.

The main topic would be: how the current government of Thailand is treating human rights and will not allow people to meet in an open forum and discuss the situation.

It's not surprising, but it does serve as a confirmation of how things really are.

A cornerstone of "freedom of speech" is that the guy you disagree with has just as much a right to speak as you do, even if you think he is biased.

[dageurreotype]

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

Well, thank you for gracing us with your presence and deigning to return

You see, a similar remark like yours was removed when I made it as off topic. Aren't you lucky?

You really really really should get over yourself. Consider yourself ignored.

[baboon]

Sorry, but with Jonathan Head as the spokesman this organisation has zero credibility as an unbiased organisation.

People like this using the 'Human Rights' banner to disguise political propaganda make me sick. It's low and it's shameful : two of the strongest attributes in reporters I suppose.

I couldn't, and am not allowed to, disagree with you more. While he might not always write what is popular with some people, his and the BBC's, impartiality is well respected.

The you sir either do not know what happened during the protests or you did not read his reports on the BBC.

Because I did - and his deliberate omission of key facts was a disgrace. I could not believe someone could misrepresent the truth and live with their conscience. For example, if 10 people protesting peacefully got killed by the UDD terrorists he would write something like "Violent anti-government protests which left 10 dead".

Check up online and you might find your faith in the BBC is misplaced. They have a clear political agenda these days and most stories are designed to guide opinion in a certain direction.

I would not label the whole organisation (BBC) because of this persons divisive biased selective reporting, it is however something the BBC should have investigated - I suspect that Mr Head is on someones payroll and taking considerable backhanders or he genuinely just has no clue what is going on but nobody will ever know until he is investigated

Some of his reporting in the past has made me considerably angry due the flagrant disregard for accurate facts

Which sources do you rely on?

[ThaiUser]

Two days ago I decided to leave the forum for some time because I didn’t feel happy about off topic decisions that had been made. But your comment doesn’t leave me a choice to come back here and say something about you and your ‘opinion’. I also wonder why your comment is still on display since this forum is run by foreigners that should know better when looking at their home countries and how such comments are treated.

Well, thank you for gracing us with your presence and deigning to return

You see, a similar remark like yours was removed when I made it as off topic. Aren't you lucky?

You really really really should get over yourself. Consider yourself ignored.

O.K. I will return that favour!

[tbthailand]

"Thai Lawyers for Human Rights"

It's all in the name, I have come to realise that there are many groups formed in Thailand that apply a label to themselves with certain words that actually bare no resemblance to what they actually are - UDD "United front of Democracy against Dictatorship " being a fine example ultimately they have been proven to be nothing more than terrorist/mafia type Thugs paid for by Thaksin, more of them use flashy words like "Fair" "Democracy" "Democratic" "reconciliation" "peace" "Human Rights" "Fun" ............the list goes on, but when you lift the lid off they are far from who they masquerade to be, in fact more often their intentions are the exact opposite of what the name suggests, the key is usually seen by looking at their methods of doing business or their goals measured against what they say they represent and who - they are usually a world apart.

Now I am not saying that the group mentioned in the OP is not entirely what their name represents but I think it would be a good idea to do some research on their membership leaders - their history - their agenda - motives - who they are connected too - their ultimate goals and by what means they will achieve them before passing an opinion on this topic were on the face of things it looks like the government is trying to silence a human rights group - but are they really

if you are wondering whether the group is legit or not, then do a bit of research.

They've been rather active lately and you can find them in the news...

ps: they've been pointing out the obvious.

I have no interest in doing any research a fact that has no bearing on my original post as I stated such at the end, if you want to do it go right ahead ..........up to me - right ?

keep the feet for dancing

no interest in research, ...

whadda surprise...

[rubl]

So, NCPO slammed for being a junta and told be much more democratic ? What's next, demands that NCPO members be elected by the Thai electorate?