Thai Cabinet approves guideline on crowd control law enforcement

[webfact]

Cabinet approves guideline on crowd control law enforcement

BANGKOK, 26 August 2015 (NNT) – The Cabinet has given the green light to the guideline to be used by security units in controlling demonstrators in accordance with the new Public Demonstration Act.

Government Spokesperson Maj Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd revealed that the Cabinet has agreed to the proposed operational framework under the Public Demonstration Act 2015 and two related draft announcements of the Prime Minister’s Office. The framework is to be adopted by security officers in crowd control missions and to be respected by protesters.

The new law clearly stipulates that the people have liberty to hold public gatherings as long as they are free of weapons and that authorities must use force only as necessary and in a non-discriminating manner. The force is also to be intensified gradually from light to heavy. All important details are covered in the operational guideline, ranging from required budgets to equipment allowed to be used on protesters.

If the Administrative Court orders termination of a protest, security officers must move in to clear the gathering site, restore the area to its normal state and facilitate protesters in returning home. As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.


-- NNT 2015-08-26

[phoenixdoglover]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

[craigt3365]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

I don't see that as suppression. Just requiring the people to apply in advance. Easy. 24 hours is no big deal. And it gives city dwellers, hopefully, back their basic rights.

Hopefully, this will eliminate the city gridlock and mayhem these things cause. Unfortunately, it's still up to the police to enforce.

[EnglishJohn]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Yawn.

I'm certain all will be allowed to protest as long as they don't bring their violent thugs who have been paid to stir up trouble.

And I think they will be safe from police shooting at them from the top of the Labour ministry. Or pro-government forces firing live grenades into them.

Like everything the Junta is doing : far from perfect but heading in the right direction.

I wonder what 'basic rights' the average Thai is missing in his daily life now which he had before under the last bunch of cronies.

[robblok]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Of course its ok, in a previous topic I have shown its done in the UK too and in the Netherlands and I can find many more countries. So not unusual, its actually important because its not only about protesters but also about the safety of other people who live in the area and the disruption of commerce and life where people want to protest.

Id like you to try to come with a large group of protesters and go to the white house without having informed anyone and see how that goes. Also in that case you better not be black because they shoot colored on sight in the USA as shown in recent news.

[cigar7]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

I don't see that as suppression. Just requiring the people to apply in advance. Easy. 24 hours is no big deal. And it gives city dwellers, hopefully, back their basic rights.

Hopefully, this will eliminate the city gridlock and mayhem these things cause. Unfortunately, it's still up to the police to enforce.

Just because the request is submitted 24 hours in advance, there is no mention as to how quickly the authorities need to respond to the request. This is the first step in denying citizen rights to assemble in public places.

One of the most significant reasons for seeking permission, is to fill-in an application form, which will require all of the organizers to identify themselves, where they live, etc. In the event the demonstration becomes unsatisfactory, based on the authorities' opinion, the organizers will be held liable, and will be easy to find and charge with offenses.

The Public have equal rights, regardless of being a city dweller or a demonstrator in or on Public property.

Edited August 26, 2015 by cigar7

[jerojero]

Use force only as necessary.... Ya right. Who decides when it's necessary other than authorities.

[zaphod reborn]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

I'm not going to totally defend it, because the new law is overly restrictive. However, you would be an idiot if you thought there didn't need to be some restriction on the right to hold political demonstrations.

Thailand has a history of constitutions which provided the broadest protection for the right to demonstrate in the world. As a result of the overbroad protection of this right guaranteed by the constitution, elected governments have been rendered unable to perform basic functions due to organized political protest. Yellow shirt occupation (2008) shut down government house and airports. Red shirt riots in 2010 shut down basic government functions like mass transit, the main government district and a large business district. PDRC occupation of Bangkok (2013) shuts down many government offices and major intersections. I'm sure there are more, that's just in the last 7 years.

In real democracies, you have to get a permit to hold a street demonstration and interrupt traffic. The fact that Thailand is moving in this direction requiring demonstration permits is necessary if democracy has any chance of success in the future. Unfortunately, the Public Demonstration Act, like much of the junta legislation, is an overreach.

[Transporter]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Yawn.

I'm certain all will be allowed to protest as long as they don't bring their violent thugs who have been paid to stir up trouble.

And I think they will be safe from police shooting at them from the top of the Labour ministry. Or pro-government forces firing live grenades into them.

Like everything the Junta is doing : far from perfect but heading in the right direction.

I wonder what 'basic rights' the average Thai is missing in his daily life now which he had before under the last bunch of cronies.

But the government are allowed to bring their violent thugs are they?

Just so you know the basic Thai as you call them is now missing the upward economy and constantly improving lifestyle that they had under Thaksin. He may have not been perfect but he gave people hope and a better future than they can see now.

[Muirton]

Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares Freedom of Assembly to be one of those rights. In 1993, ministers from Asian states adopted the Bangkok Declaration, reaffirming their commitment to the ... the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This legislation therefore violates the Bangkok Charter. And definitely jeopardizes the travel plans of the framers in the near or distant future.

[Muirton]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Yawn.

I'm certain all will be allowed to protest as long as they don't bring their violent thugs who have been paid to stir up trouble.

And I think they will be safe from police shooting at them from the top of the Labour ministry. Or pro-government forces firing live grenades into them.

Like everything the Junta is doing : far from perfect but heading in the right direction.

I wonder what 'basic rights' the average Thai is missing in his daily life now which he had before under the last bunch of cronies.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to vote freely. Glad you asked.

[FangFerang]

The law was not printed in its entirety. It ALSO stipulates that demonstrators go home at night.

The law allows Suthep and company to protest, and prevents rural people from having their voices heard in Bangkok.

All the junta cheerleaders love to carefully choose their discussions, their meaningless rants against the redshirts, and continue to pretend that Thaksin invented corruption.

Read the BP and Nation. You will see the whole picture, instead of the selective stories being fielded here.

In other words, you are kidding yourselves.

[robblok]

The law was not printed in its entirety. It ALSO stipulates that demonstrators go home at night.

The law allows Suthep and company to protest, and prevents rural people from having their voices heard in Bangkok.

All the junta cheerleaders love to carefully choose their discussions, their meaningless rants against the redshirts, and continue to pretend that Thaksin invented corruption.

Read the BP and Nation. You will see the whole picture, instead of the selective stories being fielded here.

In other words, you are kidding yourselves.

Not kidding myself neither red or yellow should be able to close a city down. Ordinary people should not suffer because of protesters. No country in the world likes it if parts of their capital are being held ransom.

I HATE it when protesters take innocent people ransom to get their demands, just like those idiot French and Belgian farmers did last month blockading roads when the Dutch were going on holidays.

Demonstrations are ok, and should be allowed but not everywhere and not always.

[phoenixdoglover]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

I'm not going to totally defend it, because the new law is overly restrictive. However, you would be an idiot if you thought there didn't need to be some restriction on the right to hold political demonstrations.

Thailand has a history of constitutions which provided the broadest protection for the right to demonstrate in the world. As a result of the overbroad protection of this right guaranteed by the constitution, elected governments have been rendered unable to perform basic functions due to organized political protest. Yellow shirt occupation (2008) shut down government house and airports. Red shirt riots in 2010 shut down basic government functions like mass transit, the main government district and a large business district. PDRC occupation of Bangkok (2013) shuts down many government offices and major intersections. I'm sure there are more, that's just in the last 7 years.

In real democracies, you have to get a permit to hold a street demonstration and interrupt traffic. The fact that Thailand is moving in this direction requiring demonstration permits is necessary if democracy has any chance of success in the future. Unfortunately, the Public Demonstration Act, like much of the junta legislation, is an overreach.

Your response is the most thoughtful.

In the US permits often are not required, but you mention a situation, a march in the street, when they often are required. In those situations the authorities are permitted to say No in only limited circumstances. In my reading of the new Thai law, this crucial limitation is glossed over.

[diehard60]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Yawn.

I'm certain all will be allowed to protest as long as they don't bring their violent thugs who have been paid to stir up trouble.

And I think they will be safe from police shooting at them from the top of the Labour ministry. Or pro-government forces firing live grenades into them.

Like everything the Junta is doing : far from perfect but heading in the right direction.

I wonder what 'basic rights' the average Thai is missing in his daily life now which he had before under the last bunch of cronies.

which bunch of cronnies are you referring to????? The very last or all the ones in the past?

[phoenixdoglover]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Of course its ok, in a previous topic I have shown its done in the UK too and in the Netherlands and I can find many more countries. So not unusual, its actually important because its not only about protesters but also about the safety of other people who live in the area and the disruption of commerce and life where people want to protest.

Id like you to try to come with a large group of protesters and go to the white house without having informed anyone and see how that goes. Also in that case you better not be black because they shoot colored on sight in the USA as shown in recent news.

Dear robblok,

Your last sentence is both offensive and untrue.

A little advice for your next visit: do not refer to black people in the US as "colored". This is regarded as a term used by racists.

And of course, black people are not "shot on sight". They are shot more often by the police; and thankfully this has become a big topic with the US news media, so we are hearing now about every questionable incident. Changes are already taking place - for example more police forces are being required to use body cameras. And this has led to some notable recent cases where the police version of events is contradicted by the video.

[phoenixdoglover]

The "law and order" crowd likes this law.

But it gives rise to a question:

When the demonstrations in 2013-2014 blocked 7 key locations in Bangkok and severely interrupted car and pedestrian traffic, as well as government offices, why were the protesters not dispersed or required to relocate? Is this because:

A. There was no law against blocking traffic, or preventing people from going to a government office, so the police just had to stand by

B. There were laws against this sort of thing, but the police did not enforce the laws

Which is it?

Edited August 26, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[robblok]

As demonstrators are required to seek permission for their gathering 24 hours in advance, the guideline also reminds authorities to use careful discretion before agreeing to the request.

That's the key concept.

Now watch people defend it by saying other countries do it that way.

Yes, suppression of basic rights is OK as long as other countries do it also.

Of course its ok, in a previous topic I have shown its done in the UK too and in the Netherlands and I can find many more countries. So not unusual, its actually important because its not only about protesters but also about the safety of other people who live in the area and the disruption of commerce and life where people want to protest.

Id like you to try to come with a large group of protesters and go to the white house without having informed anyone and see how that goes. Also in that case you better not be black because they shoot colored on sight in the USA as shown in recent news.

Dear robblok,

Your last sentence is both offensive and untrue.

A little advice for your next visit: do not refer to black people in the US as "colored". This is regarded as a term used by racists.

And of course, black people are not "shot on sight". They are shot more often by the police; and thankfully this has become a big topic with the US news media, so we are hearing now about every questionable incident. Changes are already taking place - for example more police forces are being required to use body cameras. And this has led to some notable recent cases where the police version of events is contradicted by the video.

It is an exaggeration of real facts (everyone would have gotten that hint but it hurts so much because its shameful) , in the country that is supposed to be so good and so perfect they have a big racism problem. However i call them probably hurts them a lot less as all those police bullets so I am sure they will forgive me.

Just shows that that example of democracy is not so perfect, so why follow their lead in everything. Stop complaining about Thailand having some restrictions for demonstrations just like real civilized European countries where the police does not shoot their minorities.

My point is the US system is not perfect so don't constantly use it as an example, limiting protesting rights worked in Europe.

[robblok]

The "law and order" crowd likes this law.

But it gives rise to a question:

When the demonstrations in 2013-2014 blocked 7 key locations in Bangkok and severely interrupted car and pedestrian traffic, as well as government offices, why were the protesters not dispersed or required to relocate? Is this because:

A. There was no law against blocking traffic, or preventing people from going to a government office, so the police just had to stand by

B. There were laws against this sort of thing, but the police did not enforce the laws

Which is it?

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

[phoenixdoglover]

The "law and order" crowd likes this law.

But it gives rise to a question:

When the demonstrations in 2013-2014 blocked 7 key locations in Bangkok and severely interrupted car and pedestrian traffic, as well as government offices, why were the protesters not dispersed or required to relocate? Is this because:

A. There was no law against blocking traffic, or preventing people from going to a government office, so the police just had to stand by

B. There were laws against this sort of thing, but the police did not enforce the laws

Which is it?

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

[robblok]

The "law and order" crowd likes this law.

But it gives rise to a question:

When the demonstrations in 2013-2014 blocked 7 key locations in Bangkok and severely interrupted car and pedestrian traffic, as well as government offices, why were the protesters not dispersed or required to relocate? Is this because:

A. There was no law against blocking traffic, or preventing people from going to a government office, so the police just had to stand by

B. There were laws against this sort of thing, but the police did not enforce the laws

Which is it?

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't like multiple choice and I don't play your games.

[phoenixdoglover]

The "law and order" crowd likes this law.

But it gives rise to a question:

When the demonstrations in 2013-2014 blocked 7 key locations in Bangkok and severely interrupted car and pedestrian traffic, as well as government offices, why were the protesters not dispersed or required to relocate? Is this because:

A. There was no law against blocking traffic, or preventing people from going to a government office, so the police just had to stand by

B. There were laws against this sort of thing, but the police did not enforce the laws

Which is it?

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't like multiple choice and I don't play your games.

It was a simple question. Probably the answer could be founded 100% based on the facts at hand. If you had the facts.

[oldsailor35]

Lets hope and pray that they did not ask for Suthep's advice on this.

[robblok]

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't like multiple choice and I don't play your games.

It was a simple question. Probably the answer could be founded 100% based on the facts at hand. If you had the facts.

Its a question you can use to give a well prepared answer while my reply gave the true answer.

Now with new laws this cycle can be broken and the people who organise the protest can be held responsible too. That could not be done with just traffic laws.

But you wanted to hear that those laws were sufficient and nothing had to be done. Come on that is the oldest trick in the book giving your opponent in a debate 2 preset answer to choose from.

[phoenixdoglover]

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't like multiple choice and I don't play your games.

It was a simple question. Probably the answer could be founded 100% based on the facts at hand. If you had the facts.

Its a question you can use to give a well prepared answer while my reply gave the true answer.

Now with new laws this cycle can be broken and the people who organise the protest can be held responsible too. That could not be done with just traffic laws.

But you wanted to hear that those laws were sufficient and nothing had to be done. Come on that is the oldest trick in the book giving your opponent in a debate 2 preset answer to choose from.

With your response you suggest that now the cycle can be broken, whereas before it could not. Why do you say that?

Yes. Another trap. Such is the nature of reasoning.

[phoenixdoglover]

Why because of the airport seizure before and the reds later on and then the yellows they all tried to shut down the country. Its a (bad) tradition on both sides and one that should be stopped.

I am all for protesting, the reds had a protest far away from the center of BKK (during the time the anti government protesters were in BKK) nearer to where I live but they did not inconvenience anyone there. That is a good way to protest but most protesters don't like it because its less effective.

In fact in my opinion ordinary protesters should not only be held responsible for their actions but also the leaders. The reds that incited the burning of BKK should be held accountable and so should others not just the people who did the dirty work.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't like multiple choice and I don't play your games.

It was a simple question. Probably the answer could be founded 100% based on the facts at hand. If you had the facts.

Its a question you can use to give a well prepared answer while my reply gave the true answer.

Now with new laws this cycle can be broken and the people who organise the protest can be held responsible too. That could not be done with just traffic laws.

But you wanted to hear that those laws were sufficient and nothing had to be done. Come on that is the oldest trick in the book giving your opponent in a debate 2 preset answer to choose from.

By the way, the genesis of my original question, was this:

"An Executive Opinion Survey published in the latest Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum likewise ranked Thailand 113th out of 144 economies in a ranking of the perceived reliability of police services — the extent to which they can be relied upon to enforce law and order."

So maybe the law has been there all along, but the "reliability" of law enforcement has not.

Just a wild theory.

[gigman]

That's b...hit as everywhere else where power needs absolute power.

This just another step to loose rest of the freedom.

History repeats itself. ..

Just step by step to tighten muzzle on human face.