The anti Thai king thread [Archive]

View Full Version : The anti Thai king thread

rasoforos

01-19-2009, 12:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7836854.stm

Australian writer Harry Nicolaides has been sentenced to three years in a Thai jail for insulting the monarchy.

Nicolaides wrote a novel four years ago, which contained a brief passage referring to an unnamed crown prince. It sold just seven copies.

He admitted the charge of insulting the royal family, but said he was unaware he was committing an offence.

Thailand's monarchy is sheltered from public debate by some of the world's most stringent "lese-majeste" laws.

A 'bad dream'

Harry Nicolaides was arrested as he was leaving the country last August.

His self-published book, called Verisimilitude, was hardly well-received; in fact the only copy which is still known to exist sits on the shelf of the Thai National Library, freely available to the public.

Shackled in leg irons, and wearing standard-issue prison pyjamas, Nicolaides pleaded guilty to the charges against him at Bangkok's Criminal Court on Monday.

Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej (left) and Queen Sirikit. File photo
King Bhumibol is revered in Thailand
He was quickly found guilty, with a judge telling the court: "He has written a book that slandered the king, the crown prince and Thailand and the monarchy."

The court initially sentenced him to six years in jail, but reduced the term because of his guilty plea.

Before the trial Nicolaides had seemed stunned by what was happening to him, describing it is like a ''bad dream''.

But he is just one of a growing number of people being investigated and charged under Thailand's draconian "lese-majeste" law, as the police and army try to suppress what they fear is a rising tide of anti-monarchy sentiment.

More than 3,000 websites have now been blocked, and one political activist was jailed for six years in November for an anti-monarchy speech she made just a stone's throw from the old royal palace last July.

Several other people are now awaiting trial.

As a repentant foreigner, Harry Nicolaides does at least have a good chance of being pardoned by the king, according to the BBC correspondent in Bangkok, Jonathan Head.

The king did the same for a Swiss man given a 10-year sentence two years ago for defacing his portrait.

I am really sick and tired of the Thai king and their silly law...

It is very anachronistic and the poor guy only sold 7 copies anyway!

I have so many :daisy: to say for the Thai king that I should get into the flower business...

Rhyfelwyr

01-19-2009, 13:05

Maybe it was a stunt by the author to get publicity, obviously he isn't going to get it for his writing abilities...

Seriously though, that is one unlucky guy. :no:

CountArach

01-19-2009, 13:37

Monarchy is stupid. Monarchs are worse.

Prince Cobra

01-19-2009, 13:44

As far as I can remember, some may count this as insulting the symbol of a nation. I know such attitude to the monarch is weird for us, the Europeans, but East is different from us.

P.S. I believe he'll be pardoned.

P.S.2 In fact I don't really approve such a law but we have to respect the foreign customs, I think.

Monarchy is stupid. Monarchs are worse.

As far as I know this one is quite liberal compared to his predecessors. (been writing on Thailand two years ago)

Beefy187

01-19-2009, 14:04

Hey! We love our Emperor in Japan :furious3:

And iirc Thai peoples love their king as well.

Theres a saying, once your in their land, obey their rule. Rule in the East side is never mess with the ruler.

rory_20_uk

01-19-2009, 16:06

HoreTore

01-19-2009, 22:29

Thai King?

In my nightmares, I can still remember the dish called "Royal Thai"....

On topic:

Why on earth are people apologizing for such tyrannical laws?

Also, what is Australia doing to get this innocent man freed ASAP?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-19-2009, 23:15

Ignorance is no defense before the Law, having said that I would have thought, given the unpopularity of the book, that a token sentence would be handed down. That or a prompt pardon.

Papewaio

01-19-2009, 23:28

People might want to review the current political climate within Thailand.

He is being made an example of given all the protests against the government that have occurred. Much easier to make an example of a foreigner then a protest leader.

That said, if Australians are that offended by this they can choose to holiday in another nation. Thailand is a very popular choice for Aussies and they are in the top ten of country of origin in Thailand. Given the current economic climate this case could be just one more reason to not go there.

It probably would be worse for Thailand if Bali and Fiji were more stable.

Husar

01-19-2009, 23:30

... and if you don't like it then leave.

~:smoking:

And become "one of them dirty illegal immigrants who take our jobs and our women...".

CountArach

01-19-2009, 23:52

Also, what is Australia doing to get this innocent man freed ASAP?
Sweet :daisy: all.

As far as I know this one is quite liberal compared to his predecessors. (been writing on Thailand two years ago)
If he were truly liberal/enlightened, he would step aside.

Beren Son Of Barahi

01-20-2009, 00:31

Beefy187

01-20-2009, 01:29

A while back but in 1993, the current Thai king has resolved a coup de tat (I definitely spelled that wrong) by being the middle man for both parties. I suppose thats one way to use royal families status.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-20-2009, 02:24

I think other places around the region will become more popular; who ever not many other places want what has happened to Thailand to happen there.

what has the king done for his people in the last 5 -10 -15 years?

A great deal, actually. He is greatly loved and his appeals for clam have prevented coups from becoming bloody revolutions. The country is very unstable and were it not for the King the regular extra-constitutional changes of regime might become open Civil War.

Mooks

01-20-2009, 02:48

Lord Winter

01-20-2009, 02:49

Doesnt make sense that a greatly loved king would censor criticism. If he was "greatly loved" then it wouldnt make any difference if there were a few dissidents.

Do we even know if the King gave the order for some obscure author to be arrested?

Beefy187

01-20-2009, 04:10

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-20-2009, 04:14

It is far more likely that the current government, which is deeply unpopular, is using the king as a means to intimidate the populace. Thailand's tendancy to change government via coup seems to have prevented them from developing the patience necessary for a democracy.

CountArach

01-20-2009, 04:36

King cannot afford any criticism. If the royals aren't absolute then they are nothing more then annoying celebrities who reigns high above the commoners. Absolute kings is often popular because they can take out any elements of criticism. Soon as they allow gossiping, they will end up like poor king Louis 16th.
So wait... you are defending the breach of free speech this action represents?

Also Absolute Kings were only ever popular because:
1) The enlightenment had not occurred.
2) The Aristocracy were the only ones they had to keep happy.
Absolute Monarchy is never going to be popular today.

rasoforos

01-20-2009, 11:16

A great deal, actually. He is greatly loved and his appeals for clam have prevented coups from becoming bloody revolutions. The country is very unstable and were it not for the King the regular extra-constitutional changes of regime might become open Civil War.

Does it make anyone wonder why this country with the 'stabilizing king' is the most unstable in the area?

I don't think he prevents coups. He supported the last one...

Everyone who attempts a coup in Thailand can easily succeed by twisting the king's arm into supporting it...

The king is mainly there to eat Tom Yam, wear yellow and own a whole lot of money. He could stop all this nonsense about arresting people who say his shirt is crinkled and stuff...but he doesn't....so he is a :daisy: to me.

rory_20_uk

01-20-2009, 11:56

And become "one of them dirty illegal immigrants who take our jobs and our women...".

Possibly, and I know this is a long shot, they could legally go to another country... ~:idea:

~:smoking:

lars573

01-20-2009, 16:52

So I just read up on Thailands legal system. Found something interesting. Slander and libel are criminal offenses.

Prince Cobra

01-20-2009, 20:57

So wait... you are defending the breach of free speech this action represents?

Also Absolute Kings were only ever popular because:
1) The enlightenment had not occurred.
2) The Aristocracy were the only ones they had to keep happy.
Absolute Monarchy is never going to be popular today.

Thailand is not an absolute monarchy.

And just look on the Cambogia record: they became monarchy again. Why? It is obvious that the liberal monarchy stops most of forms of extreme dictatorships

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-20-2009, 23:12

Does it make anyone wonder why this country with the 'stabilizing king' is the most unstable in the area?

:inquisitive:

I don't know about you, but I would prefer a little bit of "unstability" to Burma (a military dictatorship), Laos (socialist/communist dictatorship), or Vietnam (same thing).

CountArach

01-21-2009, 02:03

Thailand is not an absolute monarchy.
I know, but Beefy was defending absolute monarchy.

Lord Winter

01-21-2009, 02:06

So I just read up on Thailands legal system. Found something interesting. Slander and libel are criminal offenses.

Are they not in most western countries?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-21-2009, 02:07

Are they not in most western countries?

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are usually classified under Civil Law rather than Criminal.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-21-2009, 02:17

That's true in most countries, same as traspass.

That brings up a tangential point, CA's arguement about Absolute Monarchy may hold for Europe, does it also hold for East Asia, though?

Beefy187

01-21-2009, 07:27

I know, but Beefy was defending absolute monarchy.

It might have worked well couple hundred years back. Not any more. So yes I did like how it worked but I don't think it will work in most of the countries now days.
Absolute monarchy used to be good. Now it doesn't fit the spirit of the time.

CountArach

01-21-2009, 07:53

It might have worked well couple hundred years back. Not any more. So yes I did like how it worked but I don't think it will work in most of the countries now days.
Absolute monarchy used to be good. Now it doesn't fit the spirit of the time.
The only reason they fail now is because we know better. They never worked well - people just didn't know any other way.

HoreTore

01-21-2009, 07:55

Ignorance is no defense before the Law, having said that I would have thought, given the unpopularity of the book, that a token sentence would be handed down. That or a prompt pardon.

:dizzy2:

You actually mean that? There's nothing wrong with tyrannical regimes breaking basic human rights(in this case, freedom of speech), as long as they have a law about it?:thumbsdown:

HoreTore

01-21-2009, 08:54

Possibly, and I know this is a long shot, they could legally go to another country... ~:idea:

How very convenient then, that the entire europe is nailed shut and there is about 0 percent chance staying by entering legally....

"Hey, you're more than welcome to spend every penny you've got to pay criminals who, if they don't kill you, take you to our country, where you will get the privilege of staying in a asylum(prison)-camp for a year doing absolutely nothing until we decide that you're a danger to our racial purity and boot you out again."

Jolly good :dizzy2:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-22-2009, 20:42

:dizzy2:

You actually mean that? There's nothing wrong with tyrannical regimes breaking basic human rights(in this case, freedom of speech), as long as they have a law about it?:thumbsdown:

You don't like it, you can yet a resolution before the UN that the evil regime needs changing and invade legally. Or, as the government is not the King, you could run for office, be elected and change the law.

There are two issues here, one is about Freedom of Speach, the other is about the rule of law. As I said recently in another thread, you cannot simply disobay the laws you don't like and then complain when the statutory penalty is enforced. Otherwise I could kill you and then walk away.

If the Law fails you change it, you don't flout it.

How very convenient then, that the entire europe is nailed shut and there is about 0 percent chance staying by entering legally....

"Hey, you're more than welcome to spend every penny you've got to pay criminals who, if they don't kill you, take you to our country, where you will get the privilege of staying in a asylum(prison)-camp for a year doing absolutely nothing until we decide that you're a danger to our racial purity and boot you out again."

Jolly good :dizzy2:

A Norwegian friend told me Norway is still very racist, the situation you describe is not the reality in the rest of Europe. If anything it is too far the other way.

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 14:44

You don't like it, you can yet a resolution before the UN that the evil regime needs changing and invade legally. Or, as the government is not the King, you could run for office, be elected and change the law.

There are two issues here, one is about Freedom of Speach, the other is about the rule of law. As I said recently in another thread, you cannot simply disobay the laws you don't like and then complain when the statutory penalty is enforced. Otherwise I could kill you and then walk away.

If the Law fails you change it, you don't flout it.

Right.... So, let's have a little example of another situation I'm sure you'd agree is all fine and dandy:

In WW2 on the eastern front, the Wehrmacht issued an order(a military order is to a soldier what a law is to a civilian), stating that captured russian commissars were to be executed at once. Now, killing a surrendering enemy is murder and a war-crime, but within the Wehrmacht, orders from the high command were of course given authority over things like the Geneva conventions, kinda like how the laws of Thailand are given authority over the human rights charter.

So, let's say a group of german soldiers captures such a man. In your opinion, they should unquestioningly kill him, right? I mean... It's the law, right? Can't break that? They should first kill him, then if they didn't want to kill anymore, they should work up to the high command and change the order, right? And if they didn't kill him, then it would be entirely just for them to be punished, right?

You fail to realize what a demonstration is, and just how tyrannical laws and regimes are changed. In a few cases in working democracies(ie. western ones), then yes, they have been changed from the top. In the majority of cases, however, such laws are changed because of extreme pressure from demonstrations(mostly unlawful ones, as regimes are quick to outlaw demonstrations) and civil disobedience. The power of the masses is usually triggered by someone taking a stand and breaking the tyrannical law, thus infuriating the people with the injustice. The injustice of such laws need to be shown by an example, if it's only written in a book with everyone following it out of fear, then it will most likely remain the same, as people are unable to see the consequence of it.

Rosa Parks is a very good example. She broke the law, and by doing that, she triggered the fury of the oppressed african americans, resulting in the civil rights laws. If she had not broken the law, if noone had broken the law, then the process of giving black people rights would've been delayed. But in your opinion, she should've just given up her seat, right?

rory_20_uk

01-23-2009, 17:17

How very convenient then, that the entire europe is nailed shut and there is about 0 percent chance staying by entering legally....

"Hey, you're more than welcome to spend every penny you've got to pay criminals who, if they don't kill you, take you to our country, where you will get the privilege of staying in a asylum(prison)-camp for a year doing absolutely nothing until we decide that you're a danger to our racial purity and boot you out again."

Jolly good :dizzy2:

Who said to Europe?

I understand that it seems that the possibility of going anywhere else doesn't cross most people's mind but try the rest of the world.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 18:22

Who said to Europe?

I understand that it seems that the possibility of going anywhere else doesn't cross most people's mind but try the rest of the world.

~:smoking:

What functioning democracy in the world accepts immigrants by the boatload? What country in the world does that?

And what's the point in moving from one oppressive regime to another oppressive regime?

Kralizec

01-23-2009, 18:48

:dizzy2:

You actually mean that? There's nothing wrong with tyrannical regimes breaking basic human rights(in this case, freedom of speech), as long as they have a law about it?:thumbsdown:

Personally I have a rather darwinistic approach to westerners visiting foreign countries where they get themselves in trouble. Yes, it's a terrible law. But you're an idiot for exposing yourself like that.

This seems to be a case of rather unlikely bad luck, but still.

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 18:59

Personally I have a rather darwinistic approach to westerners visiting foreign countries where they get themselves in trouble. Yes, it's a terrible law. But you're an idiot for exposing yourself like that.

This seems to be a case of rather unlikely bad luck, but still.

This law isn't targeted specifically at foreigners, so the fact that he is a foreigner is irrelevant.

Kralizec

01-23-2009, 19:18

This law isn't targeted specifically at foreigners, so the fact that he is a foreigner is irrelevant.

It's not really our problem, is it? The only reason why this is apparently newsworthy is because the victim is from Australia. There are plenty of countries wich are far worse than Thailand, but as long as western people avoid them and there is apparently no cause to get worked up about those :shrug:

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 20:10

It's not really our problem, is it?

Solidarity, Comrade ~;)

The only reason why this is apparently newsworthy is because the victim is from Australia. There are plenty of countries wich are far worse than Thailand, but as long as western people avoid them and there is apparently no cause to get worked up about those :shrug:

Uhm..... What?

Take a look at the Backroom, for example, and try to count the number of topics concerning liberty and oppressive/tyrannical/idiot regimes...

rory_20_uk

01-23-2009, 21:59

What functioning democracy in the world accepts immigrants by the boatload? What country in the world does that?

And what's the point in moving from one oppressive regime to another oppressive regime?

Oh, boatload...

Considering the problem was vs. the monarchy, then there are many "oppressive" regimes that don't have this problem.

Ah, so the West should start getting upset over all the regimes in the world. Sounds suspiciously like Imperialistic interference - West Knows Best etc etc.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

01-24-2009, 14:47

West Knows Best etc etc.

West knows best? No. Democracy knows best.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-24-2009, 15:59

West knows best? No. Democracy knows best.

Democracy knows best? No, by design Democracy knows least worst. Best is too emphemeral.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-24-2009, 16:08

Right.... So, let's have a little example of another situation I'm sure you'd agree is all fine and dandy:

In WW2 on the eastern front, the Wehrmacht issued an order(a military order is to a soldier what a law is to a civilian), stating that captured russian commissars were to be executed at once. Now, killing a surrendering enemy is murder and a war-crime, but within the Wehrmacht, orders from the high command were of course given authority over things like the Geneva conventions, kinda like how the laws of Thailand are given authority over the human rights charter.

So, let's say a group of german soldiers captures such a man. In your opinion, they should unquestioningly kill him, right? I mean... It's the law, right? Can't break that? They should first kill him, then if they didn't want to kill anymore, they should work up to the high command and change the order, right? And if they didn't kill him, then it would be entirely just for them to be punished, right?

Well, they could have left Germany when it became clear Hitler was a racist sociopath. Or, they could have broken military law and been shot themselves. Both a perfectly valid moral moral choices. This is not about whether a law should exist, it's about whether you should be let off when you break it.

Your example, however, ignores the prevailing feeling in Germany at the time regarding the Russians, and whether or not they would have thought there was anything wrong with shooting him to begin with.

You fail to realize what a demonstration is, and just how tyrannical laws and regimes are changed. In a few cases in working democracies(ie. western ones), then yes, they have been changed from the top. In the majority of cases, however, such laws are changed because of extreme pressure from demonstrations(mostly unlawful ones, as regimes are quick to outlaw demonstrations) and civil disobedience.

Quite often a lot of those people go to gaol, don't they? Including men like Ghandi, Freeborn John, Mandela etc.

The power of the masses is usually triggered by someone taking a stand and breaking the tyrannical law, thus infuriating the people with the injustice. The injustice of such laws need to be shown by an example, if it's only written in a book with everyone following it out of fear, then it will most likely remain the same, as people are unable to see the consequence of it.

Quite often those people have the moral fortitude to take the punishment with the crime, as an extension of their protest.

Rosa Parks is a very good example. She broke the law, and by doing that, she triggered the fury of the oppressed african americans, resulting in the civil rights laws. If she had not broken the law, if noone had broken the law, then the process of giving black people rights would've been delayed. But in your opinion, she should've just given up her seat, right?

America is a democracy and the majoriety voted in racist politicians after the Civil War, which passed racist laws. In the late 1800s there were several Black Congressmen, from the South, from the Republican party. Then the Democrats came back into power and passed lots of racist laws, democratically.

This Australian broke Thailand's laws, therefore he foes to gaol. His going to gaol has upset a few people, and increased pressure to change the law. In the meantime he should be treated fairly by the judiciary and penal system, and given the legal punishment.

The Law is the Law, it defines crimes and punishments, it is enacted by the legislature, enforced by the executive and operated by the judiciary. If the law is wrong that is the fault of the legislature, corrupting the executive and judiciary to try to correct the corrupt legislature is making a bad problem much worse.

HoreTore

01-24-2009, 16:14

Quite often a lot of those people go to gaol, don't they? Including men like Ghandi, Freeborn John, Mandela etc.

Quite often those people have the moral fortitude to take the punishment with the crime, as an extension of their protest.

America is a democracy and the majoriety voted in racist politicians after the Civil War, which passed racist laws. In the late 1800s there were several Black Congressmen, from the South, from the Republican party. Then the Democrats came back into power and passed lots of racist laws, democratically.

This Australian broke Thailand's laws, therefore he foes to gaol. His going to gaol has upset a few people, and increased pressure to change the law. In the meantime he should be treated fairly by the judiciary and penal system, and given the legal punishment.

The Law is the Law, it defines crimes and punishments, it is enacted by the legislature, enforced by the executive and operated by the judiciary. If the law is wrong that is the fault of the legislature, corrupting the executive and judiciary to try to correct the corrupt legislature is making a bad problem much worse.

All of this is utterly irrelevant and/or supporting my claim that breaking a tyrannical law is necessary and the way to change said law. Where did I say that they should let him go without changing the law? I said it is tyrannical to have such laws, and that Thailand should be pressured into changing it.

Kralizec

01-24-2009, 16:42

Take a look at the Backroom, for example, and try to count the number of topics concerning liberty and oppressive/tyrannical/idiot regimes...

Particular dictatorships are rarely mentioned when they're not doing anything that directly concerns a western country. I haven't seen a lot of threads devoted to Eritrea or Belarus. In this case, we're talking about a law that has existed for ages and punishes people regardless of nationality, but the only reason we're discussing it is because an Australian is involved.

All of this is utterly irrelevant and/or supporting my claim that breaking a tyrannical law is necessary and the way to change said law. Where did I say that they should let him go without changing the law? I said it is tyrannical to have such laws, and that Thailand should be pressured into changing it.

I can see how you think we should pressure Saudi Arabia to stop violating human rights, but Thailand has universal suffrage, and while it isn't exactly a functional democracy I find it hard to believe that this law would still be on the books if the majority of people thought it particulary unfair or had the overwhelming desire to say potty stuff about the monarch without being jailed. It's their own business and pressuring them to care about it is useless. The Australian government should, of course, try their best for this particular guy as that's a government duty towards its own citizens.

I can't get wound up about westerners getting themselves in trouble on the other side of the world, because they really have noone to blame but themselves and partly because the substantial number of Dutch people convicted for drug related offenses abroad has numbed my feelings :coffeenews:

For that matter, deliberately insulting her majesty is a crime over here too- except that the odd conviction for it is usually symbolic.