NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.aol.com/article/australian-sentenced-to-3-years-in/310736

BANGKOK, Thailand (Jan. 19) - An Australian writer was sentenced Monday to three years in prison for insulting Thailand's royal family in his novel, a rare conviction of a foreigner amid a crackdown on people and Web sites deemed critical of the monarchy.
Bangkok's Criminal Court sentenced Harry Nicolaides to six years behind bars but reduced the term because he had entered a guilty plea, the judge said.
Nicolaides, a 41-year-old from Melbourne, was charged with insulting Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and the crown prince in his 2005 book "Verisimilitude," a piece of fiction that only sold seven copies.
"This can't be real. It feels like a bad dream," a tearful Nicolaides told reporters earlier Monday.
A passage in the book that discussed the personal life of a fictional prince "suggested that there was abuse of royal power," the presiding judge told the court.
Thailand's lese majeste law mandates a penalty of three to 15 years imprisonment for "whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the Regent."
The offending passage in Nicolaides' novel was just a few sentences long and described the turbulent marital relations of its fictional prince. The prosecutor warned reporters Monday that the law prohibited publication and repetition of the material.
Until recently, prosecutions under the law have been uncommon — usually a handful a year — in a country where King Bhumibol is almost universally revered.
But questions about the monarchy have assumed a higher profile lately as consideration is given to the eventual succession of the 81-year-old king, the world's longest serving head of state and the only monarch most Thais have ever lived under.

For those who do not know what lese majeste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese_majeste) means: is the crime of violating majesty, an offense against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. In Thailand this law is enforced to it's fullest and this is not the first time a foreigner (Swissman in 2007) has been arrested for 'defacing' or 'insulting' the image of the King or the royal family.

Now, if this man, Nicolaides, wrote about a finctional character, a royal, why do it in a country that enforces lese majeste? Can one assume he did it on purpose and is now playing innocent because he's facing jail-time? Thoughts.

Does he deserve, like the Swiss antional, a pardon from King Bhumibol? Perhaps barred entrance into the country? It was, after all, a fictional character. And if Nicolaides was, in a way, since he lived in Thailand, aware of the lese majeste, why did he published a book dissing royalty?

Comments.

that will learn him for being a writer!

though tbh the country is falling apart anyway so I wouldn't give it long

Web sites deemed critical of the monarchy.

the Thai King can suck my small hairy cock.

watches as all the Thai on NS mysteriously disappear

Lolfail. Monarchies are stupid.

Guess what happened to Barak H Obama today?

watches as all the Thai on NS mysteriously disappear

Do we even have any Thai on NSG? I'm pretty sure we don't.

Lolfail. Monarchies are stupid.

Much like me, you live with an active royal family.

Guess what happened to Barak H Obama today?

He got inaugurated?

Much like me, you live with an active royal family.

They're not active, not in the slightest.

He'll probabaly get a pardon.

They're not active, not in the slightest.
Err aye they are. Two of them are serving members of the military, Charles runs a whole bunch of charity stuff and generally Turns Up For Things, and the Queen and Phillip are always cutting about doing stuff over the globe.

Do we even have any Thai on NSG? I'm pretty sure we don't.

:eek:

They're not active, not in the slightest.

last I heard they were shooting birds outside a nursery

Two of them are serving members of the military

I'm not sure how much you want to read into that *has seen the royal of my regiment and his..."boots"*

They're not active, not in the slightest.

The Queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family#Public_role_and_image) has a seat on Parliament. Besides, she needs to be consulted about the affairs of the British Commonwealth.

The Queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family#Public_role_and_image) has a seat on Parliament. Besides, she needs to be consulted about the affairs of the British Commonwealth.

But she doesn't do anything with that seat, and can't exercise any power over the Commonwealth.

He got inaugurated?

No he got his motto from bob the builer, who has now charged a lawsuit against the president. The US owes bob the builder up to $600 000 000.
Either that or everyone has to watch at least 3 episodes of it.
I bet OBama even stole the rebuilding the economy from bob, poor guy he must get so much stick for being in a kids TV show.

But she doesn't do anything with that seat, and can't exercise any power over the Commonwealth.

But she can participate in Parliamentary sessions, which makes her ''active'' in English politics.

But she can participate in Parliamentary sessions, which makes her ''active'' in English politics.

She can open parliament, that's it. She can't propose a new law, or take a vote on it or anything.

She can open parliament, that's it. She can't propose a new law, or take a vote on it or anything.

The sole fact that she can open a session makes her active.

The sole fact that she can open a session makes her active.

But that's all she does. She takes no role in the real lawmaking etc.

But that's all she does. She takes no role in the real lawmaking etc.

But she's taken into consideration by Parliament since she's allowed to open sessions as a royal. Prince Harry is serving on the military. So tell me if that's not being active.

But she's taken into consideration by Parliament since she's allowed to open sessions as a royal. Prince Harry is serving on the military. So tell me if that's not being active.

Harry is doing absolutely fuck all in the army, and that's not politics anyway. The Queen isn't an MP or a member of the House of Lords, so therefore has no political control over any country in the UK.

Harry is doing absolutely fuck all in the army, and that's not politics anyway. The Queen isn't an MP or a member of the House of Lords, so therefore has no political control over any country in the UK.

You seriously do not understand what I've been trying to tell you, do you?

You seriously do not understand what I've been trying to tell you, do you?

I do, actually, but you quite clearly don't understand that the queen has no power. Why does every thread have to end up with us arguing about the state of the British economy, or the Commonwealth?

You seriously do not understand what I've been trying to tell you, do you?

Yes, I know what you've been trying to tell me, Nanatsu...

With your gaze you say that you are playful, but passionate.

With your hair, you say you are wild at heart, but refined in style.

With your posts, you tell me you are smart, yet congenial.

With your choice of coffee, you tell me you are discerning, but not pretentious.

With the restraining order, you tell me that you know who I am, but don't wish for me to approach within 500 meters of you or your place of work unless previous dispensation is provided by the court after having reviewed a written request detailing a need to approach the designated location that is unrelated to the protected party.

I do, actually, but you quite clearly don't understand that the queen has no power. Why does every thread have to end up with us arguing about the state of the British economy, or the Commonwealth?

I'm not arguing about the state of the Bristish economy or its Commonwealth. But it's absurd to say the English royal family isn't active at all in Englad when that's not true.

I'm not arguing about the state of the Bristish economy or its Commonwealth. But it's absurd to say the English royal family isn't active at all in Englad when that's not true.

They are not active in the politics at all. And when did I mention the economy?

Yes, I know what you've been trying to tell me, Nanatsu...

With your gaze you say that you are playful, but passionate.

With your hair, you say you are wild at heart, but refined in style.

With your posts, you tell me you are smart, yet congenial.

With your choice of coffee, you tell me you are discerning, but not pretentious.

With the restraining order, you tell me that you know who I am, but don't wish for me to approach within 500 meters of you or your place of work unless previous dispensation is provided by the court after having reviewed a written request detailing a need to approach the designated location that is unrelated to the protected party.

I am having such a strong sense of dejá vu right now...:eek2:

And when did I mention the economy?

lol wut

I am having such a strong sense of dejá vu right now...:eek2:

Its not like hes been here in....3 different reincarnations?

They are not active in the politics at all. And when did I mention the economy?

and from a couple posts back...

Why does every thread have to end up with us arguing about the state of the British economy, or the Commonwealth?

I want a cheeseburger...

They are not active in the politics at all.

Then what do you call the Queen being able to open Parliamentary sessions? Or Prince Harry serving in the military?

And when did I mention the economy?

Kindly, mate, read your post before this one.

I am having such a strong sense of dejá vu right now...:eek2:I feel like I've had this sense of deja` vu sometime before!

lol wut

She said she wasn't talking about the economy, so I asked when I mentioned it.

Its not like hes been here in....3 different reincarnations?

Is it him then, KoL?

Its not like hes been here in....3 different reincarnations?

KoL, when have I ever previously had a nation here or mentioned the economy?

Is it him then, KoL?

We're all pretty positive.

She said she wasn't talking about the economy, so I asked when I mentioned it.

Yes. Yes you did.

We're all pretty positive.

Yes, I'm beginning to feel positive about it too. *nod*

We're all pretty positive.

Stop being positive. Be Objectivist.

This King fellow in Thailand is clearly a great man. He's a truly the product of the three supreme virtues, Self-esteem, Purpose, and Reason.

Now, all he needs to do is respect Individual Rights and pardon the guy. (I actually mean that line.)

Yes, I'm beginning to feel positive about it too. *nod*

Wait, Nan, when did KoL ever mention being positive, or the economy?

Stop being positive. Be Objectivist.

This King fellow in Thailand is clearly a great man. He's a truly the product of the three supreme virtues, Self-esteem, Purpose, and Reason.

Now, all he needs to do is respect Individual Rights and pardon the guy. (I actually mean that line.)

It's true. He read it on a Chick Pamphlet.:D

Wait, Nan, when did KoL ever mention being positive, or the economy?

When we felt the Ghost of You.:fluffle:

It's true. He read it on a Chick Pamphlet.:D

You remember that awful TV show "Love Is In The Heir", a (sort-of) reality show about a real-life (tm) Princess in LA trying to find a husband so she doesn't get disowned?

And it turned out she was Iranian royalty, so didn't really have a country anymore, and it was most mostly scripted, and she was vapid and a bad singer....her own parents should bring charges against her for defaming the royal lineage...

KoL, when have I ever previously had a nation here or mentioned the economy?

Cummon, we're not stupid, in fact I knew from the start who you were with your first thread. :p And when did I mention the economy? Stop saying I did!

When we felt the Ghost of You.:fluffle:

Where does my nation name ever mention being a Ghost, or the economy?

You remember that awful TV show "Love Is In The Heir", a (sort-of) reality show about a real-life (tm) Princess in LA trying to find a husband so she doesn't get disowned?

No, unfortunately that show doesn't ring a bell.

And it turned out she was Iranian royalty, so didn't really have a country anymore, and it was most mostly scripted, and she was vapid and a bad singer....her own parents should bring charges against her for defaming the royal lineage...

Ouch, that doubly sucks.

Cummon, we're not stupid, in fact I knew from the start who you were with your first thread. :p And when did I mention the economy? Stop saying I did!

You said "Cummon"....giggity giggity!

You said "Cummon"....giggity giggity!

Har har. Isn't it giggidy, not giggity? Anyway, when did I say cummon? I don't remember that.

Where does my nation name ever mention being a Ghost, or the economy?

Gimme objectivism, mate! That's your forte!

No one here has mentioned, in the discussion per se, British economy. No Names Left Damn It (Adunabar) brought it up because he specualtes we always (him and me) end up ranting about the Commonwealth and British economy everytime we debate.

Gimme objectivism, mate! That's your forte!

No one here has mentioned, in the discussion per se, British economy. No Names Left Damn It (Adunabar) brought it up because he specualtes we always (him and me) end up ranting about the Commonwealth and British economy everytime we debate.

I know, I posted him asking where he mentioned it, then quoted him where he'd mentioned it, a couple of posts before.

Anyway, where did I ever mention Objectivism, or the British economy?

Anyway, where did I ever mention Objectivism, or the British economy?

You're the Ghost of Ayn Rand, are you not?

why has the queen of england become the topic of chat?......she is a grand old lady that does so much for the country......she is constitutional.......so republicans get lost. you cant remove her from the throne, and i dread the day someone tries to kick them out.......cause the millitary are most certainly on the monarchs side in britain......not the loony governments!

why has the queen of england become the topic of chat?......she is a grand old lady that does so much for the country......she is constitutional.......so republicans get lost. you cant remove her from the throne, and i dread the day someone tries to kick them out.......cause the millitary are most certainly on the monarchs side in britain......not the loony governments!

Read the OP so you find out why.

why has the queen of england become the topic of chat?......she is a grand old lady that does so much for the country......she is constitutional.......so republicans get lost. you cant remove her from the throne, and i dread the day someone tries to kick them out.......cause the millitary are most certainly on the monarchs side in britain......not the loony governments!

lulz.

You're the Ghost of Ayn Rand, are you not?

Where did I or my nation name ever mention Ayn Rand? Or the British Economy?

Something is wrong with you, Nanatsu, you've been studying to hard or something....

Where did I or my nation name ever mention Ayn Rand? Or the British Economy?

Something is wrong with you, Nanatsu, you've been studying to hard or something....

You're digressing now, I fail to see why this means it's imperative that the bank of England cuts interest rates. And even if it does, I fail to see what that has to do with the British economy.

Where did I or my nation name ever mention Ayn Rand? Or the British Economy?

Something is wrong with you, Nanatsu, you've been studying to hard or something....

You, you are the one making me swoon. It's your fault.

You, you are the one making me swoon. It's your fault.

What are you talking about? I've never posted anything directed at you, or the British economy.

This is Hydesland's thread about the use of sweet cream in rice dishes is raises Kosher issues more or less than the 4 kg of shrimp we put into it.

Please stay on topic.

What are you talking about? I've never posted anything directed at you, or the British economy.

This is Hydesland's thread about the use of sweet cream in rice dishes is raises Kosher issues more or less than the 4 kg of shrimp we put into it.

Please stay on topic.

O.O

Nani kore?

sarcasm obviously is undetectable!!! to some people........lol

of course i 'knew why' it was really a WHY?????

of course i 'knew why' it was really a WHY?????

*grabs n00b, puts it on hamster cage, watches it run on the wheel*

O.O

Nani kore?

It seems a bit archaic, that even the reference of a fictional version of a monarch would be considered so dangerously maligning that it would be punishable by prison.

Those of us raised in cultures where speech is afforded some freedom, even in the criticism of leaders, might recoil a bit from it by habit. In a place where the monarch is revered, in the old school way that seems to be at work here, perhaps it makes more sense.

Didn't you get married recently? I would've sent you a crock pot or a gravy boat, but the restraining order you filed on me makes even this post illegal.

typical........resorts to opprossive practices..........lol, im a little to big for a hamster cage and wheel........so it will have also turned into physical abuse to get me in it!!...lol

It seems a bit archaic, that even the reference of a fictional version of a monarch would be considered so dangerously maligning that it would be punishable by prison.

Those of us raised in cultures where speech is afforded some freedom, even in the criticism of leaders, might recoil a bit from it by habit. In a place where the monarch is revered, in the old school way that seems to be at work here, perhaps it makes more sense.

It is a bit archaic but Nicolaides is to blame here. He was living on Thailand when he published the book. He knew of the lese majeste. I do hope, though, that he gets pardoned.

Didn't you get married recently? I would've sent you a crock pot or a gravy boat, but the restraining order you filed on me makes even this post illegal.

No. I was going to marry Jhahannam. But he went into hiding, joined the Legion and left me broken hearted.

typical........resorts to opprossive practices..........lol, im a little to big for a hamster cage and wheel........so it will have also turned into physical abuse to get me in it!!...lol

Don't you know I am NSG's Spanish Inquisition? If you do not, it's time you get acquianted with the terror in neko mimi.

I must go though. Do with this thread as you see fit.

Ghost, I'll miss thee the most.:fluffle:

No. I was going to marry Jhahannam. But he went into hiding, joined the Legion and left me broken hearted.

It is known only that he tried to join the Legion. Showed up at some place in Aubagne, walked up to the gate, said "volunteer por la Legion?"

But the French Foreign Legion has become selective over the years, and far more are rejected than are put under The Conract.

Hopefully, he'll be pardoned. They can always throw him out of the country if they want to make a point.

Rael isn't allowed in Korea...

Lot of hostility against the monarchy, which I don't see why. I quite like the monarchy we have in Norway. They may not have political power, but I deem them as good ambassadors when they are traveling to represent as abroad.

I quite like the British monarchy as well. I can't see what wrong they are doing. That Harry is a bit of a trouble maker at times, but overall he seems like a nice chap.

Not that I condone such behaviour in the link, but when you live in such a country you really ought to think twice of what you are doing.

No he got his motto from bob the builer, who has now charged a lawsuit against the president. The US owes bob the builder up to $600 000 000.
Either that or everyone has to watch at least 3 episodes of it.
I bet OBama even stole the rebuilding the economy from bob, poor guy he must get so much stick for being in a kids TV show.
His brother is Joe the Plumber.

Harry is doing absolutely fuck all in the army, and that's not politics anyway. The Queen isn't an MP or a member of the House of Lords, so therefore has no political control over any country in the UK.

I can't believe upper-houses that aren't voted in by the public are still allowed, as they're an incredible affront to democracy.

I can't believe upper-houses that aren't voted in by the public are still allowed, as they're an incredible affront to democracy.

eh? What does that mean? Is Democracy off crying in a corner or something?

eh? What does that mean? Is Democracy off crying in a corner or something?

If we were going to personify Democracy I think it would be more hurt than sitting in the corner.

I am having such a strong sense of dejá vu right now...:eek2:
This story reminds me of the "King and I," but with a very unhappy ending.

I hope that the writer/journalist is pardoned, as I think he is being tortured, and he said as much in his statementls.

I must say, that this 87-year-old King of Thailand does not seem very wise, as all he is getting is worldwide bad press, which I don't think was his intended result in making an example of this man, who printed 50 copies of his book and sold only 10 copies.

This is a "backfire" for the King of Thailand of enormous proportions.

This story reminds me of the "King and I," but with a very unhappy ending.

I hope that the writer/journalist is pardoned, as I think he is being tortured, and he said as much in his statementls.

Given what he has done, and where, his statements of torture are suspect until can be proven otherwise.


I must say, that this 87-year-old King of Thailand does not seem very wise, as all he is getting is worldwide bad press, which I don't think was his intended result in making an example of this man, who printed 50 copies of his book and sold only 10 copies.

This is a "backfire" for the King of Thailand of enormous proportions.

Backfire how? There are two things you have to understand about Thailand. First and foremost, it's a parliamentary democracy with a king at the top, much like England. So while he can't make or enforce law, the enforcement of lesse majesty depends entirely on local law enforcement and judiciaries. Second, this particular king spent a lot of his early years actively involved with the Thai people, especially in agriculture development and education that got a lot of them out of severe poverty. They remember that.

Unless the King screws up massively, the Thai people will continue to revere him and keep lesse majesty going strong.

Given what he has done, and where, his statements of torture are suspect until can be proven otherwise.



Backfire how? There are two things you have to understand about Thailand. First and foremost, it's a parliamentary democracy with a king at the top, much like England. So while he can't make or enforce law, the enforcement of lesse majesty depends entirely on local law enforcement and judiciaries. Second, this particular king spent a lot of his early years actively involved with the Thai people, especially in agriculture development and education that got a lot of them out of severe poverty. They remember that.

Unless the King screws up massively, the Thai people will continue to revere him and keep lesse majesty going strong.
I understand that Thailand is a repressive government that allows the sale of women and children, and tortures people for critcizing those in power.

As far as I am concerned, the Thai government and the king have "screw[ed] up massively" in torturing and jailing someone for years because he wrote a cricticism. That is all he did!

They would have been better served, and engendered less international scorn if they had simply thrown the guy and his remaining 40 books/pamphlets out of the country.

I understand that Thailand is a repressive government that allows the sale of women and children, and tortures people for critcizing those in power.

Says someone who in all probability, has never been there, or talked to its people. And what are you smoking? Since when does the Thai government allow this? The flesh trade and human trafficking is endemic, I won't deny that, but it's also illegal like every other place. You might as well claim that India, America, Holland and similar are repressive governments since they all have the same failings in that category.

As for torture, where is your evidence for that? The statement of a failed author who knowingly broke the law trying to sell something? By all means, investigate. If evidence surfaces for it, then your criticism is valid. If none does, then it's all fluff.


As far as I am concerned, the Thai government and the king have "screw[ed] up massively" in torturing and jailing someone for years because he wrote a cricticism. That is all he did!


And as far as I'm concerned, your rants of torture are made without evidence of any sort.


They would have been better served, and engendered less international scorn if they had simply thrown the guy and his remaining 40 books/pamphlets out of the country.

International scorn is better preserved for so called "beacons of human rights" which don't even make a pretense of preserving them. The problem with you Westerners is that you keep thinking that you can show up wherever you so damn please, make your own laws, and then demand that they be catered to your wishes or suffer the consequences.

You know what the rest of us have to say to that? Screw you. We've put up with your colonialist shit for centuries, and now that we're our own people again, you had better damn well respect our laws if you want to visit. Clean your own houses before you come at us with your self righteous blather.

ive been to Thailand. Very lovely country. I wonder were these books published inside of Thailand ?? one of the first things i was warned about was do not insult the king, not so much because of the law more so because any Thais that over hear(trust me they will understand) you will immediately beat the living shit out of you. I was also warned not to step on the currency(like a coin rolling around) as the bottom of the feet are insult there and all the currency has the kings image.

The King will likely make him sit in jail 6 months before he pardons him.

ive been to Thailand. Very lovely country. I wonder were these books published inside of Thailand ?? one of the first things i was warned about was do not insult the king, not so much because of the law more so because any Thais that over hear(trust me they will understand) you will immediately beat the living shit out of you. I was also warned not to step on the currency(like a coin rolling around) as the bottom of the feet are insult there and all the currency has the kings image.

One of the indicators of the level of respect the Thai royal family commands was the Bloody May coup of 1992. Elements had spiraled out of control of the government with a military coup taking place and massacres being committed on the protesters. The royal family stepped in with Princess Sirindhorn called in for an end to the hostilities between the coup leaders and loyalist elements and the leaders of both sides showed up on a televised meet where the King demanded they both put an end to the fighting and work together. And you know what? They both did.

That's how much respect they command.

One of the indicators of the level of respect the Thai royal family commands was the Bloody May coup of 1992. Elements had spiraled out of control of the government with a military coup taking place and massacres being committed on the protesters. The royal family stepped in with Princess Sirindhorn called in for an end to the hostilities between the coup leaders and loyalist elements and the leaders of both sides showed up on a televised meet where the King demanded they both put an end to the fighting and work together. And you know what? They both did.

That's how much respect they command.

Well their king is a good man. He will do things like if their is a famine in the north like take 75% of his living allowance as king and buy food for the farmers.
His Sons are regarded as play boys though, a story goes that one of the crowned prince was dating a model in the early 1970's and he got tired of her, so he took her on a trip to the remote areas in the north via helicopter then just left her there.

Well their king is a good man. He will do things like if their is a famine in the north like take 75% of his living allowance as king and buy food for the farmers.
His Sons are regarded as play boys though, a story goes that one of the crowned prince was dating a model in the early 1970's and he got tired of her, so he took her on a trip to the remote areas in the north via helicopter then just left her there.

The sons are disliked, through and through. The Thai people don't like them at all. I hear there are some rumblings about trying to get the princess the throne instead, but it's all speculative.

The sons are disliked, through and through. The Thai people don't like them at all. I hear there are some rumblings about trying to get the princess the throne instead, but it's all speculative.

yeah, everyone has some gossip about something the son did. though they never speak about it very loudly. I doubt they can give the throne to his daughters unless the king really wants it.

Rael isn't allowed in Korea...

Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of meeting Rael.

I must say, that this 87-year-old King of Thailand does not seem very wise, as all he is getting is worldwide bad press, which I don't think was his intended result in making an example of this man, who printed 50 copies of his book and sold only 10 copies.

This is a "backfire" for the King of Thailand of enormous proportions.

I thought as much. The royal Thai family really should consider the lese majeste law. It's far too stringent. And to have people torture on this account is really medievalish.

Nuke the monarchy.

Hey Tsuki,

IMHO, you should have the right to insult anyone, anywhere at anytime.
But if I know that my insult could lead to some era in jail then I would be silent.

So, or the journalist is pretty dumb, which is indeed a good reason to be in jail.
Or he’s rather a materialistic type who knows that his book will sell now and thus he deserves a nice Oscar for doing best moan ‘moohoo’ act of the year.

I thought as much. The royal Thai family really should consider the lese majeste law. It's far too stringent. And to have people torture on this account is really medievalish.

The concept of a monarchy is medieval in itself, do you expect them to live in a modernesque world?

The concept of a monarchy is medieval in itself, do you expect them to live in a modernesque world?

Spain is a parliamentary democracy and you do not hear stuff like this happening in Spain.

Spain is a parliamentary democracy and you do not hear stuff like this happening in Spain.

A constitutional monarchy is far different from a true monarchy. Thailand is a place where the monarch has absolute power and can do whatever he wants; the place might have flashy neon signs but it is still in the dark ages along with North Korea, half the Pennsylvanian Legislature, and the Catholic Church.

A constitutional monarchy is far different from a true monarchy. Thailand is a place where the monarch has absolute power and can do whatever he wants; the place might have flashy neon signs but it is still in the dark ages along with North Korea, half the Pennsylvanian Legislature, and the Catholic Church.

Thailand is also a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, same as Spain.

A constitutional monarchy is far different from a true monarchy. Thailand is a place where the monarch has absolute power and can do whatever he wants; the place might have flashy neon signs but it is still in the dark ages along with North Korea, half the Pennsylvanian Legislature, and the Catholic Church.

fail Thailand in a constitutional monarchy. well it might temporally be a military junta but the king has no power other then public appeal and pardons. Just the people really respect their king and sometimes the government gets overzealous in enforcing it.

Silly Thailand, don't they know that Monarchies are only allowed in the countries smart enough not to care about them?

I thought as much. The royal Thai family really should consider the lese majeste law. It's far too stringent. And to have people torture on this account is really medievalish.

A constitutional monarchy is far different from a true monarchy. Thailand is a place where the monarch has absolute power and can do whatever he wants; the place might have flashy neon signs but it is still in the dark ages along with North Korea, half the Pennsylvanian Legislature, and the Catholic Church.

Silly Thailand, don't they know that Monarchies are only allowed in the countries smart enough not to care about them?

First and foremost, claims of torture by this lone journalist has all the tell tale signs of crying wolf and has no corroboration whatsoever.

Next, let me put this to you, in case what has already been said has gone over your heads. Thailand is a parliamentary democracy with a symbolic monarchy. The Thai Royal family has no actual governing power, not even regarding the laws of lese majeste.

The Thai people simply adore their current monarch that much. This is the same man who singlehandedly brought an end to a bloody coup de tat by telling the leaders of both sides to stop it. That is how much the people of almost all strata in Thailand revere him.

Imprisonment is the least of this journalist's worries.

Gripes like the ones your making are no different than the ones I saw when some poof headed Australian went to Indonesia and got hauled up to jail for shipping bricks of marijuana in her luggage. The same kind of gripes who were all for declaring war on Indonesia or bombing the prison just to shield a criminal from justice.

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.

If they're going to actually prosecute a guy for writing a book, then I'm gonna go ahead and call them on it.

Next, let me put this to you, in case what has already been said has gone over your heads. Thailand is a parliamentary democracy with a symbolic monarchy. The Thai Royal family has no actual governing power, not even regarding the laws of lese majeste.

I am well aware of that.

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.

You also disappoint in your display of holier than thou attitude. Oh, and just so you know, because you seem to have by-passed what was actually stated on those posts you quote, conveniently, no one is... how is that you put it... ah, yes "acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'." So please, spare us the lordly sermon.

First and foremost, claims of torture by this lone journalist has all the tell tale signs of crying wolf
What signs? I don't know whether his claims are true or not, but I see no reason to be automatically dismissive.

Hey Tsuki,

IMHO, you should have the right to insult anyone, anywhere at anytime.
But if I know that my insult could lead to some era in jail then I would be silent.

So, or the journalist is pretty dumb, which is indeed a good reason to be in jail.
Or he’s rather a materialistic type who knows that his book will sell now and thus he deserves a nice Oscar for doing best moan ‘moohoo’ act of the year.

Those are the only 2 possible motives?

Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of meeting Rael.

Rael has 80,000 followers.

He loves beautiful, sensual women, so you would make his eyes spin around like the jackpot on a slot machine while tongue rolled out, dropping hundreds of quarters.

First and foremost, claims of torture by this lone journalist has all the tell tale signs of crying wolf and has no corroboration whatsoever.

Next, let me put this to you, in case what has already been said has gone over your heads. Thailand is a parliamentary democracy with a symbolic monarchy. The Thai Royal family has no actual governing power, not even regarding the laws of lese majeste.

The Thai people simply adore their current monarch that much. This is the same man who singlehandedly brought an end to a bloody coup de tat by telling the leaders of both sides to stop it. That is how much the people of almost all strata in Thailand revere him.

Imprisonment is the least of this journalist's worries.

Gripes like the ones your making are no different than the ones I saw when some poof headed Australian went to Indonesia and got hauled up to jail for shipping bricks of marijuana in her luggage. The same kind of gripes who were all for declaring war on Indonesia or bombing the prison just to shield a criminal from justice.

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.

Great, great parallel. Writing a novel about a fictional version of a royal figure, vs. drug trafficking. A = A.

Hi, I'm pre-eminent Russian American Philosopher Ayn Rand, and you are clearly already familiar with my works!

You also disappoint in your display of holier than thou attitude. Oh, and just so you know, because you seem to have by-passed what was actually stated on those posts you quote, conveniently, no one is... how is that you put it... ah, yes "acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'." So please, spare us the lordly sermon.

Nanatsu, remember when you called for the prison to be bombed? And for the Thai government to be overthrown because of this?

I mean, if you had reasonable respect for this culture, you would've just hoped that the King pardoned the guy (a power he has regarding lese majesty laws).

And why do you keep bringing up the British Economy?

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.

did you seriously compare drug smuggling to the criminalization of free speech?

did you seriously compare drug smuggling to the criminalization of free speech?

Stop the high and mighty ingorance, Tea Party Poofter.

That's no less sound than comparing advocating he be pardoned by the King to saying the prison should be bombed.

I'm with Nanatsu - down with monarchy! But I'd stop at advocating bing the jail gates. The interesting thing is what Nicoliades, the writer, wrote about was that in his book, he was with the crown prince of Thailand when they drove past a town on the road to Chiangmai. On the way back, that town wasn't there anymore. Nicoliades enquired about the town and the Crown Prince dismissed it.

The Thais played hard ball with that town and they are playing hard ball with him .....as well as the people of Thailand.

Says someone who in all probability, has never been there, or talked to its people. And what are you smoking? Since when does the Thai government allow this? The flesh trade and human trafficking is endemic, I won't deny that, but it's also illegal like every other place. You might as well claim that India, America, Holland and similar are repressive governments since they all have the same failings in that category.

As for torture, where is your evidence for that? The statement of a failed author who knowingly broke the law trying to sell something? By all means, investigate. If evidence surfaces for it, then your criticism is valid. If none does, then it's all fluff.



And as far as I'm concerned, your rants of torture are made without evidence of any sort.



International scorn is better preserved for so called "beacons of human rights" which don't even make a pretense of preserving them. The problem with you Westerners is that you keep thinking that you can show up wherever you so damn please, make your own laws, and then demand that they be catered to your wishes or suffer the consequences.

You know what the rest of us have to say to that? Screw you. We've put up with your colonialist shit for centuries, and now that we're our own people again, you had better damn well respect our laws if you want to visit. Clean your own houses before you come at us with your self righteous blather.
I am sure the people of Thailand would be better served without this "beneficient" king who cannot stand criticism of any kind and who retaliates for such criticism by torturing and jailing those who cricticse him.

As for what I am "smoking" with respect to the human trafficking of women and children through that country, most of which is not as well off as the king, see:

www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand

I am sure the people of Thailand would be better served without this "beneficient" king who cannot stand criticism of any kind and who retaliates for such criticism by torturing and jailing those who cricticse him.

As for what I am "smoking" with respect to the human trafficking of women and children through that country, most of which is not as well off as the king, see:

www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand

Not likely to be tendentious at all, that, is it?

First and foremost, claims of torture by this lone journalist has all the tell tale signs of crying wolf and has no corroboration whatsoever.

Next, let me put this to you, in case what has already been said has gone over your heads. Thailand is a parliamentary democracy with a symbolic monarchy. The Thai Royal family has no actual governing power, not even regarding the laws of lese majeste.

The Thai people simply adore their current monarch that much. This is the same man who singlehandedly brought an end to a bloody coup de tat by telling the leaders of both sides to stop it. That is how much the people of almost all strata in Thailand revere him.

Imprisonment is the least of this journalist's worries.

Gripes like the ones your making are no different than the ones I saw when some poof headed Australian went to Indonesia and got hauled up to jail for shipping bricks of marijuana in her luggage. The same kind of gripes who were all for declaring war on Indonesia or bombing the prison just to shield a criminal from justice.

High and mighty ignorance, so sure, so proud of your righteousness, acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'. You disappoint.
I have to say, you seem to give the same answer for everyone--what do you think, you are the king or something?

Just because you say the same thing 100 times, does not make it true. Bush just learned this. So will the King of Thailand.

If they're going to actually prosecute a guy for writing a book, then I'm gonna go ahead and call them on it.

He wasn't prosecuted for writing a book. He was prosecuted for breaking a publicly known law. But I see you would rather laws be thrown down the gutter if they don't fit in your world view of how a nation makes its rules. Maybe you'd rather see little Americas all over the world.

I am well aware of that.


Then why do you say that the royal family to reconsider the laws if you acknowledge that they can't really do anything about it?


You also disappoint in your display of holier than thou attitude. Oh, and just so you know, because you seem to have by-passed what was actually stated on those posts you quote, conveniently, no one is... how is that you put it... ah, yes "acting like the imperialist colonials you profess to abhor when one of your own tramples the laws of a country you deem 'inferior'." So please, spare us the lordly sermon.

Personally, you may not be the worst of the lot. But we have SaintB claiming that not only is the Thai monarchy an autocracy and a relic of the dark ages comparable to North Korea, SaintB also calls for it to be destroyed simply because it does not guarantee the same rights he wants.

That's the sort of ignorant, self righteous colonialist mentality that Asia has had more than its fill of and I'm sick of these people pretending to be advocates of law and justice when they won't even extend the concept to anything that doesn't operate entirely in their sphere.

did you seriously compare drug smuggling to the criminalization of free speech?

Why shouldn't I? Australia has much more lax laws regarding drug smuggling, but when the poof head went to a country with much more strict ones, the Australian populace demanded their standards be used instead of Indonesia's. Here, we have the exact same thing happening.

It's never about respecting the laws and culture of the places you visit now. It's all about plopping your fat ass in some other country and demanding the laws of your home country apply to you while you trample all over the laws of the country you are a guest in.

I am sure the people of Thailand would be better served without this "beneficient" king who cannot stand criticism of any kind and who retaliates for such criticism by torturing and jailing those who cricticse him.

Again, no evidence of your claim of torture I see, but don't let that get in the way of your imperialist blinkers. You don't look at what they've done for the people. Oh no. Can't dig up the past. It might show how pathetic your claims are. Better to just claim that they're evil and have done.

Of course, you would also claim "better off" on no evidence whatsoever other than your high and mighty attitude so much like the colonials of yore who believed that the "primitives" would be better off under colonial yoke and "civilized".


As for what I am "smoking" with respect to the human trafficking of women and children through that country, most of which is not as well off as the king, see:

www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand

And what does this have to do with the royal family hmmm? Nothing? Only your imagination I see. How about one of these then?

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/united_states_of_america

Clearly America, "bastion of liberty" is a prime supporter of the slave trade.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/new_zealand

So is New Zealand.

What's that? Not the same? How? Because Thailand has a royal family? What a load of crock.


Just because you say the same thing 100 times, does not make it true. Bush just learned this. So will the King of Thailand.

So far, I have the facts to back me up. You've only got your baseless blather. We shall see who is lying.

He wasn't prosecuted for writing a book. He was prosecuted for breaking a publicly known law. But I see you would rather laws be thrown down the gutter if they don't fit in your world view of how a nation makes its rules. Maybe you'd rather see little Americas all over the world.



Then why do you say that the royal family to reconsider the laws if you acknowledge that they can't really do anything about it?



Personally, you may not be the worst of the lot. But we have SaintB claiming that not only is the Thai monarchy an autocracy and a relic of the dark ages comparable to North Korea, SaintB also calls for it to be destroyed simply because it does not guarantee the same rights he wants.

That's the sort of ignorant, self righteous colonialist mentality that Asia has had more than its fill of and I'm sick of these people pretending to be advocates of law and justice when they won't even extend the concept to anything that doesn't operate entirely in their sphere.



Why shouldn't I? Australia has much more lax laws regarding drug smuggling, but when the poof head went to a country with much more strict ones, the Australian populace demanded their standards be used instead of Indonesia's. Here, we have the exact same thing happening.

It's never about respecting the laws and culture of the places you visit now. It's all about plopping your fat ass in some other country and demanding the laws of your home country apply to you while you trample all over the laws of the country you are a guest in.
I suggest you stop acting as visitor, tourista and go live there. Living in a country is far different than visiting. I respect their culture and traditions, but many laws of many countries, including ours, are barbaric and disproportionate to the crime.

By the way, have you heard Bloomberg wants to make felons out of people who get 7 violations (traffic types of fines) for window washing cars at red lights? Putting people in jail for trying to make a living (instead of robbing). Hail King Bloomberg! We all respect your law! Yes, more prisons--please torture these horrible repeat offender car-window-washing felons! We respect your culture and traditions! Throw them all in jail! We care nothing about the cost or the proportionality of the punishment to the crime or the economic situation facing everyone! Better yet, off with the heads of the repeat offender window washers! That will save us on prison costs!

I suggest you stop acting as visitor, tourista and go live there. Living in a country is far different than visiting. I respect their culture and traditions, but many laws of many countries, including ours, are barbaric and disproportionate to the crime.


In case the "Westerner" term wasn't making things clear enough for you, I grew up in an Asian country that was formerly an European colony which had the same kind of nose in the air attitudes about the locals you're displaying. And yes, we have laws you'd probably get in a snit about too. And you know what we have to say to that? Get lost. We've had centuries of your meddling "for our own good" and we're sick of it. We'll solve our own problems with our own hands. And if we don't see them as a problem, then shut the fuck up. If you want to visit and break laws, you pay the price.

In case the "Westerner" term wasn't making things clear enough for you, I grew up in an Asian country that was formerly an European colony which had the same kind of nose in the air attitudes about the locals you're displaying. And yes, we have laws you'd probably get in a snit about too. And you know what we have to say to that? Get lost. We've had centuries of your meddling "for our own good" and we're sick of it. We'll solve our own problems with our own hands. And if we don't see them as a problem, then shut the fuck up. If you want to visit and break laws, you pay the price.
Where do you live now?

But I see you would rather laws be thrown down the gutter if they don't fit in your world view of how a nation makes its rules.

I know as an anthropologist I'm supposed to practice cultural relativity, but I don't really believe it in some cases. For instance, why do we have to respect the breach of liberty that this is? Our declaration and the declaration of many other nations proclaims that freedom of speech and the ability to criticize a government is one of the most important and fundemental rights a person can have. I'm glad you associate that with America, but I doubt any citizen of the countless other nations with such beliefs would.

Not everything is relative. There are freedoms that individuals should be guaranteed by their government, and the freedom of speech is one of them. Especially when it comes to criticizing one's government.

I know I had more but I forgot what it was because I'm watching this new show. Lie to Me. Looks cool.

He wasn't prosecuted for writing a book. He was prosecuted for breaking a publicly known law. But I see you would rather laws be thrown down the gutter if they don't fit in your world view of how a nation makes its rules. Maybe you'd rather see little Americas all over the world.


EWW. More like little Swedens. More or less.

Where do you live now?

South East Asia. Go look up the former British colonies up to the mid 20th century in the area near Thailand.

I know as an anthropologist I'm supposed to practice cultural relativity, but I don't really believe it in some cases. For instance, why do we have to respect the breach of liberty that this is? Our declaration and the declaration of many other nations proclaims that freedom of speech and the ability to criticize a government is one of the most important and fundemental rights a person can have.


You're not allowed to incite a riot either, so no, you don't have absolute free speech. Lesse majeste here isn't that different.


I'm glad you associate that with America, but I doubt any citizen of the countless other nations with such beliefs would.

I also associate America with being a double dealing backstabbing country that sells a pack of lies like a used car salesman while trying to actualize the delusion of self righteous world domination via manifest destiny. But most other major powers have that same association as well, so it's not unique.


Not everything is relative. There are freedoms that individuals should be guaranteed by their government, and the freedom of speech is one of them. Especially when it comes to criticizing one's government.


That is by your perception. The Thai people do not hold the same perception. Here, most Asians do not hold free speech to be so sacred compared to things like stability and community. Personally, I hold the freedom to choose to be greater than that of speech, and that is the choice of the Thai people.

South East Asia. Go look up the former British colonies up to the mid 20th century in the area near Thailand.
Malaysia?

Malaysia?

Close enough.

Thailand, huh? It's been a while.

Well now you know.
Sorry for not beating the communists enough.

Sorry for not beating the communists enough.

The British were there long before Karl Marx was born, and were quite happy to rule as they pleased at gunpoint when the people didn't like them. And then when the Japanese showed up and strafed the civilian populace from the air, looted and raped, or disemboweled people for kicks, the British were far, far away.

I'll give that they did do some good. But at the cost not one of you Westerners would accept were the tables turned.

Again, no evidence of your claim of torture I see
There is the statement of the alleged victim. You are free to believe or disbelieve; obviously it is not much "evidence" in isolation. But you call him a liar, and have zero evidence of your claim that he's lying.
So far, I have the facts to back me up. You've only got your baseless blather. We shall see who is lying.
You haven't cited any facts. I am sure we will learn more later, but right now all we have are emotional presumptions.

There is the statement of the alleged victim. You are free to believe or disbelieve; obviously it is not much "evidence" in isolation. But you call him a liar, and have zero evidence of your claim that he's lying.

There is circumstantial evidence. First, he knowingly breaks the law. You can't not stay in Thailand for any period of time and not realize that there is lesse majeste. Second, considering the poor sales of the book, claims of torture may be calculated to improve their saleability in markets outside of Thailand.

Circumstantial, yes, but sufficient grounds for suspicion.


You haven't cited any facts. I am sure we will learn more later, but right now all we have are emotional presumptions.

The fact claim was in reference to Gobamawin's claim that the Thai people would be better off without the royal family. The same royal family, I might point out, that managed to keep the European powers from ever colonizing it, and at the same time, singlehandedly put an end to the Bloody May coup, and was personally involved in agricultural projects getting the majority of its populace out of poverty in the last 40 odd years. All of these are documented.

Yet Gobamawin acts as if they never happened, and even insinuates that the royal family somehow supports the flesh trade.

There is circumstantial evidence. First, he knowingly breaks the law.

That is far from clear. He made a passing reference to a FICTIONAL prince, not to any actual royal. Did he have any idea it would be taken as a lese majeste?
Second, considering the poor sales of the book, claims of torture may be calculated to improve their saleability in markets outside of Thailand.

Did he ever INTEND to mass market his book? I have written some short stories, which I have circulated only to a few people; was he intending anything else?
The fact claim was in reference to Gobamawin's claim that the Thai people would be better off without the royal family. The same royal family, I might point out, that managed to keep the European powers from ever colonizing it, and at the same time, singlehandedly put an end to the Bloody May coup, and was personally involved in agricultural projects getting the majority of its populace out of poverty in the last 40 odd years. All of these are documented.

Yet Gobamawin acts as if they never happened, and even insinuates that the royal family somehow supports the flesh trade.
OK, here I wasn't seeing the context: I thought you were claiming "facts" on your side on the specific matter of what is happening in the particular case at hand. On that, we have a serious shortage of facts. Is it plausible that this guy was purely attention-whoring, both when he wrote the book and when he made claims of mistreatment? Sure. Is it plausible that he had no idea he would get this kind of reaction, and that cops have brutalized him? Sure. I expect we will know more later, but we don't really know much now.

That is far from clear. He made a passing reference to a FICTIONAL prince, not to any actual royal. Did he have any idea it would be taken as a lese majeste?

Did he ever INTEND to mass market his book? I have written some short stories, which I have circulated only to a few people; was he intending anything else?

OK, here I wasn't seeing the context: I thought you were claiming "facts" on your side on the specific matter of what is happening in the particular case at hand. On that, we have a serious shortage of facts. Is it plausible that this guy was purely attention-whoring, both when he wrote the book and when he made claims of mistreatment? Sure. Is it plausible that he had no idea he would get this kind of reaction, and that cops have brutalized him? Sure. I expect we will know more later, but we don't really know much now.

I can understand an honest mistake and I would allow the results of an investigation to put an end to the matter of whether he was tortured or not, but it annoys me to no end to see all these people jumping up and down yelling "torture!" on nothing but a statement of "unspeakable suffering" from the accused as if it was a cornucopia of evidence of torture while at the same time demanding that the royal family be destroyed and making parallels to places like North Korea.

Yes, I'm doing the same thing by backing the idea that he's doing all this to sell his book on circumstantial evidence. Yes, that's a judgment error, but seeing people claiming to be civilized and understanding acting like colonialists circa 1600 brings back some very bitter sentiments.

He sold 10 bloody copies of his book before he was arrested.
At least his jailing should be good for the book sales.

Nanatsu, remember when you called for the prison to be bombed? And for the Thai government to be overthrown because of this?

I mean, if you had reasonable respect for this culture, you would've just hoped that the King pardoned the guy (a power he has regarding lese majesty laws).

And why do you keep bringing up the British Economy?

I'm about to make myself zoom into the computer screen and choke you with passion.

Personally, you may not be the worst of the lot. But we have SaintB claiming that not only is the Thai monarchy an autocracy and a relic of the dark ages comparable to North Korea, SaintB also calls for it to be destroyed simply because it does not guarantee the same rights he wants.

Constitutional monarchies are a relic, indeed. Spain for example, has one but still I wouldn't go so far as saying they should be destroyed. WHy? I grew up with one. SaintB probably has his reasons (be them informed or not) to think this way.

That's the sort of ignorant, self righteous colonialist mentality that Asia has had more than its fill of and I'm sick of these people pretending to be advocates of law and justice when they won't even extend the concept to anything that doesn't operate entirely in their sphere.

That's how the world is. We fear what we do not understand.

Constitutional monarchies are a relic, indeed. Spain for example, has one but still I wouldn't go so far as saying they should be destroyed. WHy? I grew up with one. SaintB probably has his reasons (be them informed or not) to think this way.

Relic or not, they can carry out a lot of good and this particular one has proven itself time and time again. Yet many people, unsurprisingly most of them Westerners, are all willing to dump that because yet another Westerner (Australian, I know, but he still falls under that category) broke the law and is being punished for it.


That's how the world is. We fear what we do not understand.

Yet in the same breath, they'd call themselves "civilized" or variants of the term, but show they're willing to strip it away from others of their civilization isn't a carbon copy of their own.

Relic or not, they can carry out a lot of good and this particular one has proven itself time and time again. Yet many people, unsurprisingly most of them Westerners, are all willing to dump that because yet another Westerner (Australian, I know, but he still falls under that category) broke the law and is being punished for it.

I know, Non Aligned States. It was with the help of King Juan Carlos I that Spain was able to get rid of Francisco Franco in 1975.

Yet in the same breath, they'd call themselves "civilized" or variants of the term, but show they're willing to strip it away from others of their civilization isn't a carbon copy of their own.

One needs to apply the term 'civilized' to the cultural context. Remember that.

I'm not going to point fingers. I truly think that the lese majeste law in Thailand is slightly too stringent. I do recognize, however, that this is the way the Thai like it, they're proud and happy with their constitutional monarchy and no amoutn of international critique will change that. I'm not one to wish that either.

I'm not going to point fingers. I truly think that the lese majeste law in Thailand is slightly too stringent. I do recognize, however, that this is the way the Thai like it, they're proud and happy with their constitutional monarchy and no amoutn of international critique will change that. I'm not one to wish that either.

You think it's too stringent, but at the same time, acknowledge the Thais prefer it that way and don't demand they change it to suit your tastes. I commend that and apologize if I've come off as too harsh, but only to you. Just reading what the others have said just pisses me off to no end.

You think it's too stringent, but at the same time, acknowledge the Thais prefer it that way and don't demand they change it to suit your tastes. I commend that and apologize if I've come off as too harsh, but only to you. Just reading what the others have said just pisses me off to no end.

I also recognize that Nicolaides, knowing well enough the lese majeste law since, according to the news article, he lived for a time in Thailand, should have known better than publish a book where there's a critique made on a 'fictional' prince. I also hope the Thai King pardons him, like he did with the Swiss national on '07.

There's no harm done. I'm also sorry if I came down on you too harsh.

Non_Aligned_states. I'll agree that its stupid for a foreigner to go into Thailiand, break their laws and not expect to be punished. If a Thai citizen, however, felt inclined to insult his/her king and was punished for it, would you have an opinion regarding the justness of that law. Even if the majority of Thais saw it that way, would it make it right?

Meh, these laws are nonsense anyway. Holland has similar laws. When a comedian described a threesome he'd have with the queen and her mother as part of his act, nothing happened. When a drunk told a cop how he'd like to have sex with the queen he was fined €400.

Non_Aligned_states. I'll agree that its stupid for a foreigner to go into Thailiand, break their laws and not expect to be punished. If a Thai citizen, however, felt inclined to insult his/her king and was punished for it, would you have an opinion regarding the justness of that law. Even if the majority of Thais saw it that way, would it make it right?

Once again, we all need to think in terms of a cultural context. One would argue that if a Thai does it, this person in question knows about the consequences of the lese majeste in Thailand pretty well and if he/she decides to do it anyway, the punishment recieved is fitting.

Once again, we all need to think in terms of a cultural context. One would argue that if a Thai does it, this person in question knows about the lese majeste pretty well and if he/she decides to do it anyway, the punishment recieved is fitting.

Well I guess its the principle for me. From what I understand the Thai King seems to be a decent person but in a hypothetical, if a citizen had a legitimate reason for saying something to the detriment of the King, said it and is punished for it, I would say that the law is unjust. It is punishment for a thought crime which I find repulsive, partly because I am from a country where we have only enjoyed freedom of speech in the last four years and have had a dictator in power for the past 30. I doubt anyone would say that Rosa Parks was in the wrong when she refused to give up her seat, even though she was technically breaking the law. I am in now way trying to compare the significance of my hypothetical situation to the American civil rights movement, but I think that the same principle of challenging an unjust law is appliable.

Granted no foreigner should try and force Thailand to accept a different method of doing things but neither should any country be immune to criticism regarding their system.

Granted no foreigner should try and force Thailand to accept a different method of doing things but neither should any country be immune to criticism regarding their system.

I agree with this. There is plenty of criticism of the death penalty in the US and rape laws in Saudi Arabia on these forums but I don't recall people being accused of cultural imperialism because of it. Did anyone actually try and claim that Thailand should be forced to change?

Well I guess its the principle for me. From what I understand the Thai King seems to be a decent person but in a hypothetical, if a citizen had a legitimate reason for saying something to the detriment of the King, said it and is punished for it, I would say that the law is unjust.

I'm not well acquianted with Thai laws but I want to believe that if, indeed, a national has the need to critisize the King, there must be some proper channels to do it.

It is punishment for a thought crime which I find repulsive, partly because I am from a country where we have only enjoyed freedom of speech in the last four years and have had a dictator in power for the past 30. I doubt anyone would say that Rosa Parks was in the wrong when she refused to give up her seat, even though she was technically breaking the law.

No one would venture to say now that she was wrong, indeed.

I am in now way trying to compare the significance of my hypothetical situation to the American civil rights movement, but I think that the same principle of challenging an unjust law is appliable.

I understand that, but the lese majeste law is accepted by the Thai. It seems only unjust from the viewpoint of someone like Nicolaides. And this man is a foreigner.

Granted no foreigner should try and force Thailand to accept a different method of doing things but neither should any country be immune to criticism regarding their system.

Criticism is acceptable, true. But as you say, no one should try to force ideals on a system that is already accepted and established. Besides, if the Thai do not want a change, there's no need to change anything.

Did anyone actually try and claim that Thailand should be forced to change?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed that on the thread yet.

Criticism is acceptable, true. But as you say, no one should try to force ideals on a system that is already accepted and established. Besides, if the Thai do not want a change, there's no need to change anything.

Once again, it is my own cultural experience that makes me dispute that the majority view should always be held sacred. Where Im from you not only have to belong to a certain religion, but a specific sect of that religion to keep your citizenship. For most people this is not a problem, but for someone in my position, who subscribes to a different worldview than the average member of my society, someone who respects the wishes of my countrymen who wish to keep a level of homogeniety within our cultural landscape but at the same time feel that I have a right to my own freedom of conscience it does become an issue. Regardless of whether or not the majority see the laws as appropriate I cannot but help feel that there is an injustice in that culture and is why I take such personal exception to laws such as lese majeste.

I understand that Thailand has its own unique culture and i've already admitted that no external actor has the right to attempt forcefully to modify that culture. Yet I do hope that countries such as Thailand should aspire to common norms of personal freedom.

Once again, it is my own cultural experience that makes me dispute that the majority view should always be held sacred. Where Im from you not only have to belong to a certain religion, but a specific sect of that religion to keep your citizenship. For most people this is not a problem, but for someone in my position, who subscribes to a different worldview than the average member of my society, someone who respects the wishes of my countrymen who wish to keep a level of homogeniety within our cultural landscape but at the same time feel that I have a right to my own freedom of conscience it does become an issue. Regardless of whether or not the majority see the laws as appropriate I cannot but help feel that there is an injustice in that culture and is why I take such personal exception to laws such as lese majeste.

I understand that Thailand has its own unique culture and i've already admitted that no external actor has the right to attempt forcefully to modify that culture. Yet I do hope that countries such as Thailand should aspire to common norms of personal freedom.

And yet, I don't think you or me are qualified to critisize Thailand's government. We may feel it's unjust. I personally think, having been raised in a constitutional monarchy that, perhaps, lese majeste in Thailand is too stringent. But, once again, that doesn't translate to anything. If the Thai want it that way, then so be it. Why then, must you compare the situation in your own country with that of the Thai?

Well, you were arguing that the majority of Thai people accept lesse majeste so it's fine. My response is that a majority consensus doesnt equate to ethically correct and this is where I compare my countries situation to that of Thai. As for qualifications, I dont have to be a gay immigrant to the US in order to criticize its border policies or its treatment of homosexuals, I am simply stating my opinion. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Well, you were arguing that the majority of Thai people accept lesse majeste so it's fine. My response is that a majority consensus doesnt equate to ethically correct and this is where I compare my countries situation to that of Thai.

Demo, Yamamato-san, sumimasen to yet, this is about the Thai. I know what you mean, just because the Arab find female castration acceptable doesn't mean that, for someone else with another reality it is. But the Thai seem to be satisfied with their government and tits laws. Who are we to critisize that?

As for qualifications, I dont have to be a gay immigrant to the US in order to criticize its border policies or its treatment of homosexuals, I am simply stating my opinion. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Demo, Yamamato-san, sumimasen

Lol, I hope I havent confused you with my japanese sounding forum Alias. Im actually from the Maldives and have no clue what you just said, other than Mr.Yamamato. I gather you're a Spanish expatriate living in Japan?

Lol, I hope I havent confused you with my japanese sounding forum Alias. Im actually from the Maldives and have no clue what you just said, other than Mr.Yamamato. I gather you're a Spanish expatriate living in Japan?

Hahaha! I just said "But, Mr. Yamamato, excuse me and this is not about Thailand"... I got confused because, judging from your alias, I assumed you were Japanese.

As for me being in Japan.. nope. I am a Japanese langauge student.:wink:

And yet, I don't think you or me are qualified to critisize Thailand's government.
We're humans. We have every right to criticize them. No-one is talking about whether we would have the right to invade them, but the Thais should know that they are not respected for behavior like this.

Hahaha! I just said "But, Mr. Yamamato, excuse me and this is not about Thailand"... I got confused because, judging from your alias, I assumed you were Japanese.

As for me being in Japan.. nope. I am a Japanese langauge student.

Sheesh, Im glad we got that sorted. With what I was saying about my country I might have unintentionally led you to beleive that Japan is an oppressive theocracy that has recently emerged from a long dictatorship. Surely you must have scratched your head at one point?:p

Sheesh, Im glad we got that sorted. With what I was saying about my country I might have unintentionally led you to beleive that Japan is an oppressive theocracy that has recently emerged from a long dictatorship. You must have scratched your head at one point.:p

No, I never thought you were in Japan. Just perhaps of Japanese ancestry. But at one point I actually thought you were in China. (eventhough NSG is banned in China):tongue:

Slightly more information (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12992577&fsrc=nwl): he wrote the book four years ago; the Justice Ministry told him to withdraw it from publication then, so he did, and thought that was the end of the matter; he was only arrested, years later, when he was at the airport, going home.

You're not allowed to incite a riot either, so no, you don't have absolute free speech. Lesse majeste here isn't that different.
Which "clear and present danger" is this book providing?

Slightly more information (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12992577&fsrc=nwl): he wrote the book four years ago; the Justice Ministry told him to withdraw it from publication then, so he did, and thought that was the end of the matter; he was only arrested, years later, when he was at the airport, going home.

Something about the Economists tone sounds faintly DKish. But putting that aside, if true, then the Justice Ministry needs to explain itself. Sounds like one branch isn't talking to the other.

Which "clear and present danger" is this book providing?

To himself by the average Thai. But if you want a similar thing, try anti-defamation laws. You still don't have absolute free speech. If I posted the exact details on how to acquire the components and construct a 50MT thermonuclear device, I would likely expect a long term in jail too. Where's that free speech hmm?

Posting instructions on constructing a nuke can certainly be interpreted as "clear and present danger". Anti-defamation laws (please correct me if I'm wrong) protect persons against personal, and untrue, attacks.

If you're saying that the book might present a "clear and present danger" to the monarch because he risks a coup, then I guess that would be true. But I don't think that's the purpose of such ideals.

Something about the Economists tone sounds faintly DKish. But putting that aside, if true, then the Justice Ministry needs to explain itself. Sounds like one branch isn't talking to the other.



To himself by the average Thai. But if you want a similar thing, try anti-defamation laws. You still don't have absolute free speech. If I posted the exact details on how to acquire the components and construct a 50MT thermonuclear device, I would likely expect a long term in jail too. Where's that free speech hmm?
It is truly unfortunate that the "average" Thai is insulated from any ideas that do not comport with their cultural beliefs or religious beliefs.

It sounds like they live in a complete vacuum.

To defame someone results in damages through a civil lawsuit in favor of the person defamed. Thus, there is a remedy for writing or speaking falsehoods but the defamation must be of a certain category and sometimes, intended to cause economic harm (e.g., a woman is a whore, a man a rapist, a product contaminated etc).

I suppose, if the king and the Thai people are truly offended by the contends of the Austrailian's book that sold 10 copies, they could fine him, which certainly seems more proportionate to what he did than torturing and imprisoning him.

Non Aligned States, in your various posts you seem to be making the following arguments among others (please correct me if I'm wrong).

* The King of Thailand is a remarkable and good man. Thus, any criticism is not only unwarranted and disrespectful but deserves to be punished.

* Thailand is a sovereign (in more ways than one) nation. Outsiders, especially Westerners, have no right to criticise how Thais choose to make their laws.

* Free speech is a relative value. Other values, such as respect for the King, may be more important than free speech.

I disagree on all points. It's all very well to defend your case when the king is, by your description, such a worthy man. What if he were not?

Imagine, after his death, his son ascends the throne. Imagine the son is a thoroughly obnoxious person who uses his position and wealth to further his own caprices at the cost of causing great misery for many Thais. In other words, the complete opposite of his father.

If people criticise his excesses, would this be insulting the King? Where would you draw the line?

What if the King decided, with the assistance of the army, to overthrow a popularly elected Government. Would criticising that action be insulting? Could the law be used to not only deter free speech, but also to imprison people for legitimate (even by Thai standards) political activity?

Anyway, I think the Thais are in no position to lecture anybody on how to provide effective, stable government, be it Asian or Western in style. Even by Asian standards their political system is broken.

And yet, I don't think you or me are qualified to critisize Thailand's government...

Couldn't disagree more.

So long as I abide by the laws of Australia and the rules of this forum, I am qualified to criticise Thailand as much as I like.

Whether my criticism is just or not, well that's another matter.

It seems that in Australia I have more scope to criticise the Thai King than I would in Thailand.

Posting instructions on constructing a nuke can certainly be interpreted as "clear and present danger". Anti-defamation laws (please correct me if I'm wrong) protect persons against personal, and untrue, attacks.

If you're saying that the book might present a "clear and present danger" to the monarch because he risks a coup, then I guess that would be true. But I don't think that's the purpose of such ideals.

No, posting instructions on nuclear device construction do not pose a clear and present danger whatsoever. They allow others to become clear and present dangers, but the act itself is not. So there goes your ideas of free speech.

It is truly unfortunate that the "average" Thai is insulated from any ideas that do not comport with their cultural beliefs or religious beliefs.

I find it despicable that you think you can park your behind where you so damned please and demand that people comport themselves to your standards. If so, I shall post haste arrange for some three score gangers to make themselves at home in your residence and demand that you comport yourself to their standard which they believe to be superior to yours. You will not? Then you are a hypocrite.

You are no different than the colonial powers who believed in forcing their conquests at gunpoint to become "civilized".

Non Aligned States, in your various posts you seem to be making the following arguments among others (please correct me if I'm wrong).

* The King of Thailand is a remarkable and good man. Thus, any criticism is not only unwarranted and disrespectful but deserves to be punished.


No. The argument was against the ignorant and idiotic claims that the royal family is some sort of tyranny that would serve Thailand better by vanishing off the face of the planet. There is evidence aplenty against this conception, and the self-righteous, self serving ego feeding claims that continue to perpetuate this falsehood by pretending righteousness brings no small amount of anger in me, not the least because it is a continuation of the imperialist sentiment of "We are better than everyone! We know better! Or we'll bomb you if you don't agree!" so loved by the war mongering elements of America.


* Thailand is a sovereign (in more ways than one) nation. Outsiders, especially Westerners, have no right to criticise how Thais choose to make their laws.

Reasonable criticism, such as those by Nanatsu, I can accept. But the sort advanced from the vanguards of ignorance and idiocy like SaintB and Gobamawin deserve nothing but scorn.


* Free speech is a relative value. Other values, such as respect for the King, may be more important than free speech.

Free speech IS relative. Even in self proclaimed so called bastions of free speech, you are limited in what you can say without penalties being brought to bear.


I disagree on all points. It's all very well to defend your case when the king is, by your description, such a worthy man. What if he were not?


That is for the Thai people to decide, not pretentious Westerners so in love with themselves, their ideas and their egos that no amount of factual data can stop them from launching their ignorance laced tirades that would at the very least put them in court facing libel lawsuits if it had been directed against another person in their precious "free speech" sacrosanct countries.


Anyway, I think the Thais are in no position to lecture anybody on how to provide effective, stable government, be it Asian or Western in style. Even by Asian standards their political system is broken.

No Westerner is in any position whatsoever to provide any lectures on governance, especially since the only governance they are willing to extend to the Asian sphere has been one that is subservient to Western ones. You only provide Trojan horses and pretend to righteousness as you loot and pillage.

Asia will solve any problems it perceives on its own, not at the meddling, self serving hands of preening Westerners eager to rape Asia for their own gain.

...That is for the Thai people to decide, not pretentious Westerners so in love with themselves, their ideas and their egos that no amount of factual data can stop them from launching their ignorance laced tirades that would at the very least put them in court facing libel lawsuits if it had been directed against another person in their precious "free speech" sacrosanct countries.

No Westerner is in any position whatsoever to provide any lectures on governance, especially since the only governance they are willing to extend to the Asian sphere has been one that is subservient to Western ones. You only provide Trojan horses and pretend to righteousness as you loot and pillage...

People ought to be free to express whatever pretentious and self-righteous opinion they have. To believe otherwise is itself pretentious and self-righteous.

If people here think the Thai courts have made complete dicks of themselves then they can go right ahead and say so.

If you think they are wrong, go ahead and explain why. Denying them the right does not make them wrong.

No, posting instructions on nuclear device construction do not pose a clear and present danger whatsoever. They allow others to become clear and present dangers, but the act itself is not. So there goes your ideas of free speech.



I find it despicable that you think you can park your behind where you so damned please and demand that people comport themselves to your standards. If so, I shall post haste arrange for some three score gangers to make themselves at home in your residence and demand that you comport yourself to their standard which they believe to be superior to yours. You will not? Then you are a hypocrite.

You are no different than the colonial powers who believed in forcing their conquests at gunpoint to become "civilized".



No. The argument was against the ignorant and idiotic claims that the royal family is some sort of tyranny that would serve Thailand better by vanishing off the face of the planet. There is evidence aplenty against this conception, and the self-righteous, self serving ego feeding claims that continue to perpetuate this falsehood by pretending righteousness brings no small amount of anger in me, not the least because it is a continuation of the imperialist sentiment of "We are better than everyone! We know better! Or we'll bomb you if you don't agree!" so loved by the war mongering elements of America.



Reasonable criticism, such as those by Nanatsu, I can accept. But the sort advanced from the vanguards of ignorance and idiocy like SaintB and Gobamawin deserve nothing but scorn.



Free speech IS relative. Even in self proclaimed so called bastions of free speech, you are limited in what you can say without penalties being brought to bear.



That is for the Thai people to decide, not pretentious Westerners so in love with themselves, their ideas and their egos that no amount of factual data can stop them from launching their ignorance laced tirades that would at the very least put them in court facing libel lawsuits if it had been directed against another person in their precious "free speech" sacrosanct countries.



No Westerner is in any position whatsoever to provide any lectures on governance, especially since the only governance they are willing to extend to the Asian sphere has been one that is subservient to Western ones. You only provide Trojan horses and pretend to righteousness as you loot and pillage.

Asia will solve any problems it perceives on its own, not at the meddling, self serving hands of preening Westerners eager to rape Asia for their own gain.
I think you should take a look at these sites below.

They indicate that it is the Thai police and military that are using this draconian lese-majeste law in order to protect the monarchy/government. This has nothing to do with what the Thai people want at all and, in fact, is intended to prevent any thought of "free will" or another form of government. Thus, the monarchy is utilizing the military and police to "terrorize" people to prevent criticism and protect itself as an institution.

Kind of like what you are trying to do in threatening to send "three score gangsters" to my home because I disagree with you. Did you ever work for, or are you a family member of the Thai military, police or monarchy per chance? I see a pattern here. . . .

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

jonathanturley.org/.../lese-majeste-thailand-sentences-australian-writer-to-three-years-in-prison-for-insulting-royal-family-in... - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

People ought to be free to express whatever pretentious and self-righteous opinion they have. To believe otherwise is itself pretentious and self-righteous.

They can be pretentious self-righteous dicks if they so choose. But that doesn't mean I won't call them on it, especially when they seem to be pulling that pseudo "White man's burden" bullshit dressed in different clothes.

This has nothing to do with what the Thai people want at all and, in fact, is intended to prevent any thought of "free will" or another form of government. Thus, the monarchy is utilizing the military and police to "terrorize" people to prevent criticism and protect itself as an institution.


I see you're going to ignore everything I've said regarding what actual power the Thai monarchy over the actual laws just to continue your pathetic little rant in the hopes that if you repeat it enough, it'll become true. Just like G.W. Bush.


Kind of like what you are trying to do in threatening to send "three score gangsters" to my home because I disagree with you.


Ahh, so you ARE a hypocrite. You won't let others with their "superior" views enforce it on you. You just want your imperialist ways.


Did you ever work for, or are you a family member of the Thai military, police or monarchy per chance? I see a pattern here. . . .

Only because you want to see a pattern. I've made it clear on this thread where I live, which would preclude any of your ridiculous insinuations. This is the sort of idiocy I hate, especially when it comes from pretentious Westerners like you who think that everyone should be like them and if they don't, then they should be forced to.

Demo, Yamamato-san, sumimasen to yet, this is about the Thai. I know what you mean, just because the Arab find female castration acceptable doesn't mean that, for someone else with another reality it is. But the Thai seem to be satisfied with their government and tits laws. Who are we to critisize that?



Yes, we can agree to disagree.

I am so not satisfied with Thailand's tits laws. They're far too stringent and not nearly pro-tit enough.


I find it despicable that you think you can park your behind where you so damned please and demand that people comport themselves to your standards.

You know what I find despicable?

You only provide Trojan horses and pretend to righteousness as you loot and pillage.

That you'd make a blanket statement about every individual in Western culture, as if we were some sort of hive-mind that existed only to suppress your culture and ravish your women.

You know what I find despicable?

That you'd make a blanket statement about every individual in Western culture, as if we were some sort of hive-mind that existed only to suppress your culture and ravish your women.

And you know what? That blanket statement works because every single Western power to come traipsing to Asia has only done so at the expense of the people of Asia. Not one of you people believe in the self-determination of the people of Asia, and would rather impose your values and culture on them without a single thought as to what they think.

And you know what? That blanket statement works because every single Western power to come traipsing to Asia has only done so at the expense of the people of Asia. Not one of you people believe in the self-determination of the people of Asia, and would rather impose your values and culture on them without a single thought as to what they think.

Oh, and Japan was different?

And you know what? That blanket statement works

No. No it doesn't.

Not one of you people believe in the self-determination of the people of Asia, and would rather impose your values and culture on them without a single thought as to what they think.

You don't get to speak for me, or tell me what I think. But you've got some nerve calling me arrogant, while presuming to know exactly what I'm thinking.

Oh, and Japan was different?

Hardly. If the Thai people want things changed, they will do so for themselves. They have demonstrated this time and time again, but clearly that doesn't count for some strange reason in Western eyes when they wag their fingers and fling self righteous bullshit.

"Only because you want to see a pattern. I've made it clear on this thread where I live, which would preclude any of your ridiculous insinuations. This is the sort of idiocy I hate, especially when it comes from pretentious Westerners like you who think that everyone should be like them and if they don't, then they should be forced to."

You seem to be quite a hater. Many children of monarchs and the military of other countries are sent abroad to study in colleges in Western countries to be better educated , learn about different ideologies and systems and to be leaders. I assume that is not the case with respect to the Thailand military and monarchy.

Not surprising that you did not answer the question, which was whether you were perhaps related to the Thai police, military or monarchy given your penchant for threatening people with thuggery and harm.

By the way, I have yet to see one "blog" or writing by any Thai people in support of this les-majeste law or the manner in which it has been enforced by the police and military against journalists and writers. I guess they dare not.

Hardly. If the Thai people want things changed, they will do so for themselves. They have demonstrated this time and time again, but clearly that doesn't count for some strange reason in Western eyes when they wag their fingers and fling self righteous bullshit.
They can't do it for themselves because they would have to fight the military and police which are backed by the monarchy and its money, guns and prisons to do so.

You don't get to speak for me, or tell me what I think. But you've got some nerve calling me arrogant, while presuming to know exactly what I'm thinking.

Good. You know irony. Maybe you'll be able to acknowledge the pretentious crap and outright lies that is being thrown here by people pretending to be "civilized" and "understanding", and we can work on a more amicable understanding.

...If the Thai people want things changed, they will do so for themselves. They have demonstrated this time and time again...

I don't think so. How many military coups have they had since WW2? I suspect the Thai people have had a terrible time achieving change. I also suspect it's because the political psyche of the nation is flawed. The silly "you can't criticise the king" laws are likely a milder manifestation of the problem.

Good. You know irony. Maybe you'll be able to acknowledge the pretentious crap and outright lies that is being thrown here by people pretending to be "civilized" and "understanding", and we can work on a more amicable understanding.

Honestly? I don't know nearly enough to say whether anyone is right or wrong or if so, which is which. My own personal bias predisposes me against your side because I naturally distrust powerful people, and I feel that the right to criticize is an important human right. Not so much that I don't respect the good things the King may have done, I simply feel that no one should be above criticism. Slander and libel, of course, are another matter.

But again, I don't know the circumstances, and I don't know the law. I know my preferences and that is all, so I won't presume order anyone.

As for a more amicable relationship between the two of us, I would like that to be sure. However, should that prove to be an impossible task, it is not something I will likely lose sleep over.

From Wikipedia about the current state of Thai politics and the rule of the military and the "judicalization" of Thai courts (which sentence journalists):


Wongsawat. It is a continuation of the 2005-2006 Thai political crisis, wherein the PAD protested against the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Notable events that have occurred during the 2008 political crisis include the PAD's reformation after the PPP won the 2007 general election, the PAD's seizure of Government House, Samak Sundaravej's resignation from the Premiership after the Constitutional Court found him guilty of hosting a cooking show while acting as Prime Minister, violent clashes between PAD and anti-PAD forces, the seizure of the government's temporary offices at Don Muang Airport, the seizure of Suvarnabhumi Airport, the Constitutional Court's ban of the PPP, and the Army's coercion of PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party and support Abhisit Vejjajiva as the new Premier. Both the PPP and the PAD called Abhisit's election as premier a coup d'etat[1][2]

Underlying the 2008 crisis is the PAD's claim that Samak and Somchai are proxies for Thaksin. In 2006, the PAD's protests against Thaksin led to the 2006 Thailand coup. An army junta-appointed committee rewrote the constitution and a junta-appointed court dissolved the Thai Rak Thai party and banned Thaksin and the TRT's 111-person executive team from engaging in politics for five years. Many TRT MPs joined the PPP, which won parliamentary elections overseen by the junta. The PAD, which had voluntarily dissolved itself after the coup, reformed and resumed street demonstrations against the new government. It opposed any attempts to amend the constitution in ways that would reverse the TRT ban. The PAD also demanded "New Politics," the amendment of the constitution in ways that would make Parliament a largely royally-appointed body.

In October 2008, five members of a nine member special bench of the Supreme Court found Thaksin guilty of a conflict of interest and sentenced him in absentia to two years in jail.[3] At the time, Thaksin was in Beijing, and refused to return, claiming that the outcome was politically motivated. The PAD demanded that the government extradite the former Prime Minister—the extradition process is in-progress as of November 2008.

During the crisis, the Royal Thai Army refused to follow government orders to enforce an Emergency Decree after the PAD's siege of Government House. It also refused to follow orders to evict the PAD after they lay siege to Suvarnabhumi Airport. Instead, it unsuccessfully proposed that the PAD leave the airport and that the government resign. Supporting and leading the PAD in the crisis are several leaders of the opposition Democrat Party, including Somkiat Pongpaiboon and Kasit Piromya.[4] The crisis has seen a move towards the "judicialization" of Thai politics, wherein the decisions of certain high courts have an increasingly partisan bent.[5] The PAD's core supporters in the crisis consist of middle and upper-class Bangkokians and Southerners as well as leaders of state-enterprise labor unions.[6][7]

In December 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled that the PPP and two other parties in the ruling coalition were guilty of voter fraud. The parties were ordered to disband and their leaders were barred from holding office for five years. Following this ruling, Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat resigned and the PAD protestors occupying the airports agreed to withdraw.[8][9]

The PAD dress in yellow, the royal color, and claim that they are defending King Bhumibol Adulyadej and the monarchy against the alleged disloyalty of Thaksin. Bhumibol has made no public statements about the crisis and the PAD. [U]Queen Sirikit attended the cremation of a PAD protester and called her a "good girl" and "protector of the monarchy and the country".[10] Princess Sirindhorn, when asked at a US press conference whether the PAD was acting on behalf of the monarchy, replied, "I don't think so. They do things for themselves."[11]"

You seem to be quite a hater. Many children of monarchs and the military of other countries are sent abroad to study in colleges in Western countries to be better educated , learn about different ideologies and systems and to be leaders. I assume that is not the case with respect to the Thailand military and monarchy.

Your assumption is made up of nothing but fail. Hardly surprising given that you've not bothered to even try to get local Thai opinions, or even your facts right as to what the royal family has done for the people in the last 40 odd years.


Not surprising that you did not answer the question, which was whether you were perhaps related to the Thai police, military or monarchy given your penchant for threatening people with thuggery and harm.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? That's the sort of insinuation you're making here.

You asked where I lived. I told you where to look. The implications should have told you the answer to your ridiculous insinuations. Obviously you were too lazy to bother.


By the way, I have yet to see one "blog" or writing by any Thai people in support of this les-majeste law or the manner in which it has been enforced by the police and military against journalists and writers. I guess they dare not.

Do you speak Thai? But then again, if you were too lazy to bother looking up where I lived based on the directions I gave, then you're obviously too lazy to look up Thai opinions. You're entire argument is worthless because it's made up of false assumptions.

They can't do it for themselves because they would have to fight the military and police which are backed by the monarchy and its money, guns and prisons to do so.

Black May. Look it up. Tell me that the Thai monarchy is only interested in oppressing the people or preventing them from affecting change then. But then I'd know you to be a liar then.

I don't think so. How many military coups have they had since WW2? I suspect the Thai people have had a terrible time achieving change. I also suspect it's because the political psyche of the nation is flawed. The silly "you can't criticise the king" laws are likely a milder manifestation of the problem.

About two months ago, the Thai people blockaded the Bangkok airport in protest of the ruling political party which they determined to be a puppet organization of the ousted prime minister Thaksin. Despite orders from the then prime minister to use police and military assets to clear the protesters and resume normal flight operations, the officers in charge refused to, and the court eventually dissolved the political party for voter fraud.

And even then the coups Thailand have had do not always result in military rule. Black May ended with royal intervention peaceably and with results the protesters could accept.

The Thai people can affect change on their own terms. They do not need external powers to do so.

Looking at the recent history, it is one military coup after another, with the monarchy wisely lock-step with whoever has the guns, judges and power. Perhaps a little more discourse and debate would lessen the violence. . . . Very sad. By the way, no one suggested that "external powers" affect change, but it would help if the regular Thai people had those guns and jails and courts on their side.

Looking at the recent history, it is one military coup after another, with the monarchy wisely lock-step with whoever has the guns, judges and power.


Did you look up Black May at all, or are you just a poor liar?


By the way, no one suggested that "external powers" affect change, but it would help if the regular Thai people had those guns and jails and courts on their side.

So you put up a link showing the latest protest movement that worked in their favor, and the pretend it doesn't exist. Wow. Faux news level duplicity.

...About two months ago, the Thai people blockaded the Bangkok airport in protest of the ruling political party which they determined to be a puppet organization of the ousted prime minister Thaksin. Despite orders from the then prime minister to use police and military assets to clear the protesters and resume normal flight operations, the officers in charge refused to, and the court eventually dissolved the political party for voter fraud.

And even then the coups Thailand have had do not always result in military rule. Black May ended with royal intervention peaceably and with results the protesters could accept.

The Thai people can affect change on their own terms. They do not need external powers to do so.

As Gobamawin points out, no-one here is suggesting external internvention - which knocks over your anti-Western arguments.

I hear what you're saying about the airport protests, but the Thai people will get stomped on, yet again, by the political elite. The imposition of "we know better" regimes, whether by western colonialists, local military, ambitious billionaires or "you can't criticise me" kings, was and is holding Thailand back.

BTW, from what I know of history the Thai royal family were allies of the Japanese in WW2. Are we allowed to criticise that?

Something about the Economists tone sounds faintly DKish.

The Economist's tone, as always, is a rather drab just-the-facts-maam recitation.
But putting that aside, if true, then the Justice Ministry needs to explain itself.

I thought your position was that under no circumstances should any aspect of the Thai government have to explain anything to anyone?

Honestly? I don't know nearly enough to say whether anyone is right or wrong or if so, which is which. My own personal bias predisposes me against your side because I naturally distrust powerful people, and I feel that the right to criticize is an important human right. Not so much that I don't respect the good things the King may have done, I simply feel that no one should be above criticism. Slander and libel, of course, are another matter.

Gobamawin is an easy example of the slander and libel. Not only is he pretending that they've never done any good, he even insinuates the royal family of being behind Thailand's human trafficking problems.


But again, I don't know the circumstances, and I don't know the law. I know my preferences and that is all, so I won't presume order anyone.

That's a good attitude to take. But it doesn't stop the reality of people like Gobamawin adopting the attitude of "I know best! If you don't follow me, you're all barbarians!" which isn't substantially different than the sort of war loving idiots who yell "Bomb everyone else who doesn't like us! America #1"

To be fair, I do admire His Majesty The King for this statement made in 2005:

Actually, I must also be criticised. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.", he further stated: "But the King can do wrong.

I couldn't tell you whether that was genuine or rhetoric, but it is interesting to note that no member of the Royal Family has ever personally filed any charges of lèse majesté.

As Gobamawin points out, no-one here is suggesting external internvention - which knocks over your anti-Western arguments.

Gobamawin and similar are demanding capitulation to external values. So they lack the bombs to back it up. Doesn't make the subject matter any different.


I hear what you're saying about the airport protests, but the Thai people will get stomped on, yet again, by the political elite. The imposition of "we know better" regimes, whether by western colonialists, local military, ambitious billionaires or "you can't criticise me" kings, was and is holding Thailand back.

And how is this any different anywhere across the world then when you include homegrown elite?


BTW, from what I know of history the Thai royal family were allies of the Japanese in WW2. Are we allowed to criticise that?

Thailand was neutral, but under occupation during the Japanese invasion. The choice was either some sort of friendly neutrality or extermination.

The Economist's tone, as always, is a rather drab just-the-facts-maam recitation.

I thought your position was that under no circumstances should any aspect of the Thai government have to explain anything to anyone?

Then you've obviously misunderstood me.

The Thai government should explain itself to its people if there has been a communications problem between an old decision and current enforcement, if to clear up any muddy waters. But it is the prerogative of the Thai people to demand that answer, no one else. The Thai government, unsurprisingly, should answer to the Thai people, for if no other reason than if you have no people, you have no government.

The Thai government, unsurprisingly, should answer to the Thai people
That's what isn't really possible with the present setup. The veneer of parliamentary democracy is dysfunctional because the military can always do whatever it wants and the monarchy cannot be questioned.

That's what isn't really possible with the present setup. The veneer of parliamentary democracy is dysfunctional because the military can always do whatever it wants and the monarchy cannot be questioned.

The military can't always do whatever it wants, because even if they have no real control over it, the royal family has shown that they can bring it to heel at least.

And even then, how do you explain the successful blockade and protest movement two months back which resulted in the dissolving of the ruling party for vote fraud? The same protest movement that had military units ordered to disperse them with force, but the military refusing to do so.

It's not so simple as you think.

It's not as simple as you think either. Given that it is not legal to speak your mind freely in that country, and that people's opinions are shaped by what it is that they are allowed to hear, to what extent do these flash-mobs represent the "will of the people" and to what extent do they just represent manipulation? The Nicolaides case appears to be part of a propagandist manipulation, elements in the government puffing themselves up as stern defenders of the monarch to score points in this game; never mind that Nicolaides settled with the Justice Ministry years ago, they have a shortage of people they can prosecute so they need him right now. And you talk airily of "the Thai people" calling the ministers to account on this? What do you suppose the Thai people are being allowed to hear about this whole thing, and what do you think any of them would dare to say about it, when it is obviously dangerous to look soft on this whole defend-the-holy-king issue?

...

And how is this any different anywhere across the world then when you include homegrown elite?

...

It isn't. The difference is that Thailand has an unfortunate propensity for coups. The law against criticising the king is, I suspect, part of the same malaise.

It's not as simple as you think either. Given that it is not legal to speak your mind freely in that country, and that people's opinions are shaped by what it is that they are allowed to hear, to what extent do these flash-mobs represent the "will of the people" and to what extent do they just represent manipulation?

The flash-mobs you hear about deal with the ruling political body, not the royal family which has no official power over the governance of Thailand. There are no laws against speaking against the governing body of Thailand, of which the royal family is not.


And you talk airily of "the Thai people" calling the ministers to account on this? What do you suppose the Thai people are being allowed to hear about this whole thing, and what do you think any of them would dare to say about it, when it is obviously dangerous to look soft on this whole defend-the-holy-king issue?

They would be able to hear as much as I would, if not more. Internet restrictions here are tighter than they are in Thailand, and political awareness in the urban areas, not to mention their willingness to take it out into the open, is significant.

You sound like the Thai monarchy has paid you to state their case.

You sound like the Thai monarchy has paid you to state their case.

Hah, you'd think that wouldn't you? But then again, you and your country has likely not had a history of abuse and subjugation by foreign powers up to the last generation, expressing the sort of attitudes I've seen here. So of course it's easy to sit on top of your ivory tower, no matter how inadvertently, and wag fingers because we don't sit in your tower.

Thailand has its problems, so does my home country. I won't deny that. But we'll fix it the way we see best, not the way you, or anyone else, wants.

Couldn't disagree more.

So long as I abide by the laws of Australia and the rules of this forum, I am qualified to criticise Thailand as much as I like.

Whether my criticism is just or not, well that's another matter.

It seems that in Australia I have more scope to criticise the Thai King than I would in Thailand.

In Australia, of course, rant all you want. But Thailand isn't your country, you do not live there, its laws affect you not, therefore, you're not qualified, at all, to make a statement against a reality that isn't yours.

I live in a constitutional monarchy, and I would pay the foreigner that comes into my country and wishes to change or boss what is only the Spanish people's legacy and prerrogative to change.

I am so not satisfied with Thailand's tits laws. They're far too stringent and not nearly pro-tit enough.

Typo, mate, it was a typo. :p

I live in a constitutional monarchy, and I would pay the foreigner that comes into my country and wishes to change or boss what is only the Spanish people's legacy and prerrogative to change.

You'd pay some foreigner who shows up demanding that the Spanish people change to suit his tastes? :confused:

You'd pay some foreigner who shows up demanding that the Spanish people change to suit his tastes? :confused:

I think I tried to use a Spanish expression to convey something and I failed miserably. I meant to say that I would dare (le pago a algún extranjero que se atreva a...) any foreigner to come into my country and try to change what's only mine and my fellow countrymen's right to change. Am I making sense? At all?

In Australia, of course, rant all you want. But Thailand isn't your country, you do not live there, its laws affect you not, therefore, you're not qualified, at all, to make a statement against a reality that isn't yours.

You are saying I cannot say something. I just did. So you are wrong.

I live in a constitutional monarchy, and I would pay the foreigner that comes into my country and wishes to change or boss what is only the Spanish people's legacy and prerrogative to change.

I live in a constitutional monarchy also. Here we hang shit on our queen as much as we like.

You are saying I cannot say something. I just did. So you are wrong.

No, I am not wrong. You're in the comfort of Australia, spouting crap about something you do not, at all understand. I bet you my life that if you go to Thailand, your brave façade would disappear and you wouldn't dare talk shit about the monarchy there.

Yes, the lese majeste in Thailand seems too strong. But guess what? That's how the Thai want it to be. And because of that, neither you nor I, nor anyone esle who isn't a Thai national or makes Thailand his/her home is qualified to judge.

I live in a constitutional monarchy also. Here we hang shit on our queen as much as we like.

As I told you, if it's about YOUR country, rant all you want.

No, I am not wrong. You're in the comfort of Australia, spouting crap about something you do not, at all understand. I bet you my life that if you go to Thailand, your brave façade would disappear and you wouldn't dare talk shit about the monarchy there.

Yes, the lese majeste in Thailand seems too strong. But guess what? That's how the Thai want it to be. And because of that, neither you nor I, nor anyone esle who isn't a Thai national or makes Thailand his/her home is qualified to judge.



As I told you, if it's about YOUR country, rant all you want.

I will rant about any topic I like. For you to say I cannot is the height of pretension. Especially in a forum like NSG which permits it.

By all means, if the content of my rant is misinformed or wrong, correct me. If you are convincing then I will change my opinion. But do not, ever, ever, tell me I can't hold an opinion. That is mind control.

I will abide (mostly) by the rules of the forum and (mostly) by the laws of Australia. When in Thailand I will abide (mostly) by their laws.

But I will continued to make judgements and you will never stop that.

I will rant about any topic I like. For you to say I cannot is the height of pretension.

By all means, if the content of my rant is misinformed or wrong, correct me. If you are convincing then I will change my opinion. But do not, ever, ever, tell me I can't hold an opinion. That is mind control.

I will abide (mostly) by the rules of the forum and (mostly) by the laws of Australia. When in Thailand I will abide (mostly) by their laws.

But I will continued to make judgements and you will never stop that.

You do not seem to understand, whatsoever, what I'm telling you. Once again, you can rant all you want, but you're not, in the least, qualified to judge the Thai and their laws. Rant, yes, judge, no.

And if you think I'm trying to tell you what to think, so be it. I know I'm not.

Hmm....

The King of Thailand is so fat he cut his leg and gravy poured out!
He's so stupid that someone shouted "Hey Cue Ball" and he thought someone had invited him to a game of billiards.
The King is so lazy he came in last place at the snail marathon!

The Queen is so old I told her to act her age and she died!
Her nose is so big that she has to wear a neck brace to keep from pulling a muscle!
She's so hairy the crown prince almost died of rug burn at birth!

The Prince's teeth are so yellow traffic slows down when he smiles!
He's so stupid you have to dig for his IQ!
The Prince is so short he poses for trophies!

I wonder if I'll get extradited??

You do not seem to understand, whatsoever, what I'm telling you. Once again, you can rant all you want, but you're not, in the least, qualified to judge the Thai and their laws. Rant, yes, judge, no.

And if you think I'm trying to tell you what to think, so be it. I know I'm not.

I can make a judgement about Thailand. You can make judgments about Australia.

Please show me the forum rules that say I cannot.

If my judgement is incorrect by all means correct me. Explain how my assumptions might be wrong or where my facts might be. As I said in the previous post, I may even change my mind.

BTW, I haven't ranted about Thailand. I don't feel strongly about the particular event.

I have, however, ranted about the attempts at censorship by yourself and Non Aligned States. You may claim otherwise but you are trying to shut me out of the discussion.

Also, NnT, you did ask for comments in the OP. You didn't specify that only Thai nationals should respond. It's a bit rich now saying that comments from other people are invalid. Perhaps the OP should have been in Thai to ensure the only the right people reply.

I can make a judgement about Thailand. You can make judgments about Australia.

Please show me the forum rules that say I cannot.

If my judgement is incorrect by all means correct me. Explain how my assumptions might be wrong or where my facts might be. As I said in the previous post, I may even change my mind.

BTW, I haven't ranted about Thailand. I don't feel strongly about the particular event.

I have, however, ranted about the attempts at censorship by yourself and Non Aligned States. You may claim otherwise but you are trying to shut me out of the discussion.

You seem to think I may be trying to shut you out of the discussion. That's not true, but if that's the way you feel, by all means do.

As I already stated on my past posts, one may rant about something one may dislike, but ranting about it and being qualified to judge are two very different things. I ranted about how stringent Thai lese majeste laws are. But not for one second did I dare judge the Thai on them. Why?, I recognize that's not my place. I respect that.

Yes, I asked for comments, and you have been quite vocal about what you think. You can keep being very vocal about the topic. I don't have a problem about it.

Um, the king doesn't support the lese majeste laws and he just pardons all the foreigners who get convicted with them. The same will most likely happen to this guy. Under the circumstances, I fail to muster any outrage whatsoever.

On the other hand, given the king's stance on this the complaints of cultural imperialism tend to ring rather hollow.

But we'll fix it the way we see best
See, often the problem is you don't fix it. Or by you you mean the ruling party and by fix you mean keep ruling.

This reminds me of a family story, and as such I have no idea of it's validity.

My grandad used to be harbour master in Bombay in the 30's before bringing his family back to the UK(true).

When one of his children was all grown up and decided to go back to India to find out abbout his roots, his dad told him to go see the Nissan of Hydrabad, and say that he was his farthers son, hearing this the Nissan would be sure to put him up, and treat him right.

Well my uncle did just that, and when the Nissan heard who his farther was he loocked him up for a year, and upon his realease told him that is what is in store for his dad if he ever comes back this way.

This reminds me of a family story, and as such I have no idea of it's validity.

My grandad used to be harbour master in Bombay in the 30's before bringing his family back to the UK(true).

When one of his children was all grown up and decided to go back to India to find out abbout his roots, his dad told him to go see the Nissan of Hydrabad, and say that he was his farthers son, hearing this the Nissan would be sure to put him up, and treat him right.

Well my uncle did just that, and when the Nissan heard who his farther was he loocked him up for a year, and upon his realease told him that is what is in store for his dad if he ever comes back this way.

:eek2:
Oh my.

This reminds me of a family story, and as such I have no idea of it's validity.

My grandad used to be harbour master in Bombay in the 30's before bringing his family back to the UK(true).

When one of his children was all grown up and decided to go back to India to find out abbout his roots, his dad told him to go see the Nissan of Hydrabad, and say that he was his farthers son, hearing this the Nissan would be sure to put him up, and treat him right.

Well my uncle did just that, and when the Nissan heard who his farther was he loocked him up for a year, and upon his realease told him that is what is in store for his dad if he ever comes back this way.

Your granddad had your uncle locked up?

See, often the problem is you don't fix it. Or by you you mean the ruling party and by fix you mean keep ruling.

And you mean by fix it to be make it the way I like it, not the way you primitives like it, because I'm superior.

That's how you come off.

I think I tried to use a Spanish expression to convey something and I failed miserably. I meant to say that I would dare (le pago a algún extranjero que se atreva a...) any foreigner to come into my country and try to change what's only mine and my fellow countrymen's right to change. Am I making sense? At all?

That makes more sense, yes.

Your granddad had your uncle locked up?

Heh indirectly yes, well thats how the story goes. Grandad was a wicked old man. Not wicked as in good but wicked as in umm wicked.

That makes more sense, yes.

Good then.

And you mean by fix it to be make it the way I like it, not the way you primitives like it, because I'm superior.

That's how you come off.

Since that means I sound superior when championing freedom of speech over antiquated lack thereof... I'm fine with that.

Since that means I sound superior when championing freedom of speech over antiquated lack thereof... I'm fine with that.

That, unfortunately, has no weight on the argument at hand.

That, unfortunately, has no weight on the argument at hand.

Oh I stopped arguing. I understand that the Thai have their way of life and we're supposed to respect it, but on many occasions things aren't so relative to most of us.

Oh I stopped arguing. I understand that the Thai have their way of life and we're supposed to respect it, but on many occasions things aren't so relative to most of us.

Agreed.

The Thai obviously have the power to stop anyone in Thailand from saying what they don't like to hear, to imprison those who do say such things, or to physically brutalize them for that matter (I don't know whether that has or hasn't occurred in this case, but it is within their power). And nobody is proposing to invade Thailand to change that.

But they have no power whatsoever to stop people all over the planet from saying, or thinking, bad things about them. This insanity is reminiscent of the occasional attempts by the Muslims to claim the power to stop anyone on the planet from saying disrespectful things about Islam. No, I am not proposing to invade Thailand; but no, I do not "respect" the Thais for this, and am not going to pretend to.

Typo, mate, it was a typo. :p

Doesn't mean I suddenly agree with their tits laws.

And you mean by fix it to be make it the way I like it, not the way you primitives like it, because I'm superior.

That's how you come off.

I think you're really exaggerating the "primitive" bit, because I don't really get sense that anyone thinks of you as savages. They think you have a fundamental disregard for the self-evident rights of a human being and his autonomy, but that's not quite the same thing.

Doesn't mean I suddenly agree with their tits laws.

Who's saying you need to agree, eh?

Who's saying you need to agree, eh?

I'm just saying, if I had to choose one thing to Imperially impose on Thailand...

I'm just saying, if I had to choose one thing to Imperially impose on Thailand...

I hear ya. I'm too inebriated to say anything to the contrary.

Did you look up Black May at all, or are you just a poor liar?



So you put up a link showing the latest protest movement that worked in their favor, and the pretend it doesn't exist. Wow. Faux news level duplicity.
Yes, I looked up "Black May" in Wickipedia and it does not support what you are saying. During the 1992 episode known as "Black May," the Thai people tried to "revolt" and were quashed by the military and killed or tortured. I find it surprising that you point to that episode as demonstrating the "free will" of the Thai people to "choose" lese-majeste!

Here is a brief summary from the top of the Wickipedia site:

"Black May (1992)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Black May (Thai: พฤษภาทมิฬ pruetsapa tamil, lit. "savage/vicious May") is a common name for the 17-20 May 1992 popular protest in Bangkok against the government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon and the bloody military crackdown that followed. Up to 200,000 people demonstrated in central Bangkok at the height of the protests. The military crackdown resulted in 52 officially confirmed deaths, many disappearances, hundreds of injuries, and over 3,500 arrests. Many of those arrested were tortured."

Wickipedia states the aftermath was, as follows:

"The violence resulted in 52 officially acknowledged deaths, hundreds of injuries, and many disappearances. Over 3,500 people were arrested; hundreds of them were women and children. Many arrested were tortured; some were beaten, left to sit in sweltering sunlight, soaked in gasoline and threatened with immolation, and left to starve.

A House of Representatives Special Committee and a Fact-Finding Committee led by Sophon Rattanakorn shared the same conclusion: the government of General Suchinda used excessive force to crack down on the rally. Some facts from the investigation, such as names of military officers and military units responsible for rounding up, killing, and torturing of protesters were revealed to the public. It is believed that these facts were recorded on the report of the Defense Ministry's Fact Finding Committee led by General Pichit Kullawanit, and are kept secret to this day from the Thai public."

And as for the lese-majeste laws and the king, Wickipedia states:

"Lèse majesté

[edit] Scope of the law
Although Bhumibol is held in great respect by many Thais, he is also protected by lèse majesté laws which allow critics to be jailed for three to fifteen years.[102] The laws were toughened during the dictatorship of royalist Premier Tanin Kraivixien, such that criticism of any member of the royal family, the royal development projects, the royal institution, the Chakri Dynasty, or any previous Thai King was also banned.[103] Jail terms for Thai citizens committing lèse majesté are usually harsher than for foreigners. Social critic Sulak Sivaraksa has been charged several times with lèse majesté, but has always been acquitted. Politician Veera Musikapong was jailed and banned from politics for lèse majesté, despite the palace's opinion that the remarks were harmless. Frenchman Lech Tomacz Kisielwicz refused to switch off a reading light on a Thai Airways flight he shared with two Thai princesses and was jailed under lèse majesté for two weeks after his flight landed in Bangkok.[104] He was acquitted after apologizing to the King.

There is controversy over whether criticism of members of Bhumibol's Privy Council also qualifies as criticism of Bhumibol.[105] Police Special Branch Commander Lt-General Theeradech Rodpho-thong refused to file charges of lèse majesté against activists who launched a petition to oust Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, claiming that the law only applied to members of the royal family.[106] Two days later, he was demoted by Police Commander Seripisut Temivavej.[107]

There was also controversy following the death of Princess Galyani Vadhana. The website of Same Sky Books, publishers of Fah Diao Kan magazine, was shut down by the government after comments on its bulletin board questioned claims made by the Thai media that the entire country was in mourning over the death. Comments were also made criticizing official calls for the public to wear black as a sign of mourning.[108]

Bhumibol himself stated that he was not above criticism in his 2005 birthday speech. "Actually, I must also be criticised. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know. Because if you say the king cannot be criticised, it means that the king is not human," he said. "If the King can do no wrong, it is akin to looking down upon him because the King is not being treated as a human being. But the King can do wrong."[109] Despite this, few have dared to call for the repeal of the law. Any doing so have been accused of disloyalty and could also be charged with lèse majesté.[110] Political scientist Giles Ungpakorn noted that "the lèse majesté laws are not really designed to protect the institution of the monarchy. In the past the laws have been used to protect governments, to protect military coups. This whole [royal] image is created to bolster a conservative elite well beyond the walls of the palace."[111]


[edit] Political use of the lèse majesté law
Accusations of lèse majesté are often politically motivated. Premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his political opponent Sondhi Limthongkul both filed charges of lèse majesté against each other during the 2005–2006 political crisis. Thaksin's alleged lèse majesté was one of the stated reasons for the Thai military's 2006 coup.[112][113][114][115]

In 2005, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) issued arrest warrants for two Swedish citizens, Abdulrosa Jehngoh and Chipley Putra Jehngoh, claiming that their Manusaya.com website contained content insulting to Bhumibol.[116][117] Chipley Putra Jehngoh also held Malaysian and Thai citizenship and at the time lived in the Middle East. Abdulrosa Jehngoh was granted Swedish citizenship and lives in Sweden. The website was hosted in Canada and was linked to separatist organisation in southern Thailand or more specifically the website 'www.pulo.org' which incited separatist movement.[118]

Sondhi, a vocal opposition of Prime Minister Thaksin, often accused Thaksin and his affiliates of lèse majesté. In April 2007, A Bangkok criminal court sentenced Sondhi for defamation for claiming on his Muang Thai Rai Sapda talk show that Thaksin's Deputy Transport Minister, Phumtham Vejjayachai, was linked to the anti-royal Manusaya.com website.[119]

Academics have been investigated for lèse majesté for even questioning the role of the monarchy in Thai society. In 2007, Assistant Professor Boonsong Chaisingkananon of Silpakorn University was investigated for lèse majesté for asking students in an exam if the institution of the monarchy was necessary for Thai society and how it may be reformed to be consistent with the democratic system. The University cooperated with the police investigation, and even turned over students' answer sheets and the marks the professor gave them.[120]

Another case of an academic is that of Australian Harry Nicolaides who in 2005 he published a book titled: 'Verisimilitude'. Even though the book apparently sold less than a dozen copies, a warrant for his arrest was issued. In the summer of 2008 Nicolaides was visiting the country and in August 2008 when he was about to leave he was arrested and incarcerated until his trial, which took place in January 2009. On January 19th, Nicolaides was given a 3 year jail term, reduced from the initial 6 year jail term becuase of his guilty plea. Nicolaides is still behind bars today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7836854.stm


[edit] Insults to Bhumibol's image
Acts deemed insulting to Bhumibol's image are also criminal offenses in Thailand. Charges may be filed by anybody, except for Bhumibol himself. In 2007, Oliver Jufer, a Swiss man, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for daubing black paint on portraits of Bhumibol while drunk.[121] The Thai press was requested not to publish any information about the case. "This is a delicate issue and we don't want the public to know much about it," noted chief prosecutor Manoon Moongpanchon.[122] The man originally pleaded innocent, but eventually pleaded guilty to five acts of lèse majesté. Foreign reporters were barred from the hearing.[123] Saprang Kalayanamitr publicly suspected that Jufer was hired to perform the vandalism and ordered a military investigation.[124] Jufer was pardoned by the king less than a month after his conviction.

Other insults to Bhumibol's image that have resulted in criminal complaints of lèse majesté and arrests include placing photographs of anybody above photographs of the King on websites and refusing to stand while the Royal Anthem is played at cinemas.[125][126]


[edit] Internet-based insults
Further information: Media of Thailand#YouTube controversy
Wikinews has related news: Thailand bans YouTube over videos insulting king
Another high-profile case was the banning of YouTube. On 04 April 2007, the Thai government blocked Thai access to YouTube as a result of a video clip which it deemed insulting to the king.[127][128] Various leaders of the military junta claimed that the clip was an attempt to undermine the monarchy, attack Thailand as a country, and threatened national security.[129] On October 28, 2008, The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) announced plans to spend about 100 million to 500 million baht to build a gateway to block websites with contents defaming the royal institution.[130]


[edit] Biographies"

So much for the free will of the Thai people to choose their laws, read what they want or see what they want.

Yes, I looked up "Black May" in Wickipedia and it does not support what you are saying. During the 1992 episode known as "Black May," the Thai people tried to "revolt" and were quashed by the military and killed or tortured. I find it surprising that you point to that episode as demonstrating the "free will" of the Thai people to "choose" lese-majeste!


I notice you specifically avoided the point where the royal family intervened personally against the military and put an end to it, and focus only on the military actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1992)#Royal_intervention


Early on the morning of 20 May, Princess Sirindhorn addressed the country on television, calling for a stop to the unrest. Her appeal was rebroadcast throughout the day. In the evening, her brother, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, broadcast a similar public appeal. Then at 9:30 pm, a television broadcast of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Suchinda, and Chamlong was shown, in which the King demanded that the two put an end to their confrontation and work together through parliamentary processes. Following the broadcast, Suchinda released Chamlong and announced an amnesty for protesters. He also agreed to support an amendment requiring the prime minister to be elected. Chamlong asked the demonstrators to disperse, which they did. On 24 May 1992, Suchinda resigned as Prime Minister of Thailand.

But go on, pretend it didn't happen. You're nothing but a leftist version of a Bushevik, willing to skew facts and hide the truth to beat your pathetic propaganda.


So much for the free will of the Thai people to choose their laws, read what they want or see what they want.

That's rich, coming from a person who demands that the Thai people conform to his standards. Maybe you'll advocate "bombing them into democracy" then. Just like Bush.

But they have no power whatsoever to stop people all over the planet from saying, or thinking, bad things about them. This insanity is reminiscent of the occasional attempts by the Muslims to claim the power to stop anyone on the planet from saying disrespectful things about Islam. No, I am not proposing to invade Thailand; but no, I do not "respect" the Thais for this, and am not going to pretend to.

That's ironic, coming from a strong supporter of Israel, who has shown a long history of saying "Fuck off" to international opinion and "Respect my authority!"

You can say whatever crap you want, but if it comes off as some kind of egoistic claptrap laced with lies, expect to be called on it.

I notice you specifically avoided the point where the royal family intervened personally against the military and put an end to it, and focus only on the military actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_(1992)#Royal_intervention



But go on, pretend it didn't happen. You're nothing but a leftist version of a Bushevik, willing to skew facts and hide the truth to beat your pathetic propaganda.



That's rich, coming from a person who demands that the Thai people conform to his standards. Maybe you'll advocate "bombing them into democracy" then. Just like Bush.
Actually, I did not "avoid" the part about the King intervening to stop bloodshed--but it was a little too late for the thousands that were covered with gasoline and lit on fire.

Nice of the king to keep interceding with the military who protects him against the Thai people by enforcing lese-majeste laws. The Wickipedia also notes he commuted the sentences of journalists jailed for a violation of those laws; however, that is only after trial and torture of the person at issue. The King never advocates doing away with the law that protecgts him. This keeps him cozy with the military and it makes him look oh so big and beneficient when he does pardon people for a violation of those laws. It is a ridiculous circus.

And by the way, when this king dies, the poor Thai people with "free choice" will inherit his son, who has also used lese-majeste to his own advantage (silencing wives) and is actually a part of the Thai military, which may explain the connection that exists now:

"Vajiralongkorn was born in the Ambara Villa of the Dusit Palace in Bangkok. He was educated at a primary school in Bangkok, and then at private secondary colleges in the United Kingdom (Millfield School, Somerset) and Australia (The King's School, Sydney). In 1972 the King gave him the title "Somdech Phra Boroma Orasadhiraj Chao Fah Maha Vajiralongkorn Sayam Makutrajakuman," making him the Crown Prince and heir to the throne."

"The Prince undertook military training at the Royal Military College, Duntroon in Canberra, Australia, and also completed an arts degree at Sukhothai Thammatirat University in Bangkok. Since 1975, he has served as a career officer in the Royal Thai Army. He served as a staff officer in the Directorate of Army Intelligence, and in 1978 he became head of the King's Own Bodyguard Battalion. In that year, however, he interrupted his military career to be ordained for a season as a Buddhist monk, as is customary for all Thai Buddhist males.

Vajiralongkorn trained for periods with the United States, British and Australian armed services, studying special forces demolition, unconventional warfare tactics and advanced navigation training. He is a qualified military pilot and a helicopter pilot. Although a military career is conventional for royal princes, Vajiralongkorn is unique in having taken an active part in military actions inside his own country. In the 1970s he led counter-insurgency campaigns against the forces of the Communist Party of Thailand in the North and Northeast of Thailand, and also took part in operations along the border with Cambodia during the years of the Khmer Rouge regime."


"On January 3, 1977 Vajiralongkorn married Princess Soamsavali Kitiyakara (born 1957), a first cousin on his mother's side. They had one daughter, Princess Bajrakitiyabha in 1978. Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn started living with actress Yuvadhida Polpraserth in the late 1970s and had several children with her. Although Princess Soamsavali had refused divorce for many years, Vajiralongkorn was finally able to sue for divorce in the Family Court in January 1993. In the court proceedings, Vajiralongkorn accused Princess Soamsavali of being completely at fault for the failed relationship. She was not able to refute the charges due to the prohibition against lèse majesté. The divorce was finalized in July 1993.[6] Princess Soamsavali and her daughter continue to play a significant role in royal ceremonies.

When Vajiralongkorn was introduced to Yuvadhida Polpraserth, she was an aspiring actress. She became his steady companion and gave birth to his first son, Prince Chudhavajra Mahidol, on 29 August 1979. He later had three other sons and a daughter by her. They were married at a palace ceremony in February 1994, where they were blessed by the King and the Princess Mother, but not by the Queen. After the marriage, she was allowed to change her name to Mom Sujarinee Mahidol na Ayudhaya, signifying she was a commoner married to a royal. Sujarinee was also commissioned as a major in the army and took part in royal ceremonies with Vajiralongkorn. When she fled to Britain in 1996 with their children, Vajiralongkorn had posters around his palace accusing her of committing adultery with Anand Rotsamkhan, a 60-year-old air marshal.[7] The prince retrieved their daughter and brought her back to Thailand to live with him. Their daughter was later elevated to the rank of Princess whilst Sujarinee and her sons were stripped of their diplomatic passports. She and her sons later moved to the United States. As of 2007, Sujarinee is known as Sujarinee Vivacharawongse.

Vajiralongkorn married again, on February 10, 2001, to Srirasmi Akharaphongpreecha, a commoner from a modest background who had been in his service since 1992. The marriage was not disclosed to the public until early 2005. She gave birth to a son, Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti, on April 29, 2005 and was elevated to become Princess Srirasmi, Mom Srirasmi Mahidol na Ayuthaya. The son was immediately elevated to the rank of Prince. In a magazine interview, Vajiralongkorn stated his intention to settle down."

Woe to the Thai people when this guy ascends the throne!

Actually, I did not "avoid" the part about the King intervening to stop bloodshed


Liar. You specifically avoided mentioning it.


--but it was a little too late for the thousands that were covered with gasoline and lit on fire.

Ooh, thousands burned, when the tally is only 52 dead. Next you'll be claiming the King personally torched them or some crap like that.


The Wickipedia also notes he commuted the sentences of journalists jailed for a violation of those laws; however, that is only after trial and torture of the person at issue.


Allegations of torture, which you have not shown any proof of beyond your ranting. Have you stopped raping children yet? Since we're supposed to treat accusations as proof after all.

I'm done with you. All you can do is make up lies to bolster your propaganda in the finest traditions of the Bush administration. Your existence is a stain to the very president you support.

Are you denying that there are infringement on free speech, as an American might see it?

Are you denying that there are infringement on free speech, as an American might see it?
Yes, he is--his point of view is that the Thai people want the lese-majeste laws and if they want to change the laws they will.

Liar. You specifically avoided mentioning it.



Ooh, thousands burned, when the tally is only 52 dead. Next you'll be claiming the King personally torched them or some crap like that.



Allegations of torture, which you have not shown any proof of beyond your ranting. Have you stopped raping children yet? Since we're supposed to treat accusations as proof after all.

I'm done with you. All you can do is make up lies to bolster your propaganda in the finest traditions of the Bush administration. Your existence is a stain to the very president you support.
Actually, the journalist said he was tortured, but you just refuse to believe him, despite the posting of a video of him standing behind bars looking like hell. As for the 52 dead, that was only the number "officially confirmed" as you saw from the quote which states: "52 officially confirmed deaths, many disappearances, hundreds of injuries, and over 3,500 arrests. Many of those arrested were tortured."

As for me "mak[ing] up lies" to "bolster [my] propaganda," I am simply quoting from Wikipedia. I think the propaganda started with this thread on how wonderful lese-majeste is and how it is a creation of the Thai people.

Are you denying that there are infringement on free speech, as an American might see it?

This here is the problem. Do you appreciate other people (Mormons for example) showing up at your doorstep, telling you how to live and lead your life? If no, then what you're doing is hypocrisy.

Actually, the journalist said he was tortured, but you just refuse to believe him, despite the posting of a video of him standing behind bars looking like hell.

And what? Prison isn't supposed to be sunshine and roses. If there is evidence of torture, SHOW IT! Otherwise, you're just ranting.


As for the 52 dead, that was only the number "officially confirmed" as you saw from the quote which states: "52 officially confirmed deaths, many disappearances, hundreds of injuries, and over 3,500 arrests. Many of those arrested were tortured."

And you said thousands covered in gasoline and burned, of which you cannot prove. At all.


As for me "mak[ing] up lies" to "bolster [my] propaganda," I am simply quoting from Wickipedia.

Hah! And what is this?!


--but it was a little too late for the thousands that were covered with gasoline and lit on fire.

Face it, you're a liar through and through who's only interested in pushing through your agenda. You have zero credibility and zero honesty. Especially when you push crap like this.


I think the propaganda started with this thread on how wonderful lese-majeste

Find one instance, just one, that says this. You won't, because there isn't any. Only in your deluded imaginations.

If Non Aligned States brings anymore red herrings into this thread we could start a fish farm.

Actually, I did not "avoid" the part about the King intervening to stop bloodshed--but it was a little too late for the thousands that were covered with gasoline and lit on fire.

Nice of the king to keep interceding with the military who protects him against the Thai people by enforcing lese-majeste laws. The Wickipedia also notes he commuted the sentences of journalists jailed for a violation of those laws; however, that is only after trial and torture of the person at issue. The King never advocates doing away with the law that protecgts him. This keeps him cozy with the military and it makes him look oh so big and beneficient when he does pardon people for a violation of those laws. It is a ridiculous circus.

For starters, Wikipedia. Not the lack of 'c'.

Also, the King has stated that he approves of criticism, because its how he can know whether he's doing the right thing or not. I posted the quote a few pages ago.

Reasonable criticism, such as those by Nanatsu, I can accept. But the sort advanced from the vanguards of ignorance and idiocy like SaintB and Gobamawin deserve nothing but scorn..

And if you pay some attention to what goes on as soon as I was informed of the mistake I made in when I assumed that Thailand was an autocracy I bugged out and let it end.

I am not an idiot nor am I ignorant! I do not flame people and did not do anything to deserve such an ignorant statement on your part.

And if you pay some attention to what goes on as soon as I was informed of the mistake I made in when I assumed that Thailand was an autocracy I bugged out and let it end.

I am not an idiot nor am I ignorant! I do not flame people and did not do anything to deserve such an ignorant statement on your part.

Very well then. I can't retract the statement, but I can apologize for it. You touched a nerve with your initial statements, and I lost it and said some things about you that you didn't deserve.

Very well then. I can't retract the statement, but I can apologize for it. You touched a nerve with your initial statements, and I lost it and said some things about you that you didn't deserve.

The sincerity is appreciated. I have issues with an autocracy in real life as it is against my moral and political beliefs, a constitutional monarchy is something I can accept as long as the general public is represented. I misread the OP and the article and was under the belief that the whole system was run by one man.

How utterly pathetic and embarassing must the Thai royalty be to feel threatened by the nigh unknown fiction of a random Australian who actually likes Thailand enough to fly there? I thought that nobility was supposed to be above it. Sad indeed.

EDIT: While Prince Harry gets scolded and called a racist for his politically incorrect but rather harmless vocabulary, simply because the Mountbattens want to look good enough in public to avoid any criticism, the every-year-a-brand-new-coup Thai authorities go Spanish Inquisition on a random foreigner who may or may not have publicised doubts about some Thai prince's penis size.

How utterly pathetic and embarassing must the Thai royalty be to feel threatened by the nigh unknown fiction of a random Australian who actually likes Thailand enough to fly there? I thought that nobility was supposed to be above it. Sad indeed.

A member of the Royal Family has never personally filed any charges of lèse majesté. Which is another thing I mentioned earlier.

For starters, Wikipedia. Not the lack of 'c'.

Also, the King has stated that he approves of criticism, because its how he can know whether he's doing the right thing or not. I posted the quote a few pages ago.
He also never calls for the abolition of lese-majeste laws which, to date, have been used only to protect him and his family via the military.

A member of the Royal Family has never personally filed any charges of lèse majesté. Which is another thing I mentioned earlier.
The royal family does not have to, they have the military and police do it for them. Then, after a trial and torture of outside journalists (who fare better than the Thai people), the king gets to look beneficient by commuting the prison term. It is a big PR stunt but, in the meantime, people are jailed and tortured.

By the way, the king has a very vested interest in all of this--it is a long monarchical line and he is the richest person in virtually the world, wtih great landholdings that he apparently does not wish to give up. As noted previously, his son used the same law to benefit himself and accuse one of his wives of adultery when, in fact, the son/prince was the philanderer and sired many children with antoher woman during his marriage. Not that I care about his lifestyle, but the accused wife was not able to respond due to the lese majeste laws. Thus, the law is used constantly by the royal family as PR to the detriment of the Thai people.

This here is the problem. Do you appreciate other people (Mormons for example) showing up at your doorstep, telling you how to live and lead your life? If no, then what you're doing is hypocrisy.
That wasn't an answer to my question. Do you deny that there are infringements of free speech as an American might see it?

That wasn't an answer to my question. Do you deny that there are infringements of free speech as an American might see it?

No, I won't deny it. No more than I deny that even American free speech is limited. But let me ask you this then. Do you believe that American rights should trump the laws of any country they so desire, regardless of what the people who live there think?

No, I won't deny it.
Do you believe that the American freedom of speech laws are just?

No, I won't deny it. No more than I deny that even American free speech is limited. But let me ask you this then. Do you believe that American rights should trump the laws of any country they so desire, regardless of what the people who live there think?

Nope, they shouldn't. That's the crux of the matter here. We, the ones who are outside of Thailand, we can see the lese majeste as something bad and outdated, but the truth is that what we think matters not. It is, and will always be, the choice of the Thai people what, if anything, will they want to and are willing to tolerate. Thailand and the Thai monarchy is an affair of the Thai, not the rest of the world. In the big picture, foreigners and their feelings towards the Thai monarchy matter squat.

Thailand and the Thai monarchy is an affair of the Thai, not the rest of the world.
I think its interesting that while you believe this, you also believe that the US should join the ICC.

Where does sovereignty apply? :P

I think its interesting that while you believe this, you also believe that the US should join the ICC.

Where does sovereignty apply? :P

Now, from where did you get the idea that I think the US should join the ICC. I think Bush and his goons should be tried by the ICC, but the US should remain a spectator, because they won't be able to be impartial judging a former President. And by that I mean they won't be able to try Bush without feeling sympathetic. Of course, they would be trying an American. American tried by Americans.

This bears no weight on my opinion of the Thai monarchy and the lese majeste in that country. This remains a problem of the Thai, not of the US, not of Spain, not of England, but of the Thai.

Now, from where did you get the idea that I think the US should join the ICC. I think Bush and his goons should be tried by the ICC, but the US should remain a spectator, because they won't be able to be impartial judging a former President. And by that I mean they won't be able to try Bush without feeling sympathetic. Of course, they would be trying an American. American tried by Americans.

This bears no weight on my opinion of the Thai monarchy and the lese majeste in that country. This remains a problem of the Thai, not of the US, not of Spain, not of England, but of the Thai.

Todo con el ICC esta voluntario.
Everything with the ICC is voluntary
Y mi punto es Bush esta un problema de los EEUU en la misma manera.
And my point is that Bush is the problem of the US in the same way.

Do you believe that the American freedom of speech laws are just?

I believe that the American conceit that their and only their concept of freedom and justice is the one true one that should apply to the entire world to be nothing more than an egoistic power trip and thinly disguised attempt at cultural imperialism.

I believe that the American conceit that their and only their concept of freedom and justice is the one true one that should apply to the entire world to be nothing more than an egoistic power trip and thinly disguised attempt at cultural imperialism.

Are you gunna make me repeat every one of these questions twice?

Do you, personally, in your humble opinion, believe that American freedom of speech laws are just (by whatever definition you choose)?

Are you gunna make me repeat every one of these questions twice?

Do you, personally, in your humble opinion, believe that American freedom of speech laws are just (by whatever definition you choose)?

In an absolute, world encompassing manner? No. Not the slightest. What may be just in America is not necessarily so, especially when crossing cultural divides of what is, and isn't, just.

In an absolute, world encompassing manner? No. Not the slightest. What may be just in America is not necessarily so, especially when crossing cultural divides of what is, and isn't, just.
Do you approach all of your opinions in an absolute, world-encompassing manner? How boring.

Do you approach all of your opinions in an absolute, world-encompassing manner? How boring.

Since some Americans here seem to be delivering their ideas of what is right and just as a universal rule, it must be responded to in that context. I do not believe in a universal sense of what is just, and that it is entirely relative dependent on the various cultures and societal backgrounds.

Since some Americans here seem to be delivering their ideas of what is right and just as a universal rule, it must be responded to in that context. I do not believe in a universal sense of what is just, and that it is entirely relative dependent on the various cultures and societal backgrounds.

Is everything relative? Are there no natural laws at all?

Is everything relative? Are there no natural laws at all?

Planck constant. That's pretty much it.

Is everything relative? Are there no natural laws at all?

And what would be these natural laws? The idea of justice may be universal, of righting wrongs, but the form that it takes, and what would be called justice and injustice, right and wrong has as many variations as there are bacteria.

And what would be these natural laws?

That's what I'm asking you. Hobbes, for instance, believes in only one: the right to self-preservation. Locke and TJ are all about life, liberty, and property/the pursuit of happiness. I'm asking you what you think the laws are in our original position, a "state of nature" if you will.

Todo con el ICC esta voluntario.
Everything with the ICC is voluntary
Y mi punto es Bush esta un problema de los EEUU en la misma manera.
And my point is that Bush is the problem of the US in the same way.

Estoy bien conciente de que todo en la ICC es de forma voluntaria. Lo que no es justo es que los EEUU quieran hacer unas cosas y cuando les toca a ellos pasar por lo mismo que piden, se niegen.

Yes, Bush is a problem of the US, no one is saying the contrary. The problem with him is that, as soon as he started bossing the rest of the world around, wanting things done his way, he ceased to be solely an American problem. He became a world problem.

But Muravyets posted something very true on the war crimes thread. We may want him to be tried, but it's very likely he won't be tried at all. Now, once again, this bares no weight in the discussion at hand. A discussion that has to do with lese majeste and the Thai monarchy.

That's ironic, coming from a strong supporter of Israel, who has shown a long history of saying "Fuck off" to international opinion and "Respect my authority!"

You can say whatever crap you want, but if it comes off as some kind of egoistic claptrap laced with lies, expect to be called on it.

OF COURSE I expect to be "called on it". I have never expected anything else than that people who differ strongly from my opinions will say so. I, however, will continue to express my opinions. You got a problem with that?

That's what I'm asking you. Hobbes, for instance, believes in only one: the right to self-preservation. Locke and TJ are all about life, liberty, and property/the pursuit of happiness. I'm asking you what you think the laws are in our original position, a "state of nature" if you will.

The only aspect that comes to mind which might be called natural law, assuming I have the right of what you mean by natural law, is order. That's it. Everything else fluctuates.

OF COURSE I expect to be "called on it". I have never expected anything else than that people who differ strongly from my opinions will say so. I, however, will continue to express my opinions. You got a problem with that?

You are free to express your opinions. It is a British server and you are likely an American resident. I am likewise free to tell you why I think they are wrong/unappreciated.

That's what I'm asking you. Hobbes, for instance, believes in only one: the right to self-preservation. Locke and TJ are all about life, liberty, and property/the pursuit of happiness. I'm asking you what you think the laws are in our original position, a "state of nature" if you will.

What? I'm not sure who TJ is, but what does Hobbes and Locke have to do with this situation?