It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thai court sentences woman to 18 years for lese majeste

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Thai court sentences woman to 18 years for lese majeste


www.earthtimes.org

Bangkok - Bangkok Criminal Court Friday sentenced a Thai woman to 18 years in jail for committing lese majeste by insulting members of the royal family in public speeches made at political rallies last year. The court found Daranee Cherngcharnsilpakul, nicknamed Da Torpedo for her fiery oratory style, guilty of three charges of lese majeste, carrying sentences of six years each.

Daranee said she will appeal the verdict.

"I will appeal the verdict up to the Supreme Court to find out if there is any justice in this country," she said after hearing her sentence.

"This country is closi
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The article says that she could face up to 15 years, yet she was sentenced to 18 years? That doesn't make sense.

People being sentenced to prison time for insulting someone is very ridiculous. Talk about politically correct nonsense. Of course, this does not take place in the United States. Here you just get beat and tasered for insulting authority. Much better overall.

www.earthtimes.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I thought it was kind of cool the way the Thai people respect their king!

The travel guide I read when I went to Thailand years ago said that when I go to the movie theater, I better stand up at the beginning of the movie where they play a little piece to honor the Thai king, because if I didn't I could get in trouble (maybe arrested? For just not standing up?).

I don't know if the travel guide was right about that or not, but if it was, and you could get arrested for just not standing up when they show the king's picture at the beginning of the movie, I could only imagine what they would do to people who show greater signs of disrespect for the king.

I think it's appropriate to have competitive elections for president, but I would like to see partisanship put aside after the election is over until the next election, so everyone can work together to solve issues. I don't think us getting people of both parties to support the elected president would be a bad thing, like the Thais support their king, however it is a good thing people aren't arrested for dissenting opinions in the US or other western countries.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought it was kind of cool the way the Thai people respect their king!



Leaders are to be respected. Authorities are to be questioned. If the authorities are not acting in your best interest, they are not your leaders but rather your slave masters.

Contempt of the court should therefore be a right rather than a crime, as should disobeying police orders not grounded in law.

-Unknown Source



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Want to know the difference between a king and a dictator?


A name.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 

I'll be the first person to plead some ignorance about Thailand politics. However, I don't think your king and dictator comment applies there from what I've seen though it could apply in other cases.

I read that the king of Thailand was complaining about what the government was doing, as if it was beyond his control. That doesn't sound like a dictator to me, because if a dictator wanted to change something, he would just do it (like Saddam H. in Iraq).

Likewise, how much power does the royal family in the UK really have? would you call that dictatorship? It doesn't look that way to me from here, but I'm not in the UK.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
.... and yet Americans think they have it so bad.

try watching " locked up abroad" sometime.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Thailand has been extremely unstable lately, truly on the brink of a civil war.
Sounds like this lady was testing the system and they cracked down HARD.

It's sick the royal family cannot withstand criticism and must imprison dissenters. Talk about a dark age mentality.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Want to know the difference between a king and a dictator?



Benevolency



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Want to know the difference between a king and a dictator?


A name.


The Thai King, whilst being loved (quite litterally) by his people, has limited powers over the country and it is in fact Governed (or at least was before the coup) by a democratically elected PM and Parliament.

Due to extensive corruption with their politicians, the Army, loyal to the King, removed them and are reforming the system.

The King did not support the coup, however, but he didn't condemn it either. He knew his people wanted change and the Army stood up for the people, but he didn't want to muddy the waters with his involvement.

Go educate yourself it might not make you look so silly next time.


Originally posted by Schaden
Thailand has been extremely unstable lately, truly on the brink of a civil war.
Sounds like this lady was testing the system and they cracked down HARD.

It's sick the royal family cannot withstand criticism and must imprison dissenters. Talk about a dark age mentality.



Not at all. As stated above, the Thai Army acted in the interests of the people as their politicans were seriously corrupt.

The criticism of the King laws are old, but the Thais support them. They truly love their King, who are you to say they are "dark age" for doing that?

The King himself as often been quoted that he doesn't agree with this law himself and welcomes discussion and criticism, but traditionalists in the Army think it would cause undue tension in the nation at this time if it was repealled. As I said, the King holds little executive power, he is much more like the Queen of England - a figurehead.

If the Thai's wish to run their country this way (and they seem quite content with the arrangement) then who are you to judge them?

Maybe people outside the US think the two party system is a joke and your politics are shallow, but that's what you guys want, right?

Maybe people outside the UK think our system is antiquitated and we should get rid of our Queen, but that's the system we want, so who is anyone else to judge?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Maybe people outside the US think the two party system is a joke and your politics are shallow, but that's what you guys want, right?


No it's not. I think Congress is a joke.

And if the King truly disagreed with the law he'd show some balls and not let someone go to jail for 18 years, half of a productive adult lifespan, for speaking words. Who am I ? A thinking person with a brain. Who cares if it's the law ? Was she advocating violence ?

Speaking your mind is a fundamental human right. This incident in Thailand is nothing compared to the lack of political freedom in Myanmar. If you speak out against the junta, prepare to disappear in the night.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


It's not him bringing the charges and he has no real power to intervene. Anyone in the country can allege Lese majester against anyone else and the cases, according to their constitution, must be investigated. Due process must be followed. He can grant a pardon after a conviction and often does.

Here is some info about it from Wiki. Note the quote from the King himself, in have bolded it..



Thailand's Criminal Code has carried a prohibition against lèse majesté since 1908[2]. In 1932, when Thailand's monarchy ceased to be absolute and a constitution was adopted, it too included language prohibiting lèse majesté. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand, and all 17 versions since 1932, contain the clause, "The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action." Thai Criminal Code elaborates in Article 112: "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years." Missing from the Code, however, is a definition of what actions constitute "defamation" or "insult".[3] It is important to note that neither the King nor any member of the Royal Family has ever personally filed any charges under this law. In fact, during his birthday speech in 2005, King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism: "Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know." He later added, "But the King can do wrong."[4]

The Constitution does not provide the legal right for the royal family to defend themselves; accordingly they cannot file grievances on their own behalf[citation needed]. Instead, the responsibility has been granted to the state and to the public. Cases are often filed by state authorities or by individuals, and anyone may take action against anyone else. In one notable incident during the 2005–2006 political crisis, deposed Premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his political opponent Sondhi Limthongkul filed charges of lèse majesté against each other. Thaksin's alleged lèse majesté was one of the stated reasons for the Thai military's 2006 coup.[5][6][7][8]

Social activists such as Sulak Sivaraksa were charged with the crime in the 1980s and 1990s because they allegedly criticized the King; Sulak was eventually acquitted[9].

Frenchman Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz allegedly committed lèse majesté in 1995 by making a derogatory remark about a Thai princess while on board a Thai Airways flight. Although in international airspace at the time, he was taken into custody upon landing in Bangkok and charged with offending the monarchy. He was detained for two weeks, released on bail, and acquitted after writing a letter of apology to the King.[10]

In March 2007, Swiss national Oliver Jufer was convicted of lèse majesté and sentenced to 10 years in jail for spray-painting graffiti on several portraits of the king while drunk in Chiang Mai, Thailand.[11] Jufer was pardoned by the king on 12 April 2007.[12]

In March 2008, Police Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakarndee filed a case against Jakrapob Penkhair for comments made in an FCCT event in August 2007[13]. In 2008 BBC south-east Asia correspondent and FCCT vice-president Jonathan Head was accused of lèse majesté 3 times by Watanasak. In the most recent case Watanasak filed new charges highlighting a conspiracy connecting Thaksin Shinawatra, Jakrapob Penkhair and Jonathan Head to Veera Musikapong at the FCCT.[14]

In September 2008, Harry Nicolaides[15] from Melbourne, Australia, was arrested at Bangkok's international airport[16] and charged with lèse majesté, for an offending passage in his self published book Verisimilitude. Subsequently, in January 2009, after pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail. [17] On February 21, 2009, he was pardoned by the king and released.[18]


Wiki Linky



[edit on 29/8/09 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


So you're telling me that you think it's acceptable to have a law that completely outlaws the use of free speech when it criticizes a government official, simply because the king chose to pardon those who were convicted by this "law"?

Give me a goddamn break.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


If the Thai's think is acceptable, then yes. It isn't up to me to tell people in other countries how to do things.

In every constitution they have had ratified since the turning of the last century, this Law has remained. Not at the request of the monarchy, but at the request of the people.

The King circumvents this Law by pardoning anyone convicted of it. Show's he is quite benign and willing to accept criticism, even if his people and Parliament don't!



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Hmm. I would call that king benevolent. My money's on her pardon.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join