Law curbing public assembly takes effect in Thailand

[webfact]

Law curbing public assembly takes effect in Thailand

BANGKOK (AP) — A new law has come into effect in Thailand that curbs public gatherings and bans protests at the prime minister's office, airports and various other public places.

Human rights groups have criticized the Public Assembly Act and its stiff penalties. It is the latest restrictive measure put in place since the military ousted an elected government in a coup last year. The coup followed years of political demonstrations that led to violence and often paralyzed the country's capital.

The law that took effect Thursday requires protesters to inform police about rallies at least 24 hours before they are held. It bans demonstrations within 150 meters (500 feet) of government offices, courts, airports, train and bus stations.

Deputy government spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd called the law "a necessity for Thailand."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-13

[smedly]

absolutely nothing wrong with that, countries in the west have similar laws

[chainarong]

absolutely nothing wrong with that, countries in the west have similar laws

Not with a Junta in charge or a section 44 rule, not to my knowledge, but you are right, Western Australia has on statute books since late 1970's , a gathering of 3 or more constitutes an unofficial gathering, it's never been used but it's there to be used when ever , but you can protest with a permit , at Government or Parliament house and the airport or anywhere you bloody like..

[tbthailand]

don't go out ....

[Mango Bob]

Let see how long it takes Suthep to test this law.

[bangrak]

Isn't it permanently so, and everywhere, for decades, in what so many (falsely) consider as a beacon of Democracy, called Singapore?

[greenchair]

Glad they are banning themselves from holding up the airport and government buildings.

Will they listen to themselves?????

[fstarbkk]

Isn't it permanently so, and everywhere, for decades, in what so many (falsely) consider as a beacon of Democracy, called Singapore?

Not sure who are those many who consider Singapore a beacon of democracy. Perhaps the North Koreans?

?

[phoenixdoglover]

When this law was winding its way through the NLA, there were comments asserting that this new law in Thailand is similar to other countries.

I took that as an opportunity to brush up on the law in the US, my home country.

I am happy to report that the law is not similar.

There are 2 key differences.

1) In many places in the US, if the demonstration is confined to a public space, and does not obstruct others (pedestrians or traffic), then you can hold a demonstration without a permit.

2) Under some conditions, a permit is required; but officials cannot deny the permit; and if they do they can be overruled by local judges quickly. My understanding of the new Thai law is that the police can deny permits based on vague criteria.

Edited August 13, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[lildragon]

Anti coup/junta demonstrators need only apply*

[heybruce]

Let see how long it takes Suthep to test this law.

Not until (unless) there is a democratic government.

[pisico]

Isn't it permanently so, and everywhere, for decades, in what so many (falsely) consider as a beacon of Democracy, called Singapore?

Do you equate RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW in Singapore with informal and oftentimes unruly Thailand that is yet to have or know what the Rule of Law is?

[Basil B]

150 meters...

just means you can not obstruct the working of those buildings, in most instances protesters can still be seen and heard.

... requires protesters to inform police about rallies at least 24 hours before they are held.

"Inform" nothing about needing permission.

It would be fair if it went onto outlawing the obstruction of public highways and making the organisers responsible for damage, and clearing up afterwards.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Basil B

[candide]

Let see how long it takes Suthep to test this law.

Under the new charter no need for suthep to protest in order to oust an elected government.

[elgordo38]

absolutely nothing wrong with that, countries in the west have similar laws

Not with a Junta in charge or a section 44 rule, not to my knowledge, but you are right, Western Australia has on statute books since late 1970's , a gathering of 3 or more constitutes an unofficial gathering, it's never been used but it's there to be used when ever , but you can protest with a permit , at Government or Parliament house and the airport or anywhere you bloody like..

Get out of hand in Spain with the cops and see what it will cost you. Put you in the poor house.

[realenglish1]

This is a normal law that the west has as well

Nothing draconian about this Its a good law Give the government power over bad acts like Suthip when they disrupt government services or just traffic in general .

Edited August 14, 2015 by realenglish1

[Prbkk]

absolutely nothing wrong with that, countries in the west have similar laws

Pity you didn't feel the same way when Suthep and his acolytes were running riot

[billd766]

absolutely nothing wrong with that, countries in the west have similar laws

Pity you didn't feel the same way when Suthep and his acolytes were running riot

How did you feel when the Red Shirts and UDD blockaded a part of Bangkok in 2010 and running riot. Did you protest against them then?

[retarius]

Let see how long it takes Suthep to test this law.

Suthep won't 'test' the law he will break it...and he won't get prosecuted because of Thai double standards.

[Srikcir]

It is such an irony that Yingluck's declared and constitutional State of Emergency provided for many of the same protest restrictions as this "new" law.

Yet, the Thai military refused to assist the government in enforcement of the SOE, explaining their only role was to protect Thailand from foreign threats.

And then in another about face, after its overthrow of the Yingluck government the military shutdown all protest activities.

[Ichabod]

Suthep doesn't oppose the generals he worked so hard to bring to power.. He supports them to the point of explicitly calling for them to remain in power longer. That's the point of "reform before elections" after all.