The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see'
bbc.com
bbc.com
The 90-year old King, whom Thais regard on the whole with a great deal of respect, is dying. He is in hospital for much of the time, there are rumours that he now barely speaks, and he is hardly seen in public at all anymore. The military is nervous about what happens when the King dies, as his son is not held in anywhere near the same high level of esteem with the public. The King's popularity stems from being seen as a 'unifying force' through many of Thailand's political crises. Fearing a constitutional crisis when he dies, they're now clamping down heavily on any dissent.
Which makes the atmosphere on the street a little strange. I was there on the King's birthday in December, and the whole country (people included) were decked out in yellow, the King's colour. There are icons of the King every 300 yards or so in central Bangkok (less so out in CM). While I was there someone was sentenced to several years in prison for a Facebook post about the King's dog. The laws re: insulting the monarchy have been around for a while, but are now being much more widely applied and strictly enforced.
It's very very hard to work out if the public affection for the King is for real, and no Thai will speak openly about their feelings. I spoke to a taxi driver on the way out of the country and said I'd been in the country for the King's birthday. His response: 'Yes.'
I left the country fascinated by the experience of a population living under authoritarian military rule, but really hope that for everyone's sake Thailand is able to resolve its difficulties and get back to regular elections soon.
It's not as simple as that. They are a democracy, with regular elections. They're just punctuated with military coups. There'll be tanks in the street and the military will have to, after a few days, try and stop people from dancing on/near the tanks. There'll be as many people in favour of the coup as against it. The military situation has nothing to do with the respect for the king; the coups don't happen without the king's blessing. Absent the monarchy in Thailand I don't think the situation regarding democracy would be any different at all.
That's almost laughable. The country has been under martial law for two years, with its constitution revoked. If the article is to be believed, the military prohibits campaigning against pieces of "legislation" they want passed -- like the new constitution, which basically just confirms military rule as law. A country with harsh (and enforced) laws on the book prohibiting criticizing the head of state... yeah, not a democracy.
They prohibit campaigning either for or against
Regardless, even if they didn't, your argument is in no way in support of the idea that they have a democracy. A democracy requires public discourse in order to be healthy.
It's like a national sport or something...
It's real. A lot of people have small shrines in their houses
لا تسأل الطغاة لماذا طغوا , بل اسأل العبيد لماذا ركعوا
Do not ask the tyrants why they tyrannised, but ask the slaves why they knelt.
Another way to word it in the interpretation I choose is "Don't ask the ruler for justification of the laws they made, ask the subjects why they followed those laws."
That is precisely the intended interpretation of the saying.
I can't believe you would use the word "permission" for giving in to torture. Maybe in some situations it's as simple as submitting vs. being immediately killed or imprisoned, but that's certainly not the only such situation.
In Canada men went to jail for disagreeing with feminist. He was latter released on bail, but could not use computer and electronic devices for 4 years. Father of five is graphic designer...[2]
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/ger...
Other comedians and newspapers supported him, there was even a song "sue me as well", the Germans in general see the whole affair as a joke.
Last week the German parliament officially recognized the genocide against the Armenians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide) causing yet another heavy complaint from Turkey. I've read the head of Turkey is currently actively suing several hundred people.
Not being allowed to use twitter or "have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access" (direct quote from wikipedia because I'm not sure whether the internet access part applies to the smartphone part.) was part of the bail. The 4 years were between the time which he was charged (Nov 2012) , and the time that all charges were dismissed (Jan 2016. So, really, closer to 3 years, but that difference doesn't matter all that much).
I believe that someone who did not read what you linked might assume that you meant that it was part of a sentencing for something he was charged with, as opposed to part of the bail.
Indeed, I initially misunderstood your comment in that way.
So, I would like to clarify this potential confusion for anyone else reading your comment, and also let you know that people may be lead to make inaccurate assumptions if you phrase things like that.
In addition, I think your phrase "for disagreeing with feminist" is probably suboptimal / unclear. It is true of course that the things that happened to him were a result of things he said to and about the person(s) in question, but that isn't how a typical person would understand "went to jail for disagreeing with an <X>".
I believe that a typical native English speaker would typically interpret "They were sent to jail for disagreeing with a <X>." to mean that the person was jailed for the opinion that they held or expressed, not for the way they allegedly expressed their disagreement with the <X> in question.
Am I saying that what happened to the person was right? No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm only saying that I think that the way you said the things, while perhaps technically true in a sense, has a high risk of people misinterpreting it as saying something that is not true.
> Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access.
> when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott.
... and it took 3.3 years to discover that.
Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...
I said that the way you said some of it was prone to being misinterpreted as meaning some other things which are not accurate.
Now, perhaps my initial misunderstanding was just due to me being exceptionally stupid, but I think that there is a fairly high chance of misinterpreting the things in question.
As such, I thought it would useful for it to be expressed in way which would be less prone to misinterpretation, because you don't want people thinking you mean something other than what you do mean, especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false.
I'm under the impression that he was forbidden from using a computer connected to the internet, not from using a computer in general, but I only read the Wikipedia article, so I could be wrong about that. ( Also, that distinction might not be very important.)
Indeed, that he was found not guilty does not reduce the harms he suffered.
But, as far as what is indicated about the legal system, I think it IS relevant. I don't know much anything about Canadian law, but I would figure that the purpose of the forbidding is rather different than what it would be it it were part of sentencing. Was it not meant by the authorities as a (rather too extreme) means to prevent more of what they suspected might be harm, until they could determine whether what was being done constituted harm? Or something like that?
Again, this of course does not make things better for the person. But as for the implications about what the law is, I think it is extremely relevant.
Regarding the impersonator, uh, I thought the things said by the impersonator only came up near the end of the case. Did I misunderstand this?
I thought it was kind of an addendum?
> Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and address...
Haha, very funny.
___
Has any of what I said been false or unclear?
Not really.
> especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false
He was punished for disagreeing. Jail, lost job, a few years without a computer and money spend on defense. Guilt is irrelevant if trial takes years and does not postpone punishment.
Computer without internet is useless today. Would you employ graphic designer who can not use computer connected to internet?
Also guilt is irrelevant, if false accuse is left unpunished. His accusers should be forbidden to use internet, and should go to prison for harassing him
It's strange when they talk about the military presence over there. I was over there for two months at the start of the year, (3rd visit in the past 2 years), and as usual didn't notice any military except for when I was close to the Burmese border (they were checking everyone for papers), and around the Kings palace.
> So what did Patnaree do to get charged? According to her lawyer, the only evidence the police have produced is an exchange on Facebook between her and a political activist, in which she responded to comments the police say are defamatory with the Thai word "ja", which translates as "I see", or "ok".
Language is something different to Thais - the West does not really have an equivalent, which probably makes this confusing to some. For instance, royalty in Thailand have a whole unique language that they, and their servants, converse in (Ra-cha sap). The only thing I can think of that's even close is the use of Latin in Catholic churches.
Thai government plans to MITM all internet communications
This makes China and Saudi Arabia look almost sane.
First sign of weak rulers is when they make insulting them a prison term (same goes for religions).
The definition of a dictatorship is they dictate what you should say. That's how they keep control.
It's a criminal offense to criticize monarchs both living and dead in Thailand. A lot of people found guilty are pardoned, but a lot are not.
Pretty sad this is becoming more widespread in Thailand
The actively interfere in elections and are on record supporting the various coups that have happened over the decades.
Cables leaked more recently had the King backing the army during the massacre in Thammasat University.
People should really read "The King Never Smiles" to get an idea of how this came to be.