Where Google still censors-Forbes
31-01-10
Where Google Still Censors
Forbes Magazine: February 8, 2010
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0208/outfront-technology-china-where-google-still-censors.html 
Google’s promise to end its self-censorship in China, a daring response to a Chinese cyber attack, may have brought the shine back to the search giant’s “Don’t Be Evil” ethos. But Google is still blocking certain content in other countries at the demand of their governments. The company won’t comment on whether it plans to change those censorship schemes.
India: To abide by obscenity laws, Google strips out certain pornographic results from its Indian search pages. It has also removed content from the Indian version of its social networking site, Orkut, that’s deemed by the government to be politically incendiary, like one group representing the Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena.
France and Germany: Their strict ban on hate speech extends to the Web. Google obliges them by blocking search results for extremist groups like the neo-Nazi group Stormfront and the Holocaust denial association AAARGH.
Thailand: Lése-majesté, or insulting the king, is a serious crime in Thailand. Hence Google’s agreement to block Thai users from viewing videos on YouTube (owned by Google) that mocked king Bhumibol Adulyadej, including one that showed him with feet on his head, a symbol of degradation to Thai Buddhists.
Turkey: Google has kowtowed to Turkish government demands that it block a handful of YouTube videos that portrayed Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the revered founder of the country, as a homosexual. Turkey has banned YouTube anyway for the past two years in an attempt to persuade Google to remove the Atatürk clips from global distribution.
Thailand: Serious Backsliding on Human Rights
Unchecked Abuses by Security Forces, Crackdown on Internet Critics, Forced returns of Refugees
Human Rights Watch: January 20, 2010
The government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva largely failed to fulfill its pledges to make human rights a priority, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2010.
The 612-page report, the organization’s 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide. In Thailand, there were growing crackdowns on protesters and other critics, including intensive surveillance of the internet, a failure to curb abuses by security forces in responding to the longtime insurgency in the south, and serious breaches of the country’s obligations to protect refugees and asylum seekers.
“While Prime Minister Abhisit sometimes said the right things about human rights in 2009, his actions didn’t match his words,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government continually undermined respect for human rights and due process of law in Thailand.”
Mounting challenges from the red-shirted opposition group, the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), has made Prime Minister Abhisit increasingly dependent on support from the military for his political survival, Human Rights Watch said. In response to the UDD’s violent protests in Pattaya and Bangkok, the government declared a state of emergency on April 11 and 12. Soldiers used tear gas to clear protesters and fired on protesters with live ammunition. At least 123 people were injured and two killed in Bangkok on April 13 in clashes between armed UDD protesters, soldiers, and various neighborhood watch groups.
The government’s double standards in law enforcement worsened political tensions and deepened polarization. Leaders and members of the UDD were arrested, detained, and criminally charged after the dispersal of their protests. But the government has ignored public demands for an impartial investigation into politically motivated violence and human rights abuses committed by the yellow-shirted People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) during its protests and occupation of the Government House and Suvarnabhumi airport in 2008, which created conditions that enabled Abhisit to come to power. Long delays in prosecuting PAD leaders are fuelling a growing public perception that they are immune to legal accountability.
In Thailand’s deep south, where a separatist insurgency began in 2004, Abhisit’s administration has allowed the military to continue to operate with impunity. No member of the security forces has been criminally prosecuted for human rights abuses in the provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat, and Yala, even in high profile cases such as the Krue Se mosque killings, the Tak Bai crackdown, the torture and killing of Imam Yapa Kaseng, and the Al-Farquan mosque massacre.
The government also failed to establish effective civilian control over the military and was unable to scrutinize the enforcement of abusive special security laws by the military. Separatist insurgents in the loose network of Barisan Revolusi Nasional-Koordinas (National Revolution Front-Coordinate or BRN-Coordinate) used these state-sponsored abuses and heavy-handed tactics to recruit new members and justify their campaign of violence and terror, which has claimed more than 3,900 lives since January 2004.
The failure to act against official abuses extended to the police. Despite the government’s strong opposition to the violent approach to drug suppression by the exiled former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, it remained unwilling to bring to justice officials allegedly responsible for more than 2,500 unresolved extrajudicial killings and serious abuses committed during Thaksin’s 2003 “war on drugs” and ongoing drug suppression operations by the police.
The government stood by while top police commanders refused to accept the ruling of the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) that seven high-ranking police officers should be charged with criminal offenses and subject to disciplinary action in connection with the crackdown on the PAD on October 7, 2008, when police violently dispersed some 2,000 protesters in front of parliament. Two PAD protesters died and 443 were injured. At the local level, the government continued to ignore systemic police violence and extortion targeting the over two million migrant workers from Burma, Cambodia, and Laos.
“Democracy in Thailand suffers badly from draconian laws on lese majeste and cyber crimes,” said Adams. “A climate of fear looms over civil discourse and in cyberspace as a result of increasing restrictions on freedom of expression under the Abhisit government.”
The government also has used both the lese majeste statute in the Criminal Code and the new Computer Crimes Act to suppress critics of the monarchy and persecute perceived government enemies. In January, Suwicha Thakor, an outdoor sporting enthusiast, was arrested, accused of posting comments constituting lese majeste on the Internet, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
In August, Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul (also known as Da Torpedo) was sentenced to 18 years in prison for insulting the monarchy in her speeches at a UDD rally. She is allegedly being held in solitary confinement in Lard Yao prison and was denied access to medical treatment for a severely infected jaw. A number of government critics have fled Thailand rather than face similar charges.
Thai authorities also increased Internet surveillance, leading to the arrests of bloggers and web board participants. Several people were arrested for translating foreign media reports about King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s poor health and posting those reports along with their comments online. Authorities closed down more than 18,000 websites that they alleged promoted anti-monarchy sentiments or posed threats to national security.
Abhisit’s government blatantly breached Thailand’s obligations under international law to protect refugees and asylum seekers, Human Rights Watch said.
The Thai government gave the green light to the army to deport more than 4,600 Lao Hmong refugees and asylum seekers on December 28, despite a chorus of international outcry that included the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Secretary-General. Human Rights Watch seriously questions the claims made by high-level Thai officials, including Prime Minister Abhisit and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, that the deportation was “voluntary.”
Throughout the year, Thai soldiers severely restricted access to food and medical services provided by humanitarian organizations, prompting Medicins Sans Frontieres to pull out of Huay Nam Khao camp in May. Just prior to the mass forced return, more than 5,000 soldiers and other security personnel surrounded the camp, jammed mobile phone signals in the area, prevented access by the media, and singled out and snatched up camp leaders to defuse anticipated resistance. Such coercive and intimidating measures are clearly contrary to claims of “voluntary repatriation,” Human Rights Watch said.
In another expression of hostile policy toward refugees and asylum seekers, in January, in his capacity as chair of the National Security Council, Abhisit approved a directive authorizing the military to intercept boats carrying ethnic Rohingya from Burma and Bangladesh. The military subsequently captured several boats crowded with Rohingya and towed the rickety vessels back into the open ocean with inadequate supplies of food and water. While Thailand is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, the Thai government has an obligation under international law of nonrefoulement (non-return) of persons to places where their life or freedom is at risk.
“Prime Minister Abhisit did not honor his pledge to uphold human rights principles and international law in 2009,” Adams said. “Getting Thailand back on track as a rights-respecting nation in 2010 is crucial both for the country and the region.”
Pro-democracy Red Shirts in U.K. expose pro-coup academics at SOAS
Giles Ji Ungpakorn: January 30, 2010
On 29th January 2010 the Thai Embassy in London organised a seminar in order to launder Thailand’s authoritarian image. The main speakers from Thailand were Suchit Bunbongkarn and Bowornsak Uwanno. Little booklets on the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology and Bawornsak’s pamphlet justifying the use of the lese majeste law were handed out to the audience, much to be bemusement of many.
However, the embassy and the two royalist academics did not have an easy time because pro-democracy Redshirts living in the U.K. came prepared for a debate. Leaflets were handed out at the meeting (see text below), although the embassy tried to use SOAS guards to prevent this and to prevent Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn from entering the seminar room. They were unsuccessful in doing this, however.
The Thai ambassador opened the meeting by claiming that the Red Shirts did not represent the majority in Thailand. He also stated that the King has always been “above politics”.
Suchit Bunbongkarn echoed the ambassador by saying that there was a silent majority in Thai society who did not support anyone. His talk was rather “economical with the truth” because he failed to mention the double standards in the judiciary, the manoeuvrings in the courts and in the army to frustrate the wishes of the electorate and the backsliding on human rights and censorship (as outlined in a recent Human Rights Watch Report). He also seemed to suffer from amnesia by saying that the present divisions in Thai society had never occurred in the past. He obviously forgot the 1932 Revolution and the civil war with the Communist Party in the 1970s. He argued that the NGOs were an important civil society force for Democracy. This is a strange claim, given the support among nearly all NGOs for the 2006 coup!
When asked about the lese majeste law and the court procedures, Suchit stated that it was all fair and just. He defended the use of secret trials where there is no transparency of the system of justice. He claimed that the new committee set up by the government to oversee lese majeste cases would solve any problems. He claimed that those who were found guilty of lese majeste could appeal to the King, failing to mention that Suwich Takor’s appeal has been ignored for over a year while he sits in prison. He also ignored the fact that those who maintain their innocence would not wish to ask the King for “forgiveness”. Suchit ended by saying that we could not have freedom of speech in Thailand because it would be against the Thai culture of loving and respecting the King. This is a one-sided interpretation of Thai culture which turns Thais into slaves. However, there is a rich history of Thais fighting for freedom and Democracy against such attitudes.
Bowornsak Uwanno started his talk by stating the obvious fact that Thailand is a very unequal society, the gap between the rich and poor being very high. However, when asked if he would therefore oppose the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology, which is against redistribution of wealth, he failed to reply. He claimed that he supported the idea of a Welfare State, while attacking Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies for “creating a culture of dependency”. This Thatcherite phrase is in keeping with Bowornsak’s neo-liberal ideas. Academics like him who supported the 2006 coup, have long argued that Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies trapped the poor in a patron-client system. For them, governments should expect to win votes by not promising economic benefits to the majority. But alas, the poor in Thailand are too “stupid” to realise that the pro-poor policies are actually bad for them!!
Bowornsak denied that there were any double standards in the use of the law in Thailand. But if there were any problems, he said that it was the fault of the police, certainly not the fault of the judiciary.
In his booklet defending the use of lese majeste, Bowornsak falsely claimed that similar laws were in use in Western Europe. (How many people are in jail for criticising the ruling elites in Western Europe?) He defended the use of lese majeste by saying that Thailand had a “special culture” where all Thais love the great “Buddha King” who is “our father”. The Thai King rules in a “moral manner” according to Bowornsak. Yet when questioned in the meeting about why the King signed the military junta’s laws after the illegal 2006 coup, he claimed that this did not mean that the King supported the coup. “Have pity and be fair to the King”, he said. One man from the audience responded by asking “and what about the Thai people?”
Two British academics were also speakers in this meeting and they both indicated that there were serious problems with the lese majeste law and freedom of speech in Thailand.
Text of the leaflet handed out in the meeting:
Free all Thai Political Prisoners!
Return the country to Democracy!
Since the 2006 military coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand, it has become a crime to advocate Democracy. The coup claimed Royal Legitimacy and two draconian laws: the lese majeste law and the computer crimes law have been used. Suwicha Takor was sentenced to 10 years in prison for posting a picture on the internet. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul was sentenced to 18 years, in a secret trial, for making political speeches. Lese majeste and computer crimes charges have been made against: 13 executive members of the Foreign Correspondents Club, the BBC correspondent, the British editor of The Times, Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, four people charged with posting the truth about stock market fears for the King’s health, the webmaster of Prachatai, and dozens of others. Military installed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, while lying about human rights, has always prioritised “protecting the monarchy” and the dictatorship. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has threatened to deal with Prachatai , one of the only independent news sites left in Thailand. Since the 2006 coup, thousands of websites and blogs have been blocked by the Ministry of Censorship. Nearly all the media are controlled by the military, the government, and their allies.
See: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/, http://facthai.wordpress.com/, http://www.prachatai.com/english/, http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/, http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php and The Economist magazine.
See also the latest Human Rights Watch report on Thailand: http://www.hrw.org/node/87869
Since the 2006 coup, the judiciary have been working hand in glove with the military in order to frustrate the democratic process, twice disbanding the political party which won the most votes in repeated elections. The military also pushed through its own Constitution instead of the 1997 democratic Constitution. The present Constitution legitimises the 2006 coup and enshrines the obligation of all governments to increase military spending while keeping public social spending to a minimum. Borwornsak Uwanno, one of today’s advertised panellists, had a key role in supporting the coup and drawing up the military’s Constitution. He is Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, named after Thailand’s last absolute monarch who was overthrown by a pro-democracy revolution in 1932. Previously Borwornsak served former Prime Minister Thaksin, changing ships at the last minute to save his own skin. While serving Thaksin he never criticised that government’s human rights abuses in the War on Drugs or in the South. Suchit Boonbongkarn and the Thai Ambassador are also apologists for the military coup and the systematic destruction of Democracy. Today there is no Rule of Law or Justice. The military, the Government and the semi-fascist Peoples Alliance for Democracy have used violence and repression on the streets with impunity. No one has been punished for wrecking Government House, occupying the international airports or for shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets. The Minister of Finance and the Foreign Minister were involved in these crimes. Yet pro-democracy activists are constantly being charged or put in prison.
Apologists for the 2006 coup justify their position by insulting the intelligence of the Thai electorate. They claim that they are ‘uneducated’ and ‘uninformed’ and ‘allowed themselves to be bought’. Yet the strong support for Thaksin’s democratically elected government which still exists today, is a result of the implementation of a Universal Health Care Scheme and many pro-poor policies. These policies are abhorred by the coup supporters. They want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the elites could rule without any concern for the population, where political parties had no policies and bought votes, and where the military could act with impunity just by claiming that they were doing everything “for the King”. Throughout this crisis the King has failed, as he always did, to speak up in favour of Democracy and Freedom of Speech. Instead, as the richest Monarch in the World, he advocates the ideology of the Sufficiency Economy, where the poor must remain happy in their poverty. It is an ideology that opposes redistribution of wealth in a country with great inequalities. But the King is old and has been in hospital since September. The elites are afraid that when he dies, their legitimising tool will die with him. His son is hated and feared.
In Thailand we need genuine Democracy. The lese majeste and computer laws must be scrapped, the military needs to be cut down to size and those who commit Human Rights abuses should be punished. We need a European-style Welfare State and a fully democratic Republic.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/, http://siamrd.blog.co.uk/ (blocked by censors in Thailand)
Reading Suwicha Thakor’s Latest Letter from Prison
Pravit Rojanaphruk
Prachatai: January 24, 2010
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1592
Reading the latest and possibly last letter from jail from convicted lese majeste and computer crime law offender Suwicha Thakor dated January first 2010 was a sobering experience. The letter reflects Suwicha’s lack of faith on Thai mainstream media which do not care to put his side of the story to the public. So instead, Suwicha only mentioned in his Thai-language letter, the left-leaning not-for-profit prachatai.com online newspaper which duly published his letter on Wednesday.
Aside from Paris-based Reporters Without Borders having claim this week that his pardon request has “mysteriously disappeared” from his official file, Suwicha’s lawyer Anond Nampha who received the letters (a shorter version is in English) stated that the letters may be his last since an Interior Ministry official who has been appointed to look after the case have allegedly told Klong Prem Prison to “censor” future correspondents from Suwicha. This is a double blow for what already exist in Thailand in term of censorship and self-censorship under lese majeste law.
Spending a year in jail and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment while being forgotten by the mainstream mass media didn’t make Suwicha thinks that justice is being served, however, as the man, convicted of spreading offensive Youtube video about the king online wrote: “They see me as a criminal who must be suppressed but fail to see the root cause of the problem… I feel very troubled that these people do not understand me at all.”
The two-page Thai language letter also claim that his lowly-educated wife has been pressured by some officials into becoming silent. “Police wanted her to be silent and they have told her that if I got out from jail there would not guarantee my safety. If [she] doesn’t want to see me suffer harshly she must stay silent.”
The letter also reveal how difficult the family, with three school-age children, has been coping over the past year since the family’s sole bread winner has been in prison. “[My wife] is incredibly frugal because our family no longer has any income. Brothers and sisters at prachatai.com [who reported about me] know this and the state of my wife’s mind. The only think we want is to return to lead a normal life, to till th land in a self-sufficient way. We wish for nothing more than that but they have no compassion on us. They do not pity us though we are Thai and human too.”
Suwicha’s mentioning of his Thai identity is telling as many Thais who are used to claiming that “all Thais” love and revere the king think people who think differently about the monarchy institution cannot possibly be Thai. This is a fallacy created by the relentless stereotyped-projection of Thai people’s relationship to the king and the monarchy institition. The fact remains that there are quite a number of people who are critical of the institution but dare not express their view for fear of legal and social repercussion.
Suwicha related in his letter how his wife thinks she is in jail as well. “She had told me that although she is outsid prison it is no different from being imprisoned because she is under pressures from all sides.” Suwicha may be in a physical prison but many Thais who think about the monarchy institution in a critical way also found themselves in an invisible jail as they go freely about their daily life but without the right to freely express their critical view about the institution publicly. It is as if they too are in jail, albeit an invisible jail against their conscience. Many chose to dwell in this invisible jail instead of the physical jail Suwicha now ‘inhabits’. At its foundation is the big debate about the merit of lese majeste law that Thai society will have to contemplate more publicly and transparently and find some form of acceptable solution or accommodations to all sides.
If anything, a year in jail for Suwicha gave the former thirty-something engineer ample time consider his fate and the state of Thai society. “As long as they jail me, those who stand to incur damage are those who committed sin against me, my wife and children… Political power is the crudest greed as it can make people imprison or kill others… Our five lives are under their power and there’s nothing I can do. I may not want my wife and children to beg for donations in order to survive but I may not have a better choice and would like to thank those who had helped my families… For me, come what may, because I’m already like a dead person and do not think I can be afraid of anything any further.”
Suwicha’s letter from prison-RSF
31-01-10
[FACT comments: One of Thailand’s best reference works, an English-Thai dictionary, was compiled by So Setthaputra, a convicted rebel against the Phibunsongkhram govt in the 1930s. Of course, it had to be smuggled out of prison page-by-page. Govt is so afraid of rebels that even prisoners are not allowed free speech.]
Blogger’s letter from prison
Reporters Without Borders: January 19, 2010
http://www.rsf.org/Blogger-s-letter-from-prison.html
Reiterating its appeal to King Bhumibol Adulyadej to pardon nine bloggers (see the 4 December press release: http://www.rsf.org/King-asked-to-pardon-Internet.html), Reporters Without Borders today published a letter written by one of the jailed bloggers, Suwicha Thakor, from prison.
In the meantime, the request for a pardon submitted by Suwicha has mysteriously disappeared from his official file. Suwicha was given a 10-year sentence on 2 April 2009 on a charge of lese majeste although there was no evidence against him and he never posted anything at all about the king.
Reporters Without Borders is very disturbed to learn that Suwicha has been fired by the company he worked for, Brandt, which apparently seems to have raised virtually no questions about the charges brought against him.
Suwicha’s letter of 5 December:
King asked to pardon Internet users prosecuted on lese majeste or national security charges
Reporters Without Borders: December 4, 2009
http://www.rsf.org/King-asked-to-pardon-Internet.html
Reporters Without Borders has written to King Bhumibol Adulyadej on the eve of his birthday on 5 December asking him to pardon Thai Internet users who are in jail or who are being prosecuted in connection with the dissident views they allegedly expressed online.
“By agreeing to this request, the king would show the entire world that he respects freedom of expression and would be putting in to practice what he said on 5 December 2005 about protecting this freedom,” Reporters Without Borders said.
The letter urges the king to release Suwicha Thakor, a blogger who is being held in Klong Prem prison. Suwicha was sentenced to 10 years in prison on 3 April on a charge of lese majeste although there was no evidence against him. He is neither a politician nor an activist, and never criticised the king or posted articles about him.
A pardon for this innocent man who has already suffered too much would serve as gesture that confirmed what the king said on his birthday in 2005. “In reality, I am not above criticism,” the king said. “I do not fear criticism if it concerns what I do wrong. It is thanks to this that I will be able to realise my mistakes. If you say the king cannot be criticised, it means the king is not a man.”
The letter also asked the king to intercede to obtain the withdrawal of all charges against the following Internet users:
Giles Ji Ungpakorn, a political science professor at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, who was charged with lese majeste on 20 January in connection with a book entitled “A coup for the rich” that was published in 2007 and could be downloaded from his website. He never criticised the king.
Jonathan Head, the BBC’s Southeast Asia correspondent, who was accused of lese majeste by Lt. Col. Wattanasak Shinawatra on 23 December 2008 without any evidence. There is no information about the current state of the investigation against him.
Nat Sattayapornpisut, a blogger who was held for 10 days in October for sending video links to a blogger in Spain who is campaigning for the repeal of the lese majeste law. “When you criticise a law, you are not criticising the king or threatening national security,” Reporters Without Borders said at the time (http://www.rsf.org/Online-censorship-and-arrests-of.html). Nat was accused of breaking the 2007 Computer Crime Act but no decision has no far been taken on his case.
Praya Pichai, a blogger who was accused in September 2007 of criticising the royal family. The public prosecutor has until 2017 to decide whether or not to prosecute him, which is unacceptable from the viewpoint of both the right of defence and the right to free expression.
Tasaparn Rattawongsa, a doctor at Thon Buri hospital, Theeranan Wipuchan, a former UBS Securities executive, Katha Pajajiriyapong, an employee at the KT ZMICO brokerage house and Somchets Ittiworakul. They are all charged under section 14 of the 2007 Computer Crime Act with posting false information endangering national security. All they did was seek an explanation for the fall in the Bangkok stock exchange (http://www.rsf.org/Three-Internet-users-arrested-for.html and http://www.rsf.org/Online-censorship-and-arrests-of.html).
“We hope that King Bhumibol Adulyadej will respond positively to this request for a royal pardon,” Reporters Without Borders said. “By violating the freedom of expression of Thailand’s citizens, charges of lese majeste and endangering national security under the 2007 Computer Crime Act are hurting the image of both the king and his kingdom.”
Lèse majesté in Holland-Bangkok Post
31-01-10
PROTECTING THE HIGHEST INSTITUTION
Dealing with lese majeste in Netherlands
Taweesak Sukkasem
Bangkok Post: January 18, 2010
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
On January 12, 2010, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva joined the first meeting of a newly-appointed governmental advisory committee regarding the enforcement of the lese majeste law.
His Majesty the King, with Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. Queen Beatrix’s visit to Thailand on Jan 20, 2004 was occasioned by the celebrations held in Bangkok marking 400 years of friendly relations between the Netherlands and Thailand.
The government spokesman said after the meeting that the prime minister had told the committee, headed by the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice, that its main task would be to give “academic advice” to relevant agencies such as the police and the state prosecutors when considering prosecution of suspected lese majeste offences.
In its work, this committee might benefit from a review of the enforcement practices in European countries with constitutional monarchies such as the Netherlands. Those practices are not only determined by national laws but also by European law: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This article aims to protect the freedom of expression.
The lese majese law of the Netherlands is spread out over three articles in the Dutch Penal Code of 1886.
The first of these sets out to protect the monarch; the second aims to protect the consort, the heir-apparent and the regent; and the third prohibits dissemination of defamatory text or illustrations described in the previous two articles.
In order to be defined as lese majeste, the offence must constitute defamation, libel or common insult and, if proven, carries a maximum penalty of five years. This is high compared to what libel and common insult ordinarily carry, i.e. six and three months, respectively.
In the Netherlands, prosecution is performed ex officio. There is no need for a “trigger” in the form of a complaint filed by the injured party, as is the case in certain other European monarchies.
During the last four decades, the number of acts of lese majeste in general and politically inspired acts of lese majeste more in particular have shown a sharp decline in the Netherlands.
Jurisprudence of the Dutch courts over the last 40 years in this field reveals a pattern of mild sentences in the cases that were actually prosecuted, and not all were.
Further, the penalty usually has been a small fine of a few hundred euros.
Dutch legal scholars have debated whether prosecuting each and every violation of lese majeste law is in the interests of the monarchy as such.
Clearly, sometimes it is not.
It can even be counter-productive, undermining the very institution that lese majeste laws set out to protect.
This is due to the fact that prosecution draws more public attention to the offence (which might in itself be undesirable) as well as to a judicial practice that is considered at odds with the principle of equality under the law – a principle cherished by most democratic societies.
Through Article 94 of the Dutch Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1954 has become part of Dutch law.
Since that time, Article 10 of this European law that deals with the freedom of expression has had its own calming effect on the actual application of lese majeste laws in the country.
However, it was not until 1994 in a lese majeste case brought before it that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands explicitly carried out what henceforth has become known as the “necessity test” when determining whether a penalty in light of a particular publication is necessary and appropriate. Criticism about the Dutch monarch or her heir-apparent that is considered “a contribution to the public debate” enjoys protection under European and Dutch law, and Dutch courts have applied this criterion faithfully and judiciously ever since, in the interest of freedom of expression in the country.
This article reflects the personal views of Mr Van den Hout, who serves as Dutch Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand.
[FACT comments: It is quite incredible that Thailand has learned precisely nothing since the 1932 coup against absolute monarchy. Following the coup, groups of respectable citizens were twice charged as ‘rebels’ in the 1930s with trials and arrests orchestrated by Thai dictator Plaek Phibunsongkhram. All served lengthy prison terms, some on remote penal islands and some two dozen were executed. All this occurred without clear evidence of intent against Thai govt. All were convicted in secret trials just as is happening in today’s lèse majesté prosecutions.]
The evidence of intention
Elizabeth Fitzgerald
New Mandala: January 29th, 2010
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/01/29/the-evidence-of-intention/
In the post “On the judgment of Da Torpedo,” New Mandala posted an English-language summary of the segments of the court decision against Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul that referred to the statements she made which contained alleged lesè majesté content. The court decision was published in full in the most recent edition of ฟ้าเดียวกัน (Same Sky) journal. The summary covers the first 15 pages of the decision (pages 1-15 of the decision, pages 200-214 of the journal). As the author of the summary noted, the transmission of these statements only constituted part of the full judgment, which has a total length of 32 pages.
In the second half of the court decision, the ‘evidence’ presented in the first half is repeated and extended in order to support the judgment against Darunee. The method by which this is done offers a lens on the practices of interpretation exercised under the regime of the laws pertaining to lesè majesté and the constriction of speech. During the first half, as Darunee’s statements are recounted (based, significantly, on mp3 and video recordings made by two police officers named in the text of the court decision), who or what specifically she refers to by various phrases is interpreted by the court through the use of a series of phrases such as “meaning” (หมายถึง) and “insinuate” (เปรียบเปรย), among others. Darunee does not mention King Bhumipol, Queen Sirikit, or Prem Tinsulanonda. So the first half of the text of the court decision follows a pattern in which Darunee’s statements are quoted, and then assigned meaning by the court. The court, in other words, alleges that she is referring to specific individuals. At this point, the text of the decision is primarily about the sheer content of Darunee’s speech.
On page 20 of the court decision (page 219 of the journal), there is a shift in the court decision from summary and basic assigning of meaning to the content of Darunee’s words to assigning intention to them. The reason for this, the authors note, is that there are two primary issues which must be examined by the court in the context of Thailand being a democracy with the king as head of state. The first issue to consider is whether or not the defendant, Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul, is the person who made the statements under discussion. The second is whether or not she committed lesè majesté.
With respect to the first issue, the court decision explains how the evidence was gathered and evaluated. The witnesses listened to her speeches at Sanam Luang, made audio and video recordings, and presented them as evidence. In the opinion of the court, the police officers who made the recordings did not do so out of personal anger or disagreement with Darunee. In the opinion of the court, the person who is in the various recordings is the same person, and they believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that it is Darunee.
It is the second issue which is both thornier, and where the actions of the court, at least as represented in the text of the statement, become murkier. What the court is assessing at this point is intention, or เจตนา, and what Darunee intended during her speeches. The way in which her intention to slander the monarchy is demonstrated by the court follows a pattern through which her statements, already discussed in the first half of the court decision, are revisited and interpreted further. In order to do this, the court must acknowledge that Darunee does not name the King, Queen, or Prem by name. One example of this is on page 24 of the court decision (page 223 of the journal): “Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit” (“แม้้จำเลยจะมิได้ระบุชื่อบุคคลหนึ่งบุคคลใดโดยชัดแจ้ง แต่ข้อเทจจริงที่โจทก์นำสืบก็แปลเจตนาของจำเลยได้ว่า จำเลยกล่าวโดยมุ่งหมายถึงองค์พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว”). Then again, on page 31 of the court decision (page 230 of the journal), “The defendant does not clearly state who she means by the term ruling class, but after examining all of her spoken statements, (we) are confident that this saying of the defendant refers to the monarchy” (“คำว่าชนชั้นปกครองที่จำเลยกล่าวแม้จำเลยจะไม่ได้ระบุชัดเจน แต่เมื่อพิจารณาข้อความที่จำเลยกล่าวทั้งหมดแล้ว เชื่อว่าคำกล่าวของจำเลยหมายถึงสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์”).
In the next to last paragraph, the court decision notes that Darunee herself said that she did not have the intention to slander or insult the monarchy, but that the court’s review of evidence did not match up with this claim. On the basis of the court’s interpretation of the meaning of Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul’s statements, she was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Reports so far indicate that she is suffering greatly in prison.
Writing in a much different context – that of state terror and repression in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s – Michael Taussig wrote in The Nervous System that, “… I came to feel that terror dissolved certainty every bit as much as it preyed on one’s heartfelt desire to find its secret order. Yet the more one looked for order, the more one was caught in its sticky web of evasions, bluffs, and halls of mirrors. And the more one tried to bluff back, fighting indeterminacy with indeterminacy, there waiting in the wings was Order with a giant rabbit-killer. Here, interpretation was no esoteric practice of the literary critic but a matter of survival.” When the evidence used to justify an eighteen-year prison sentence rests on the interpretation of someone’s speech, interpretation has also become a matter of survival. If Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul can be imprisoned under these terms, so can others. One extension of the kind of logic employed against Darunee in the court decision is that by sheer virtue of the existence of the court decision, the court presents itself as just. But is it? I close by calling for a proliferation of interpretations of the court decision. This has already started to happen in Thai in the same issue of ฟ้าเดียวกัน (Same Sky) journal in which the court decision was reprinted. It is time to do so in English and other languages as well.
[The author can be contacted at lizziefitzy@gmail.com]
[FACT comments: Under democratic govts, judicial process is open, transparent and accountable. Democracy cannot afford secret trials, testimony and judgements from kangaroo courts.. In most of the world, Same Sky’s publication of a court judgement would not be necessary—govt would publish as soon as it was read. We are living in a dark age for free expression in Thailand.]
On the judgment against Da Torpedo
Nicholas Farrelly
New Mandala: January 20th, 2010
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/01/20/on-the-judgment-against-da-torpedo/
Recently a New Mandala reader named Aladdin (welcome back!) made an important comment. I have, in the interests of drawing it to the attention of a wider audience, quoted it here:
In the July – September 2009 issue of Fa Dio Kan (Year 7, No. 3) the journal published the official judgment in the Daranee Chanchoengsilapakul (“Da Torpedo”) lese majeste case which was handed down on 28 August 2009.
As is well known, because of the nature of the offense it was difficult for the media to openly report on what it was that Da Torpedo is alleged to have actually said that violated the lese majeste law.
For those who have not read this issue of Fa Dio Kan I have briefly summarized below parts of the judgment that outlined the statements that Da Torpedo (hereafter DT) made which were deemed to have violated the lese majeste law and led to her arrest and subsequent 18-year jail sentence (the full version of the judgment that was published in Fa Dio Kan runs to 32 pages).
p. 201: In a speech at Sanam Luang on 7 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen of Thailand were behind the PAD demonstrations, with the intention of overthrowing the government.
p. 202: In a speech on 13 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had interfered in Thailand’s judicial process.
p. 203: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind, or gave his support to, the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat, and he might carry out another coup in the future. Also, DT used the term “ไอ้ตาแก่” (“that old bastard”), [Lleij Samuel Schwartz comments: “that old fart” is a more colloquially accurate translation] which was understood as implying the King. [Lleij Samuel Schwartz comments: It seemed to imply Privy Council chief Prem rather than the King.]
p. 204: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had ordered the military to carry out the coup.
p. 205: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen had ordered the military to carry out the coup.
pp. 206-7: In a speech on 18-19 July 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had some knowledge about (ส่วนรู้เห็น) the shooting death of his brother in 1946, which was why the killer had not been caught.
pp. 207-8: In the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the then Chairperson of the Board of the Bangkok Bank, Kanlaya Sophonphanit and Gen. Prem Tinasulanonda, Chairman of the Privy Council as well as Chairman of the Bangkok Bank, had supported the PAD demonstrations, and questioned why the King had not dismissed Gen. Prem for such actions.
p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind the September 19 2006 coup.
p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen were behind the PAD’s campaign to overthrow the government.
p. 211: In a speech on 18 July 2008 DT is judged as spoken words leading to the understanding that the King carried out his duties improperly by signing his approval to 14 coup d’etats.
p. 212: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was involved [เกี่ยวข้อง] in the death of his elder brother, King Rama VIII, on 9 June 1946.
p. 213: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was a “bad man” because of his association with Gen. Prem Tinasulalond who, DT alleged, was supporting the PAD.
pp. 213-214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen supported Gen. Prem in carrying out the coup of 19 September 2006.
p. 214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words (by comparing the Thai monarchy with monarchies in Russia, France and Nepal) leading to the understanding that monarchy was an unjust system of government which oppressed and exploited the people, and that the king and royal family ought to be guillotined or shot.
Brother petitions Corrections Dept to provide medical treatment for Da Torpedo
Prachatai: January 24, 2010
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1594
On 22 Jan, Kittichai Charnchoengsilpakul, Da Torpedo’s brother, together with some 30 activists, red shirts and monks, presented a petition to the Corrections Department, requesting the agency to provide medical treatment for Daranee.
Kittichai said that his sister needed to receive treatment outside the prison, because the prison clinic lacks equipment. Despite a medical statement from a doctor at the prison confirming her illness, the court had denied her request for temporary release to receive treatment, and the prison had not sent her to an outside hospital.
Kittichai and a few of the activists talked with Maj Ratthakit Jaijing, Secretary of the Corrections Department, and other officials for about 30 minutes. The Secretary told them that the Central Women’s Correctional Institution had sent Daranee for medical examination at the Police Hospital on 11 Jan, and the doctors had yet to make any appointment for treatment.
This was up to the doctors’ judgment. If they considered it a serious case, the department would act promptly. But if it was less serious, more seriously ill convicts had to be treated first. The department would definitely follow the doctors’ recommendation, Ratthakit said.
When Kittichai asked if Daranee could be sent to another hospital where he would foot the bill, the Secretary insisted that it had to be in accordance with the rules of the department, and he believed that the Police Hospital could handle the case. Referral to another hospital was up to the doctors.
Kittichai also addressed mistreatment Daranee had to endure in prison, such as being forced to sit alone, being prohibited from talking to other inmates for 3 hours in the late afternoon, and being transferred to a more crowded cell. The officials said that it was an internal management issue, but they would look into the matter.
Ratthakit promised Kittichai and the activists that the petition would not negatively affect the convict as feared.
One of the activists told Prachatai that he joined the petition activity because he supported human rights, and Daranee should have received proper medical treatment.
‘Even if it wasn’t Da, and it was someone else, we would come anyway, for the sake of justice. Da is not a murderer who has committed an unforgivable crime. Maybe not many people have come today, because the case scares people,’ the activist said.
Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul has complained about her molar abscess (a Prachatai reader doctor J suggests that it is probably ‘TMJ disorder’ or temporomandibular joint disorder) which has made it difficult for her to speak or to eat.
On 5 Nov 2009, Dr Pin Limmeechokechai at the clinic inside the Central Women’s Correctional Institute, issued a medical statement, confirming that the problem was a molar joint disorder and suggesting that a CT scan was needed to plan treatment.
Months before, Daranee had told visitors about her molar problem which prevented her from finishing her meals in time, and the fact that prison food was quite hard and spicy made eating even more difficult for her. The prison clinic only gave her pain killers. To receive treatment outside the prison required waiting in a very long queue, and that could take a year. She had to depend on soya milk, which visitors bought for her, as her main food.
According to her lawyer Prawase Praphanukul, officials at the prison clinic told him that they had no equipment to perform operations, and they even asked Daranee to help raise donations of medical equipment for the clinic when she was released.
The lawyer had asked the court for temporary release, but was refused. On 3 Dec 2009, he made the same request again, this time with the doctor’s medical statement, and the Appeals Court also dismissed the request on 8 Dec 2009, saying that the convict had repeatedly committed very serious offences against the monarchy and national security, so it was likely that she would flee or re-commit similar offences, and the claimed illness did not appear life-threatening or affect her everyday life.
Constitutional Court dismisses complaint against the closed trial
On 27 Aug 2009, Daranee had her lawyer file an appeal with the Constitutional Court against the Criminal Court’s order to close her trials to the public and its refusal to forward her appeal against the order to the Constitutional Court. The appeal said these decisions were unconstitutional, and asked the Constitutional Court to order the Criminal Court to suspend the case until the issue of the Criminal Court’s order was solved.
The Criminal Court had dismissed her appeal against closed trials and rejected her request to forward the appeal to the Constitutional Court, claiming that its order to hold closed trials did not violate the rights of the defendant, as the defendant was able to have her lawyer present and to submit witnesses and evidence in the trials.
One day later, on 28 Aug 2009, Daranee was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.
On 21 Oct 2009, the Constitutional Court dismissed Daranee’s appeal, saying that the defendant was still able to exercise her rights through the Appeals and Supreme Courts, and could exercise her rights through other means before reaching the Constitutional Court, since Section 212 of the 2007 Constitution says that the appellant must already have exhausted all other means.
Regarding the Criminal Court’s refusal to forward the appeal to the Constitutional Court and the defendant’s request for suspension of the case, the Constitutional Court responded that the appellant had not asked it to consider whether a particular provision of the law was unconstitutional or not.
The appeal was therefore not valid since it did not fall within the criteria specified in Section 212 of the 2007 Constitution.
Criminal Court dismisses Daranee’s lawsuit against judge
On the first working day in Jan 2010, Daranee filed a lawsuit against Criminal Court Judge Phrommas Phusae for malfeasance and negligence.
According to Daranee’s complaint, on 23 June 2009, Phrommas, as the judge conducting the trials of her lèse majesté case, ordered that the trials be closed to the public, referring to Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Daranee objected to this order. On 25 June 2009, Daranee made a request to the judge to suspend the proceedings and forward her appeal against the order to the Constitutional Court, and on the same day, the judge dismissed the request. Daranee argued that the judge had no power to do so, and was obliged to forward her appeal to the Constitutional Court. On 3 July 2009, Daranee made the same request, but the judge again refused the appeal.
On 6 Jan 2010, the Criminal Court dismissed the appeal, saying that the judge had acted according to law.
http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2010/01/27384
Source:
