[FACT comments: We have been talking about distributed network reporting of censored websites for some time. Herdict makes doing your netizen’s civic duty easy. Don’t be a sheep! Test your ISP in Thailand.
Use Herdict’s results to look at the sites Thai government doesn’t want you to see using anonymous proxies or VPN. We suggest, in your spare time, entering the URLs in the “Participate” column, “Test a Specific Site” at http://www.herdict.org/web/ from Thailand’s leaked MICT blocklists, and the blocklists from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Romania and Turkey, available on FACTsite, for testing.
We think Herdict is the best invention since sliced bread! What remains to be seen is whether Thai government will block Herdict or allow us to force government transparency in censorship.]
Have you ever come across a web site that you could not access and wondered, ”Am I the only one?” Herdict Web aggregates reports of inaccessible sites, allowing users to compare data to see if innacessibility is a shared problem. By crowdsourcing data from around the world, we can document accessibility for any web site, anywhere.
Today, a special announcement from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. We are pleased to announce the official launch of Herdict Web –
– a tool that employs the distributed power of the Internet community to provide insight into what users around the world are experiencing in terms of web accessibility.
We invite everyone to explore http://www.herdict.org and participate by reporting websites that they cannot access, testing sites that others have reported, or downloading the browser add-on for reporting sites on the fly.
Herdict is a portmanteau of ‘herd’ and ‘verdict.’ Using Herdict Web, anyone anywhere can report websites as accessible or inaccessible. Herdict Web aggregates reports in real time, permitting participants to see if inaccessibility is a shared problem, giving them a better sense of potential reasons for why a site is inaccessible. Trends can be viewed over time, by site and by country.
The project’s mascot — a sheep — demonstrates “the verdict of the herd” in a short video at http://www.herdict.org (or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo). We built the site. We built the sheep. We tested it all. Herdict is the only site for reporting inaccessibility of websites worldwide.
The brainchild of Professor Jonathan Zittrain (The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It <http://futureoftheinternet.org/>), Herdict Web builds out from the OpenNet Initiative’s research on global Internet filtering. The OpenNet Initiative tests Internet filtering through an academic methodology. Herdict Web takes a different approach, crowdsourcing reports to learn about and display a real-time picture of user experiences around the globe. For more information about the OpenNet Initiative and the book Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, visit http://opennet.net.
Testing Thailand is way more fun than any video game! Go to http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/TH to see a list of websites growing. Click on Participate at upper right corner http://www.herdict.org/web/participate. In the column “Recently Reported in Thailand”, click on the box “Test These Sites” http://www.herdict.org/web/participate?report=&index=0&testCountry=TH. Spend your hours here rather than MySpace and Twitter. FACT thinks it important to write your conclusions in the “Comments” box in left-hand column to fine-tune results, e.g., “404 Not Found”. Have fun! Our only complaint might be that Herdict should make the URL box capable of copying so that we can see what we’re missing using proxies or VPN.
For more about Herdict Web:
* Visit http://www.herdict.org/web/about
* Download Herdict Firefox add-on (http://www.herdict.org/web/participate/download;jsessionid=D205125DA89BC37A413A52ED5257AC6C); Internet Explorer toolbar coming soon
* Sign up for email updates and announcements, including translations of Herdict Web into other languages
* Check out the Herdict blog at http://www.herdict.org/blog/
* Watch and listen to Jonathan Zittrain discussing Herdict Web at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2009/02/herdict and http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2009/02/17/radio-berkman-restrictions-connections-visualizations/
What Is Herdict Web? (Tim Hwang)
http://www.herdict.org/blog/2009/01/22/the-scoop-on-herdict-web/
As governments and institutions throughout the globe increasingly work to control the flow of information on the Internet, online filtration and censorship have become significant threats to speech on the web. Even worse, these efforts often go undetected.
The groups responsible rarely (if ever) announce their intentions, and the precise details of online censorship regimes are equally difficult to track. Obviously, this complicates attempts by activists and researchers to respond to Internet filtration or blocking.
Herdict Web attempts to shed light on this previously opaque activity on the web by generating a dynamic map of information accessibility around the world. Developed by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Herdict Web provides up-to-date reports on where and when sites are inaccessible, and what kinds of users are facing difficulty. In turn, it transparently makes this information openly available online for discussion and further exploration by the public at large.
But it requires one important ingredient: you.
How does it work?
Traditionally, research on internet filtration is a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming process. Researchers are deployed directly or make contact with a few local affiliates within a target country who run cross-checks on a set list of websites agreed on in advance. This approach has obvious limitations, not least of which is that the small number of individuals involved places practical limits on how comprehensive and how often tests can be made. Taking the insights of projects like SETI@Home, Herdict provides an open platform for all interested users to contribute in building a picture of information accessibility on the web. Anyone online can submit a report of inaccessibility independently, or use our webapp Herdict Reporter to check out sites of particular interest that we’ve been tracking. Collecting these individual experiences, Herdict then anonymizes this information and automatically aggregates the data to generate our map of the online landscape.
So What’s So Great About Herdict?
Make a Difference: Knowing is half the battle. Your efforts will help activists, researchers, and the press understand the evolving face of web filtration and online freedom.
Options A-Go-Go: No need to be limited, Herdict provides tons of ways to participate. For Firefox users, Herdict also provides a lightweight browser add-on that provides the latest data about the website you’re loading and lets you submit inaccessibility reports on the fly.
Constantly Updated Tracking: Interested in keeping an eye out for a particular part of the web? Herdict provides embeddable widgets and a treasure trove of perpetually updated RSS feeds so you can keep up-to-date about the latest reports of inaccessibility by website, country, and even ISP as they happen.
Stay Safe: Herdict respects the privacy of its users and recognizes the risks of participating in environments where online privacy might be in question. All data is rigorously anonymized before being made public.
Data, Data, Data: Like data? Be still your statistical heart. All the information collected by Herdict is available in easily parsable, regularly released data dumps to play with at your leisure.
The Herdict Reporter (Jillian C. York)
http://www.herdict.org/blog/2008/10/29/the-herdict-reporter/
Herdict Web offers two ways to report inaccessible web sites. The first is, of course, the Firefox/IE add-on. Of course, you may not want to download an add-on…maybe you’re using a public computer, or maybe you’re just concerned about the software. Whatever the reason, we have a solution: The Herdict Reporter!
The Herdict Reporter is a web-based way of reporting site accessibility to us. When you access the Reporter, you are automatically provided with a site in a frame – if you can see the site, you should report it accessible using the green button to the left. If you can’t, report it inaccessible.
What information does the Herdict Reporter collect?
The Herdict Reporter uses your IP address to automatically populate the country where you are located and the ISP which you are using. Of course, this information could potentially be incorrect, in which case, you can manually type the correct information.
The other information the Reporter hopes to collect is from you. There’s a field to enter your location (e.g. home, work, cyber cafe), tags as they pertain to the site shown (e.g. political, social, news), and any comments you have about the site’s accessibility. You can also view other people’s comments from within the Reporter.
After you have deemed a site inaccessible or accessible, the Reporter will automatically populate with another site from our premade list. You can skip a site at any time if, for whatever reason, you’d prefer not to report it.
Congratulations to the Herdict project team for their terrific work in making Herdict Web a reality!
The times they are a’changin’
27-02-09
Times They Are a’Changing
Bob Dylan
Come gather ’round people Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters Around you have grown
And accept it that soon You’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who That it’s namin’.
For the loser now Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside And it’s ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land
And don’t criticize What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command
Your old road is Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
The line it is drawn The curse it is cast
The slow one now Will later be fast
As the present now Will later be past
The order is Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
[FACT comments: We genuinely can’t fathom why Ajarn Ji jumped into the sack with the “redshirts” (red was his favourite colour? red was suitably Marxist?).
They were, in fact, probably paid by Thaksin cronies to come to Bangkok to stir up trouble but they’re past that now. What the redshirts are not past is their faithlessness.
Redshirts are yellow scaredy-cats who can’t really stand up to authority. Oh, yes, they can use people when it suits their agenda.
Boonyuen, a working class woman, who is serving SIX years, and Darunee, a political organiser, denied bail illegally for six months so far and will not face trial for a full year, were used to whip up the troops and then flushed like toilet paper when the shit hit the fan.
The king pardoned Harry; how about Boonyuen and Darunee?
Oh, look: here comes a professor, now a professor in exile. Have you heard any redshirts supporting Ajarn Ji???
Thaksin supporters make pitiful bedfellows. They don’t ever perform. Pitiful! If the rest of the world sees how Thai rak Thai, they won’t trust any of us for a minute!
When will Thai government see that this is the issue that can divide us Thais forever?]
UDD jilts ‘Da Torpedo’
Ex-protester loses 15 kilos in jail
Kultida Samabuddhi
Bangkok Post: February 25, 2009
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/12243/udd-jilts-da-torpedo
After three failed bail attempts in seven months, lese majeste suspect Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul has lost all hope of returning to a life outside prison.
Daranee: Getting out ‘seems impossible’
“I want to get out, but it seems impossible,” Ms Daranee, better known as “Da Torpedo”, said yesterday via a small microphone at Khlong Prem prison’s visiting room.
Her voice was hoarse and her words sounded fuzzy as she could hardly open her mouth to speak due to severe jaw dysfunction.
Wearing a light-brown prison uniform, the 46-year-old woman who was once a key speaker of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, looks much different now from when she frequently appeared on UDD stages last year.
She is now skinny, with a glum look and stooped shoulders. But her eyes still show a strong determination to fight on. “I’ve lost 15 kilos since arriving here,” she said.
Ms Daranee was arrested at her Bangkok home on July 22 last year on lese majeste charges following her speeches at a UDD rally.
Since then she has been detained at the Central Women’s Correctional Institute in Bangkok’s Chatuchak district.
On Oct 9, the public prosecution filed lese majeste charges against Ms Daranee, accusing her of committing the crime on three occasions between June and July last year. If found guilty, she could face a combined prison term of up to 45 years.
Suthachai Yimprasert, a history lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, has tried three times to seek bail for Ms Daranee using his official position as a guarantee, but to no avail.
The court reasoned that the charges against Ms Daranee carried very heavy penalties, and that her alleged offences could tarnish the monarchy, therefore granting her bail could hurt the feelings of the King’s loyal subjects.
The latest bail request was submitted to the court on Monday together with a medical certificate from the Central Women’s Correctional Institute confirming that Ms Daranee has a serious jaw ailment. The request was rejected.
Ms Daranee said yesterday she had given up all hope of ever getting out on bail. She now only thinks of how to survive hellish prison conditions.
“It hurts me physically and mentally. I have to live in a very confined space with only five bowls of water to wash myself at a time,” she said.
She also has to put up with insults from fellow inmates and prison officials who keep castigating her for showing disrespect to the monarchy.
The worst thing, she said, is the lack of good books to read.
Fellow UDD supporters, anti-coup students and activists, no longer come to visit her, she said.
Key UDD leaders including Jatuporn Prompan, Veera Musikhapong and Nattawut Saikua, have never showed up, she said.
Only her elder brother and her lawyer still pay occasional visits. Sometimes, strangers show up to reprimand her for insulting the King.
Asked what she would like to do first if she ever regained her freedom, Ms Daranee said she would petition the government to give the Corrections Department more funds to improve the living conditions of prisoners.
Her lawyer Prawais Prapanugool said he had done his best to seek court approval for her bail requests.
According to Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a suspect should be denied bail if he/she was likely to escape or repeat the offence he/she was accused of, or to meddle with witnesses and evidence, or if the bail guarantor was deemed to be unreliable.
“Ms Daranee does not fall under any of those conditions, so she should have been allowed bail,” the lawyer said.
Even suspects charged with serious crimes such as first-degree murder, or those facing corruption charges, such as Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife, as well as wellknown individuals facing similar lese majeste charges, have been granted bail, the lawyer argued in the request for bail for Ms Daranee.
Mr Prawais said he was paid to represent Ms Daranee but refused to say more about the sources of the money.
“This is not only about money. I can’t stand seeing a woman fight this serious charge alone,” the lawyer said.
The court is to start hearing witnesses on June 23.
[FACT comments: This is a pretty crazy and exciting article for those of us living in Thailand. These are concepts we dare not mention. Thailand's lese majeste crisis is out of the bottle and loose in the rest of the world. Of course, no one here believes lese majeste prosecutions have anything to do with King Bhumibol and everything to do with his successor. The powers-that-be think that they can ensure a peaceful transition by silencing all critics. (Did these pols go to school with Burma's generals?!?) The most interesting suggestion was for a referendum on lese majeste law (after all, we had a referendum on the Constitution and look how well that went!). Regardless of international hype, I fear for my country far more than I fear it. Act like nothing's wrong.]
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy
Lee Jones
New Mandala: February 27th, 2009
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/02/27/lese-majeste-in-thailand-the-enemy-of-democracy/
After SOAS, Giles’s second stop of his tour of major UK campuses to deliver his critique of contemporary Thai politics brought him to Oxford, where he now lives in exile with his wife and son. Around 60 people attended his talk, which I chaired, virtually all of them Thai, some sympathisers and some hostile. Before the talk began, a young yellow-shirt – actually wearing a yellow shirt with a royal insignia – asked if he could speak against Ungpakorn and ‘defend my king’, and for permission to distribute a one-sided A4 critique of Ungpakorn. A recording of the talk can be heard here.
Giles rehearsed many of the themes of his book, A Coup for the Rich, which had landed him in trouble with the Thai authorities, arguing that the coup had been launched and supported by generals, oligarchs and middle-class elites with contempt for the poor and democracy, in defence of their ‘interests networks’, upon which Thaksin had been intruding. He continued to reject Handley’s suggestion that the king is ‘the most powerful person in Thailand’, depicting him as a weak figure manipulated by more powerful forces.
Giles added that the current government was, as a result of the manoeuvres which brought it to power – chronicled extensively on New Mandala – ‘installed by the military’.
He also rehearsed his severe criticism of Thaksin’s abuses of power, but noted that charges of corruption could be – but in practice were not – extended to every Thai politician; likewise, charges that Thaksin dodged tax could also be extended to the king.
However, Giles argued, at least Thaksin ‘was modern’, in formulating a real political party with real policies that the poor could evaluate and choose to support. While continuing to brand the PAD ‘fascist’, he also rehearsed his criticisms of the Thai left for its fragmentation into single-issue groups and its depoliticisation, which led it to hardly criticise the coup.
He also extended his analysis to the contemporary situation, which is obviously not covered in his book. Giles argued that neoliberalism had been enshrined in the new constitution by dint of the references to ‘fiscal discipline’, and that the king’s regressive concept of ‘sufficiency economy’ was likewise emphasised. Coupled with the precedent of the Democrats’ ideologically neoliberal response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, he argued the present Thai government is simply incapable of addressing the impact of the present global financial crisis on Thailand, which requires massive fiscal stimulus à la the UK and US. Perhaps the most contentious assertion of his talk was that the redshirts represent the ‘rebirth of civil society’ in Thailand.
There are signs, he said, that redshirts have gone well beyond their initial situation of being mobilised by Thaksin cronies; autonomous, self-organising and -financing groups are now starkly apparent among a relatively incoherent mass movement of over 100,000 people. Many of these groups have backward ideas, attacking lesbians and gays, for instance. But, Giles suggested, this was not reflective of the whole and merely reinforced the argument for people to join forces with the redshirts to help them develop in a more progressive direction. Giles himself appeared in a red shirt and proclaimed his own membership.
The event was then opened up to the floor, with questions, statements and debates strongly encouraged. The audience was clearly divided as to the merits of Giles’s ideas. Among the most notable points made were:
▪ Pretty nasty ad hominem attacks from the aforementioned yellow-shirt, along with questions as to whether the half-British professor was really Thai. A long-term Western resident of Thailand expressed her regret that she would never be accepted as Thai. Giles was also accused of running down the country and saying nothing positive.
▪ If Thailand’s political chaos continues, China might invade!
▪ A practicing Thai doctor argued that universal healthcare was a policy stolen from the Ministry of Health, which just encouraged the worried well to overwhelm hospitals, and suggested Thaksin raked in bumper profits at his chain of private hospitals as middle-class people sought higher-quality care.
▪ What is the meaning of ‘sufficiency economy’?
▪ Aren’t the redshirts too close to Thaksin and thus not ‘political free’? Aren’t they just the PAD redux?
▪ Aren’t Thais different to, say, English and American people, and thus why should they copy UK or US institutions and practices?
▪ What should the king do? What would Giles have done, had he been the king? What was he going to do next? What were his intentions?
▪ Could Thailand maintain its coherence as it undergoes a tense modernisation process without the king? What will happen if the king dies? What is Thailand if not a space/people defined by fealty to the king and Buddhism? Isn’t the crucial thing not so much institutions but Thailand’s ‘political culture’ and the king’s centrality as a ‘value-concept’? One Thai suggested that if people chose to vote for Thaksin, they equally chose to ‘love and worship’ the king. Strong support was expressed for the king from some audience members: one spoke of her mystical encounters with him; another held up a portrait, gave a short speech about how wonderful he is, and cried ‘long live the king’, at which around fifteen people applauded.
▪ Why is the lèse majesté law required if the king is really so universally loved and admired? Doesn’t such an extreme response suggest royalists are afraid that this might not be the case?
▪ Would Giles accept the outcome of a referendum on lèse majesté?
▪ Does a lèse majesté law have any place in a modern democracy? People seemed quite reluctant to debate this central point, and one speaker suggested the universal jurisdiction of the law might make people afraid to speak out even in the UK. However, one Thai attendee asserted that the very question was so stupid it would not even appear on a basic political science syllabus – the clear answer being that freedom of expression is a sine qua non of democracy.
It must be noted that many of the most critical points – in terms of going against the established orthodoxy – came from the handful of Western attendees, while several Thais in the audience were apt to praise the king in fairly conventional terms – that he had worked hard and selflessly to help the people, that he was universally beloved, and so on.
There were one or two vocal exceptions to this rule. And one Westerner made some very ahistorical remarks about the centrality of the monarchy.
Giles gave a single response at the end:
▪ Healthcare: Thaksin did adopt the policy from elsewhere – to his credit. Political parties should develop policies that distinguish them and offer people a real choice. Hospitals were overwhelmed by people in genuine need, not the worried well; and funding should be increased through progressive taxation to resolve that.
▪ Sufficiency economy: a fundamentally reactionary, anti-welfarist concept, entrenching people in their respective economic positions.
▪ Thai culture: rather than the king, an appropriate ‘value-concept’ would be a commitment to equality, freedom and solidarity. True respect for elders requires a welfare state to take care of them. Thai culture is not unified. Thai manners taught in school imbibe deference and hierarchy, causing Thais to respect only the higher-ups, rather than to respect everyone as equals. But it is also Thai culture to defend democracy – which has been more on show in Thailand than Britain of late.
▪ The king: Giles would never serve as a king; but a constitutional monarch should defend the constitution and democracy, and if he is incapable of doing so, announce the fact and stand aside. Citizens should be able to help the king fulfil these duties. The idea of a universal or timeless adoration for the king is simply ahistorical. In the 1930s, there was ‘complete disregard’ for the monarchy. The king did support the bloody crackdown on the left in October 1976 as a response to ‘too much democracy’. He criticises welfare as making people lazy. His projects have helped some, but far fewer than successive governments and the people who have really developed Thailand – farmers and workers. Lèse majesté is not currently protecting the monarchy but discrediting it. Abolishing lèse majesté and seeing what happens would be a real test of the extent of adoration for the king. A referendum would be acceptable, but only if held every five years and under conditions where open debate was possible. Contempt of court laws, which protect judges from criticism, should also be scrapped. Once the present king dies, the throne will pass to the universally despised crown prince. A republic would be more desirable.
▪ Redshirts: are not unified, but have grown well beyond Thaksin’s cronies. Autonomy of various elements displayed in their home-made banners declaring themselves part of different groups. Likely to outgrow TRT’s ‘backward’ policies. Thais have a duty to join this pro-democracy movement and make it more progressive and more independent from Thaksin.
Probably the most interest aspect of the night, for a student of Thai politics, were the claims made for the redshirts. Probably Giles would admit their promise is more potential than real right now, but the eruption of open social conflict on the streets of Thailand in the last few years has clear evoked a significant mass movement to counter those mobilised by the Bangkok middle classes. How it develops will, as Giles suggests, depend very much upon who joins and how it is led; a reactionary bent is hardly out of the question given the way Thaksin combined welfarism and right-wing domestic policy to great popular acclaim. It will be interesting to watch and we should keep a close eye on developments. Finally, it was striking how many highly educated Thais (many in the audience were students) had clearly imbibed the ruling orthodoxies about the monarchy.
Again, it will be interesting to see how long this lasts when the throne passes to the crown prince.
Giles’ next stop is in Cambridge.
Lee Jones is the Rose Research Fellow in International Relations at Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford. His website is available here http://www.leejones.tk/.
[FACT comments: FACT's position is clear law--If it's written, "illegal content" falls under the scope of the Printing Act. If spoken or acted upon, Article 112 may be invoked. It's an interesting fact about Thai law that military, interim or coup parliaments pass laws which are never questioned after elected "democracy" is restored! If these 2006 coup-appointed laws are valid, why are they not being exercised according to Thai law? And when will we start to respect the Thai (military) Constitution 2007 which guarantees is freedom of expression? Thailand is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Nicolaides free, but writers’ persecution persists
Arnold Zable
Eureka Street: February 27, 2009
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=11998
Harry Nicolaides’ release from a Bangkok prison, and return to Melbourne last Saturday brought to an end a harrowing six month ordeal both for Nicolaides and his family.
He should never have been jailed in the first place. The law under which he was charged, lèse-majesté, the crime of insulting the Thai monarchy, breaches article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. Thailand is a state signatory to the covenant.
While Nicolaides was pardoned, the law remains. On 20 January this year, the day after Nicolaides was sentenced to three years imprisonment, Giles Ji Ungpakorn, an associate professor at Chulalongkom University in Bangkok, and a contributor to [FACT: Blocked in Thailand!] Asia Sentinel and New Statesman, was charged with the offence.
The complaint against Ungpakorn relates to his book A Coup for the Rich, in which he criticised the 2006 military coup which overthrew Thai democracy. He was given 20 days to respond to the charges, before Thai authorities decided whether his case would be referred to the courts for prosecution.
He could face between three and 15 years in prison if found guilty. Fearing the consequences, Ungkaporn, a vocal critic of the military, fled to London in early February.
International PE‘N, one of a number of human rights groups that vigorously campaigned on Nicolaides’ behalf, is concerned about the growing number of Thai citizens being charged under this law. Anyone can file a police complaint of lèse-majesté on the king’s behalf. Unfortunately Thai cases do not receive a high level of attention. The Thai public is unable to judge the merits of the offences because the press runs the risk of being accused of repeating the crime by merely reporting it.
While the exact source of the accusation is yet to be determined, there is little doubt that Nicolaides was a pawn in the machinations of Thai politics. Members of the Thai military, police force and political elite appear to be using the law so that they will be seen to be currying favour with the Thai monarchy, and as a means of stifling legitimate discussion of the monarchy. The New York based Committee to Protect Journalists has pointed out that Thailand’s Ministry of Information Communication and Technology closed down more than 2300 websites last month for posting materials deemed offensive to the monarchy.
According to International PEN, Harry Nicolaides’ case was unusual. He was, it is believed, the first Australian writer to be imprisoned in another country because of his writing.
Most PEN cases concern writers imprisoned, harassed, threatened, exiled or murdered for the peaceful pursuit of their craft in the countries of which they are citizens. Several hundred writers languish in prison at any given time. International PEN is currently pursuing the cases of 600 journalists, novelists, poets and bloggers, imprisoned or harassed for daring to criticise their governments.
Many cases involve acts of extraordinary courage. Burmese poet and comedian Maung Thura, aged 47, popularly known by his stage name, Zargana, was sentenced in November last year to a staggering 59 years in prison after criticising the government for neglecting the victims of the cyclone that swept through lower Burma, now known as Myanmar, in May 2008, killing over 130,000 people.
Zargana has long been critic of the Burmese government. He spent time in prison in 1988 and in the early 1990s for his support for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy.
Despite Chinese government promises, in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics, to honour the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a signatory, more than 40 writers remain in prison on charges such as ‘inciting subversion of state power’ and ‘publishing articles critical of the authorities’. Sentences range from three–20 years, with the majority serving sentences of over eight years.
There is particular concern about the rise of Internet writers being detained, most notably Shi Tao, serving a 10-year sentence for ‘revealing state secrets’ after having emailed his notes of a government briefing meeting.
On 20 January 2009, Stanislav Markelov, a lawyer for the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, was shot dead in a Moscow street after leaving a press conference at the Independent Press Centre. His colleague, journalist Anastasiya Baburova who was walking alongside Markelov was also shot in the head, and later died in hospital.
Markelov had represented the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya before she herself was assassinated in October 2006. This month the four men accused of helping to organise her murder were acquitted by a Moscow court amid suspicion that those responsible for her death are still at large.
The release of Harry Nicolaides is a cause for celebration and great relief. Yet it leaves many unanswered questions over the reason for his imprisonment, and also highlights the plight of many other persecuted writers. There is a need for an investigation into the circumstances of Nicolaides’ arrest so that in future the Australian government and the Minister of Foreign affairs do not again merely resort to the mantra that we cannot interfere with the judicial processes of another country.
Australian governments also need to be more concerned with the fate of imprisoned writers in countries with which the governments are doing business. Many are courageous individuals who desperately require our representation and support.
Arnold Zable is an author and the president of the Melbourne Centre of International PEN.
Nicolaides, NM and LM
Nicholas Farrelly
New Mandala: February 26, 2009
Harry Nicolaides is home and free. It is, I suppose, as good a time as any to start taking stock of what happened in his particularly high profile lèse majesté case. Of course, others remain behind bars and sadly they are not garnering the same sort of attention. Let’s hope that changes soon.
In the meantime, those who have been following the Nicolaides case may find this post-release analysis eye-opening. It describes how our essay, since published here as “Lèse majesté and Harry Nicolaides”, was commissioned and then, at the last minute, withdrawn by Eureka Street. Their Assistant Editor, Tim Kroenert, provides insights into what happened at their end.
He and his colleagues are to be commended for their excellent work at the time. We certainly didn’t mind getting bounced on that unusually hectic evening. We are just happy, after all is said and done, that Harry and his family are back together.
But the episode raises some possible issues for the future.
The number of lèse majesté accusations currently working their way through the Thai legal system means that questions remain about the best strategies that individuals, families, journalists, academics, politicians, diplomats and others can take to help facilitate a speedy release if, heaven forbid, more people start getting locked up.
There is, it seems, no silver bullet. Is less coverage preferable to more? What role should local lawyers play? Can the Thai media be used to help get out a call for compassion?
How important is the content and tone of early statements to the foreign media? Does Internet coverage help or hinder an early release? What sorts of (public…or not so public) noises should be made? What role can academics play? How much does it matter who is being charged (Nicolaides compared to Darunee, etc)? How much about these cases remains shrouded in secrecy? Does anyone really have the answers?
I am sure you have your own questions to add. Thoughts from New Mandala readers are, as always, very welcome here. Of course, I should point out that few, if any, of us know what happened behind the scenes in the Nicolaides case (or, frankly, in any of the other cases). Perhaps somebody with better information will feel free to fill in some of the blanks.
Why was Harry charged?-Eureka Street
27-02-09
[FACT comments: We have heard various rumours as to why Harry was really charged with lese majeste so we’ll air them here and now. The first was for publicity seeking; we find this conclusion demeaning and unreasonable. The second is that Harry wrote criticism or suggestion regarding one of the King’s projects in the North. The third is simply this article which waved a red flag in front of the police. This smells like a set-up, Harry. “The dummies lacked verisimilitude.” Sheesh...]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Dummy cops leave child porn unchecked
Harry Nicolaides
Eureka Street: July 29, 2008
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=8264
In a small dimly-lit room at the Burmese immigration office, on the border of northern Thailand and Burma, there is a large, luminous portrait of General Than Shwe, festooned with medals and ribbons.
His steely gaze surveys the hundreds of foreign tourists who cross the border bridge to visit the ramshackle, open air market at Tachilek each day. He is also the embodiment of the strict and relentless censorship of everything, from poetry to the latest Rambo film (set in Burma), controlled by his Orwellian regime.
Less than 50 meters away, under the bridge on the Burmese side, you can buy, for a little over a dollar, films depicting the sexual abuse and torture of British, American, European and Asian children. Some are aged as young as four while none is older than 12.
And unless you are a saffron-robed monk, you will not be searched on the way back across the border into Thailand.
While the market at Tachilek is notorious for fake designer goods, dubious precious gemstones, the teeth, skulls and skins of endangered animals and phony pharmaceuticals, the child pornography is real. The tears and shrieks are not the result of dubbing or digital manipulation.
The graphic footage of a five-year-old Cambodian girl having her arms strapped to her legs with electrical tape before being subjected to unspeakable violations is unrehearsed.
The diminutive seven-year-old British girl who is raped by a 200 pound, black-hooded man while another man films, has been deceived by a man she trusts.
The Indian girl, aged about six, wearing only school socks and shoes has not been groomed to look like a primary school student — she is one. And she is violently raped.
While the fake designer goods are mass produced for a large diverse market, thousands of such films are sold exclusively to a dedicated group of connoisseurs by the world’s most malevolent cottage industry.
The market and the bridge crossing at Mai Sai are well known to international human rights groups, NGOs and law enforcement bodies as strategically important to regional human trafficking and narcotics smuggling.
On the Burmese mountains and in the dark ravines there are dozens of makeshift camps where ethnic minorities, uprooted, persecuted and displaced by Burma’s military regime, seek refuge. Many of them make their way to Thailand to find work.
On the Thai side, in the lowlands of rice and corn fields, are hundreds of crumbling orphanages where large rickety chalk boards bear the names of thousands of children. As one aid worker said, even these vast lists do not reflect the real number of transient children in care.
And while Thailand has set up roadside checkpoints on the highway between Chiang Rai and Mai Sai, in reality they consist of life-sized, fiber-glass figures of Thai police officers, signalling to drivers to stop. Sadly, unlike the fake designer goods at the Tachilek market, the dummies lack verisimilitude.
Burma is a party to the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) but has not yet signed the Optional Protocol (2000) on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
Nations and states that are parties to the convention and optional protocol are, in addition to protecting children from all forms of abuse and exploitation, obliged to take appropriate measures to thwart the production and distribution of child pornography.
In addition, Burma’s own child laws state that it is a punishable offence to use children in the making of pornographic material while its penal code makes it illegal to exhibit or distribute any obscene material. The penalties range from fines to terms of imprisonment of up to two years.
However, with Burma’s state infrastructure and law enforcement bodies riddled with corruption it’s no surprise the Tachilek market is honeycombed with illegal goods.
Behind legitimate shop fronts are secret doors and false walls leading to hidden inner-rooms where thousands of films depicting the most depraved social taboos are displayed and sold.
The trade in child pornography flourishes while the omniscient Burmese regime scrutinises the plots of the latest Hollywood films for conspiracies and subversion against the state — when the greatest subterfuge is within.
There are no borders or checkpoints on route to the heart of darkness.
Harry Nicolaides is a Melbourne-born freelance writer living in Northern Thailand.
[FACT comments: We agree. We think Heath Dollar isn't worth a dime. We're not too impressed with Sydney Morning Herald, either--they paid Dollar for his sensationalist dreck or promised he might cruise on Harry's infamy.]
Degrees of guilt in Nicolaides’ Thai insult case
Tim Kroenert
Eureka Street: February 26, 2009
http://eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=11978
On 4 September 2008, I received an email from an acquaintance of Harry Nicolaides, a Thailand based, Melbourne journalist and sometime contributor to Eureka Street. Her tone was anxious. Harry had been arrested in Bangkok.
‘He is not a criminal,’ she insisted. ‘He wants you to publish his story … He is in a bad condition, physically and mentally. Please help.’
We acted immediately. Clearing the next day’s edition, we contacted Canberra academics Nicholas Farrelly and Andrew Walker, experts in Thai politics and critics of the law (lèse majesté, regarding insulting Thai royals) under which Harry had been arrested. Within a few hours they produced a terrific article that looked at the particulars of Harry’s case and offered a critique of the lèse majesté law.
‘In Thailand, it is even hard to report the details of a lèse majesté charge without fear of sanction,’ they wrote. ‘Hopefully foreign journalists will exercise their greater freedom to report on his predicament.’
That’s what we intended to do. We prepared their article for publication first thing the following day. We hoped that, in our own way, we would be helping to spread good will regarding Harry and his predicament.
It wasn’t to be. At 6.32 p.m. I received a second note from our correspondent: ‘Please do not publish the article. If we say anything that offends the Thai government, it will not help Harry.’ The sentiment was reinforced by a phone call from a relative of Harry’s.
We hit the brakes. With only a mouse-click remaining to complete the process of publishing the article, we decided to abide by the request. We withdrew the article, a decision received graciously by Nich and Andrew, who later revised and published it on their blog.
Harry’s story, which received much media attention in Australia, is now well known. He was sentenced, jailed, and recently pardoned. He has now returned to Australia.
All of which has what to do with this week’s film review? Well, not a lot. Except that both Harry’s story, and the film The Reader, promote reflection on the nature of guilt.
Few would dispute that Harry was legally guilty. [FACT: Harry was not only not guilty under the unintentioned interpretation of lese majeste law--his book was a wpork of fiction--, he was charged under the wrong law.] Those who travel are responsible for familiarising themselves with local laws. Harry, it seemed, had flaunted this one. Indeed,
‘Harry doesn’t want the press to condemn Thai laws,’ our correspondent insisted. ‘He respects Thai law.’
On the other hand, morally speaking, Harry’s guilt seemed ‘small’. The charge was laid in response to a passage from a little-read book, written by Harry and published some years previously. Lèse majesté is ‘a weapon used to defend the perceived honour of Thailand’s royal family’, wrote Nich and Andrew. Such a crime hardly seems worth stripping a man of his freedom. Harry’s pardon would seem to vindicate the idea that his was a ‘small’ guilt.
In The Reader, too, guilt is multi-layered, and acquires varying dimensions, depending on perspective and context. The film portrays an affair between Hanna (Kate Winslett in her Oscar winning role), a middle aged, grouchy German tram conductor, and a 15-year-old boy, Michael (David Kross).
Viewers (those who have not read Bernhard Schlink’s novel, or one of the many reviews, such as this one, that contain plot spoilers) might expect a dissertation on the ethical dimensions of such an affair. However the film treads a less predictable course.
Half way through, there is a time jump, and we rediscover Michael as a young adult, some time estranged from Hanna. A law student, he attends the trial of several former SS officers charged with the commission of a horrific war crime. Michael is shocked to discover that Hanna is among the defendants.
Legally, there is no doubting Hanna’s guilt. But questions regarding degrees of guilt become key.
Hanna is accused of being not merely a participant in, but the ringleader of, the crime, which led to the deaths of 300 Jewish prisoners. A document alleged to have been written in Hanna’s own hand is presented as evidence to implicate her. But Hanna is illiterate, and only Michael, unseen by Hanna in the courtroom, seems to know this.
And Hanna is too ashamed of her illiteracy to deny authorship of the document.
And so the distinction between being guilty and being responsible for the guilt of others determines Hanna’s fate. In turn, the way Michael responds to his own knowledge brings guilt upon himself. Guilt is thus proven to be not only pliable but also communicable.
Following Harry Nicolaides’ return to Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece from a former colleague of Harry’s, which implied that Harry’s commission of lèse majesté was a kind of morbid publicity stunt. That seems to be an ungracious criticism; on par with knocking the man, the moment he has regained his feet.
If there’s a lesson to be learnt from The Reader, it’s that those who do wrong remain human, regardless of the scale of their crime. Michael’s personal atonement, as pursued during the latter part of the film, is bound up with his recognition of Hanna’s humanity, despite the monster that she has been.
Harry is no monster, and, guilty or not, he should not be made a cipher for implacable moral judgment. He has suffered for his ‘small guilt’. He deserves his dignity.
Tim Kroenert is Assistant Editor of Eureka Street. His articles and reviews have been published by The Age, Inside Film, the Brisbane Courier Mail and The Big Issue.
[FACT comments: Can't we be trusted to decide for ourselves? Must everything in Thailand be criminalised?]
Thailand’s new filmrating system will divide movies into seven categories from May
Daily Xpress/Asias News Network: February 17, 2009
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20090218-122771.html
The country’s first film-rating system will be up and running in May after the Cabinet approved four draft regulations yesterday.
Rather than the five categories used elsewhere, Thailand’s system will classify films into seven categories.
“The extra categories are for films that should be promoted on cultural or artistic merit, and films that should be banned for inappropriate content,” Culture Minister Teera Slukpetch said.
Films that authorities deem to offend the monarchy, threaten national security, hamper national unity, insult faiths, disrespect honourable figures, challenge morals or contain explicit sex scenes will be banned from Thai screens.
The five other categories are similar to those used in rating systems elsewhere.
Special ratings
The “General Audiences” category is for films with no sex, abusive language or violence.
The “13″ category excludes violence, brutality, inhumanity, bad language and indecent gestures, rules that are relaxed slightly for the “15″ rating.
Films with an “18″ rating can explore the darker side of human nature but must not show scenes of exposed genitalia, crime or drugs.
Then there are films for viewers aged 20 and above. Sex scenes are allowed here but only if viewers don’t get a peek of genitalia.
It’s not all bad
Thai Film Director Associa-tion chairman Yongyoot Thong-kongtoon said the regulations would give a framework for film directors. One positive side is that it might encourage less low-grade comedies and more movies with substance, he said.
“We’ll have to wait and see what the new system brings in the long run.”
Director and producer Prachya Pinkaew, who sits on the panel that prepared the draft regulations, said he was happy to see the system sail through the Cabinet. The regulations have been dogged by criticism since they were first unveiled.
Incompetent Army spies-The Nation
27-02-09
[FACT comments: We presume the title means SHAFTED! Not homophobic! Didn't know thisd word was censored in polite society.]
BANGKOKIAN
The spies who got sh****d
The Nation: February 27, 2009
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/27/opinion/opinion_30096710.php
The Thai Army sent off two young conscripts to penetrate the anti-government mob that has gathered in front of Government House. Their mission was to go behind enemy lines and gather as much intelligence as possible. Their commanding officers wanted to know what the red shirts were up to.
Of course, the two poor recruits couldn’t say no to the brass. After all, dissent is not in the nature of Thai soldiers. Listen to your superiors and you will do fine and go far is what these young men – as well as all others who couldn’t afford to bribe their way out of the military draft – have been told all along.
In a reflection of the shaky state of Thailand’s intelligence community, their cover was blown on Wednesday, just one day after they had gone on assignment.
Either the two young conscripts forgot their mojos or they suddenly got cold feet, we will never know.
But what we do know is that the top brass wasted no time in coming clean and admitting with straight faces that they just wanted some intel on the red shirts’ activities, so what’s the big deal?
What’s the big deal? Well, to start with, spymasters shouldn’t reveal the cards in their hands from the get go, much less send untrained spooks behind anybody’s line. And if they are unsure as to what to do, they should check out “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Spying and Espionage”. (Shouldn’t let the title get you down, though.)
Indeed, sending young conscripts to check on the activities of mistresses might be one thing. But when it comes to national security, Bangkokian thinks the top brass need to get more serious.
Moreover, a responsible spymaster shouldn’t reveal all of his cards if only one of his spies is caught red-handed.
With bosses like this, who would want to become a government spy?
Needless to say, the guile of the two recruits was severely lacking. In less than 48 hours the alert red shirts spotted the Army’s finest. Don’t know what gave them away – their haircuts, the fact they were up all night snooping around (or shaking in their boots), or perhaps they had “Royal Thai Army” written on their foreheads. Could have been anything. But the fact that the two had military identification cards in their pockets, meant there wasn’t much the brass could say.
One of the conscripts ran for his life and the other tripped, fell and became the focus of the red shirts’ undivided attention – the kind that no one wants.
The good news is that there was no “water-boarding”. The red shirts had their fun and released the two men.
All’s well that ends well. Bangkokian is just happy that those boys don’t have a licence to kill. But with spies like these, who needs an enemy?
