Swiss man jailed for Thai insult

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:44 am

Cuchulain82 wrote:Mah can correct me on this, but my understanding is that on similar issues the king has not favored strict penalties but the populace did. The one example I heard is the king speaking out against the jailing of people who had criticized him.

So then, is it safe to say that ten years in prison for insulting a well-liked figure is little more than mob justice? I understand the rationale, and acknowledge the differences in culture, I just don't agree with it.

Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Thai King, and what the Swiss guy did was in no way excusable - especially after having lived in Thailand for a decade - but as hard as I try I still can't justify a 10-year prison sentence.

Did you know that you can have your hand chopped off in Saudi Arabia because you were found guilty of stealing?

Are you saying that a brutal law in Saudi Arabia justifies a bad law in Thailand?

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:01 pm

Minerva wrote:I agree with Mah, fable and co.

And, Galraen, did you bring this news up, if the man who was jailed was a Thai national? Or, even other Asian nationals, say, Vietnamese, Chinese, Philippino, or maybe an Iraqi? I suspect the answer is 'no'.

I am interested to see how the British will react when the new SouthPark show 'kills the queen'. Can they still be able to say, "It's only a cartoon!"...?

I take great offence at your implication that I'm a racist, the nationality of the man is irrelevant, at least to me! Had I been a member of this forum when the Thais executed someone for drug offences, as they did no that long ago, my posts would have been even more scathing. I guess I shouldn't have been that surprised at a guy getting ten years for spraying graffiti whilts drunk in a country that uses capital punishment for manufacturing amphetamines.

I couldn't care less if South Park 'kills the queen', I at least can differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:19 pm

And I can differentiate between a valid debate and a moot point. So for all of those who thinks this guy is actually gonna spend 10 years in the slammer: Go over there in the corner and gibber together. For the rest of us, let's move on to something important, and check back in a year or two to see if he's still there.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:02 pm

Vicsun wrote:So then, is it safe to say that ten years in prison for insulting a well-liked figure is little more than mob justice? I understand the rationale, and acknowledge the differences in culture, I just don't agree with it.

If I'm not mistaken the kings especially Rama V and Rama IX have been adored in the highest order by the Thai people so much so that they took the initiative through their legislative body to come up with laws such as this that deals with royal members, most especially the king.

This is my thinking: I think that the farang (Thai for 'foreigner') deserves the sentence. Som nam na. (Thai: 'Serves him right.') But if it was the crown prince turned king, I think a few months in prison coupled with community service will do. And I think most Thais wouldn't give much attention to it. Knowing the general sentiments of the Thais (however, they won't publicly express it), they see him almost the same way the Brits see their monarchy.

Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Thai King, and what the Swiss guy did was in no way excusable - especially after having lived in Thailand for a decade - but as hard as I try I still can't justify a 10-year prison sentence.

Same here. With the kind of leaders we Filipinos have these days, it's so difficult, nay, it's even hilarious to justify such a sentence. However, being immersed in their culture significantly long enough, it was never difficult for me to recognize, understand, and more importantly, to agree that the sentence was justified.

@Cuch: I agree with your post.

Are you saying that a brutal law in Saudi Arabia justifies a bad law in Thailand?

Certainly not. All I'm saying is that for a number of countries, culture and social contexts have something to do with a number of the laws mandated and promulgated in these countries. Hence, it would be difficult for many foreigners to understand the reasons and implications behind these laws.

Basically, it's all about recognizing the fact that things may certainly be done differently in other countries. You may agree or disagree with the way things are run based on your personal convictions, but for the locals of the said countries, most of these issues need not be explained and justified since it is supposed to be understood by default.

galraen wrote:I take great offence at your implication that I'm a racist, the nationality of the man is irrelevant, at least to me! Had I been a member of this forum when the Thais executed someone for drug offences, as they did no that long ago, my posts would have been even more scathing. I guess I shouldn't have been that surprised at a guy getting ten years for spraying graffiti whilts drunk in a country that uses capital punishment for manufacturing amphetamines.

I couldn't care less if South Park 'kills the queen', I at least can differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Easy now, galraen. Minerva was merely asking for a clarification.

As for capital punishment for manufacturing prohibited drugs, I'm not surprised that such law was put into place.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:10 am

Maharlika wrote:Easy now, galraen. Minerva was merely asking for a clarification.

As for capital punishment for manufacturing prohibited drugs, I'm not surprised that such law was put into place.

Well it didn't seem like that to me, hopefully your'e right, but the implication was that I was only bringing it up because the idiot was white.

Maybe I should clarify something, I've never meant to imply that what the guy did was acceptable, or that he shouldn't be punished, IMHO he should have been fined, made to do a long stint of community service then deported. I fully agree that if an immigrant can't abide by the demands of the host culture, they shouldn't stay there.

I feel that imprisonment in that instant was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and certainly he is a nut:laugh:.

I have attacked the UK's record of using imprisonment far too much elsewhere on this forum, we have a poor record when it comes to incarcerating people inappropriately, and it's no coincidence that the majority of those are black. Racism is unfortunately endemic in this country, something I've opposed all my life, which is why Minerva's post strucka raw nerve perhaps.

In passing, it must seem strange to many people in the world that the worst sinners in the world are now trying to act 'holier than thou'. It can be difficult for us Brits to come to terms with the fact that our ancestors were the scum of the earth for so long. Britains history is nothing to be proud of, we, and other Europeans,including the Dutch, Belgian, French and of course the Spanish and Portugese who started the transatlantic slave trade, behaved abominably. However I am not my ancestor, and I hate injustice and exploitation, and I will oppose them whenever I perceive it. Britain still has people who behave badly, both internally and internationally, I have and will continue to oppose them, I will also speak out when I see others doing what I conceive to be wrong. One 'wrong' that I oppose is capital punishment, not because I have an idealogical problem with executing murderers, but because no country in the world has a perfect judicial system, and one person convicted wrongly and executed is one too many. However, life imprisonment should mean what it says. End of pontification.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:54 pm

In passing, it must seem strange to many people in the world that the worst sinners in the world are now trying to act 'holier than thou'.

The worst sinners in the world are inevitably those that attempt to rule a portion of it, whether through control of religion, business, or politics. Their ideas are no better than anybody else's, and frequently worse, because everybody accepts what they say without offeirng the kind of contradiction in thought and deed that fosters growth. And there seems to be no alternative, because this is how the world has always wagged since it anything to wag with.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:51 pm

galraen wrote:I take great offence at your implication that I'm a racist, the nationality of the man is irrelevant, at least to me!

I do not think I have ever implied that you are a racist, and I don't think you are. I merely asked if you have posted this thread if the guy was from somewhere from other countries.
You would probably posted exactly the same if the thread was posted by someone else, but I am not sure you started the new one if the buy was from other part of the world.
The reason I thought that is, from your post, I am getting the impression you are implying, "my country/culture is more sophisticated and civilized than Thailand, and wouldn't treat the guy like this".
You think I'm overreacting? Then, how about your following post:

I guess I shouldn't have been that surprised at a guy getting ten years for spraying graffiti whilts drunk in a country that uses capital punishment for manufacturing amphetamines.

What, amphetamines are not illegal drugs in UK, so it mustn't be so severe offence in anywhere else too? You gave me the same snobish and even arrogant impression as your other posts, and it's quite frankly offensive probably based upon the ignorance of the other cultures and states.

I'm sorry, but I am very angry at the moment.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:22 pm

Quite frankly Minerva, you seem to think that no one should ever critisize another country for doing something they consider to be wrong.

Amphetamines are illegal in this country, and for manufacturing and distributing the guy would have ended up in prison, probably for 5+ years. IMHO, for reasons I've given before, I think capital punishment is flat wrong, anywhere. I guess that makes me ignorant and arrogant as well.

If you can't see that stating that you don't think I would have posted had the guy not been from another country looks like your implying I'm racist, I give up. In fact, Switzerland is another country, being as how I'm British, and don't have any particular love (or any other emotion) for the Swiss.

I certainly don't believe that Thailand is any less 'sophisticated or civilised' than the UK, in some ways it may be more so. I find their criminal justice system to be too draconian, and so I critisise it, and will continue to do so. I was brought up to believe that if one sees an injustice one should stand up and oppose it, not turn a blind eye. You obviously think otherwise.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:16 pm

I think you are right, Galraen.

Capital punishment is flat wrong, though I would still keep it for the murderers.

A word to the wise: Minerva, if you are angry, try to postpone posting, and you would not be sorry. I hope one word is enough. For the wise.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:46 am

galraen wrote:Quite frankly Minerva, you seem to think that no one should ever critisize another country for doing something they consider to be wrong.

Amphetamines are illegal in this country, and for manufacturing and distributing the guy would have ended up in prison, probably for 5+ years. IMHO, for reasons I've given before, I think capital punishment is flat wrong, anywhere. I guess that makes me ignorant and arrogant as well.

If you can't see that stating that you don't think I would have posted had the guy not been from another country looks like your implying I'm racist, I give up. In fact, Switzerland is another country, being as how I'm British, and don't have any particular love (or any other emotion) for the Swiss.

I certainly don't believe that Thailand is any less 'sophisticated or civilised' than the UK, in some ways it may be more so. I find their criminal justice system to be too draconian, and so I critisise it, and will continue to do so. I was brought up to believe that if one sees an injustice one should stand up and oppose it, not turn a blind eye. You obviously think otherwise.

Yet, you still refused to answer to my first question. Only reply you gave was "I am not a racist". That was not my question, was it?

I have made clear I do not think you are a racist in the earlier post. I do not understand why you still think I call you one, really. The race is not the same as the culture or nationality, as you are well aware. To be honest, I did not know where you are from when I first saw your post. However, your post did give me the certain impression that you are from either Europe or North America. Besides, you have said you suspected the reason why the Thais love their king is because they are brainwashed. How can you say that? The law prohibits any criticism towards the monarchy, but it does not mean the Thais are forced to love their king.

You say you critisize other countries for doing something wrong. Wrong for who? The Thai has their own law and they have acted accordingly. The Thai may think "the British system is so stupid, it let rapists out of jail after only ten years" (I say "may", because I am not a Thai and have not asked them. This is merely a made up example). Each country is different.

I do believe in "if one sees an injustice one should stand up and oppose it". However, I also believe that every culture/country/person is different and we should respect their ways, even if they are alien/strange/wrong to me. I do not make blunt judgement upon something or someone I do not know, nor based "It would be different in my country".

This guy pleaded guilty and was sentenced for ten years for total of five counts; obviously he was not commited for single offence. Also, other foreigners who commited the same offence before were allowed to leave the country, yet, it seems, he chose to face the music in Thailand. That is enough for me. Had he not given the choice and paraded in front of TV cameras for the propaganda purpose, then that would be a different matter.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:06 pm

Minerva wrote:<snip>
The race is not the same as the culture or nationality, as you are well aware. To be honest, I did not know where you are from when I first saw your post. However, your post did give me the certain impression that you are from either Europe or North America. Besides, you have said you suspected the reason why the Thais love their king is because they are brainwashed. How can you say that? The law prohibits any criticism towards the monarchy, but it does not mean the Thais are forced to love their king.

Points I've been trying to emphasize. Well put, Minerva.

Something tells me that even without a law, the Thais would still behave the same way towards their king. I think it was the law who saved the foreigner, otherwise true mob justice would have taken place as the locals would have their way against this person as they see fit.

You say you critisize other countries for doing something wrong. Wrong for who? The Thai has their own law and they have acted accordingly. The Thai may think "the British system is so stupid, it let rapists out of jail after only ten years" (I say "may", because I am not a Thai and have not asked them. This is merely a made up example). Each country is different.

This is something I have learned and realized when I lived outside my own country. Participating here at GB/SYM added to that as well.

I do believe in "if one sees an injustice one should stand up and oppose it". However, I also believe that every culture/country/person is different and we should respect their ways, even if they are alien/strange/wrong to me. I do not make blunt judgement upon something or someone I do not know, nor based "It would be different in my country".

Indeed. The problem is, for a number of people being in their comfort zone all their lives, with no experience whatsoever to live "as an outsider looking in," their default culture would almost always be the "right one."

This guy pleaded guilty and was sentenced for ten years for total of five counts; obviously he was not commited for single offence. Also, other foreigners who commited the same offence before were allowed to leave the country, yet, it seems, he chose to face the music in Thailand. That is enough for me. Had he not given the choice and paraded in front of TV cameras for the propaganda purpose, then that would be a different matter.

A good point. I didn't see that perspective. Well said.

If I may add, it should also be noted that the guy lived in Thailand. He is an expat and not a tourist. There's a difference.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:31 pm

Maharlika wrote: If I may add, it should also be noted that the guy lived in Thailand. He is an expat and not a tourist. There's a difference. [/color]

Personally I don't think it should make a difference whether or not he lived there. If you go and visit someone's home then you should treat their belongings, hospitality and beliefs with respect. Its the same if you visit another country in my view. This is the main reason why I can't stand the fact that so many Brits behave so badly abroad. I do feel the punishment was harsh, but that is going by the standards/laws I was brought up with, plus I have never lived in a country where the monarchy is loved so much. But he was in Thailand, he committed a pointless crime that showed complete lack of respect for the Thai people and their culture, and therefore he should be punished under Thai law. The fact that he lived there means that he should already have been aware of the consequences anyway so he really can't complain that he got 10 years.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:49 pm

I suspect this wasn't a case of falling afoul of unknown laws. After all, this was a person who has been resident in Thailand for a year. Can we take a guess...? Presumably he was getting fed up underneath it all with the adulation of the Thai monarch. It might have struck him, as a Swiss citizen, as something undignified, or worse. Nothing might have ever come of this, if he hadn't gotten drunk and suddenly acted on impulse where logic and caution would normally have stood in the way.

I would like to know more about him. Did he leave Switzerland because he preferred Thai culture? Was it to start a temporary business branch? Did he intend to settle there permanently? Had he spoken to anybody before this incident about his feelings for the country of his adoption? And what will he do when he's let out--as I'm sure he will be, and soon? Will he stay, or return to Switzerland, or go somewhere else?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:23 pm

mr_sir wrote:Personally I don't think it should make a difference whether or not he lived there. If you go and visit someone's home then you should treat their belongings, hospitality and beliefs with respect. Its the same if you visit another country in my view. This is the main reason why I can't stand the fact that so many Brits behave so badly abroad. I do feel the punishment was harsh, but that is going by the standards/laws I was brought up with, plus I have never lived in a country where the monarchy is loved so much. But he was in Thailand, he committed a pointless crime that showed complete lack of respect for the Thai people and their culture, and therefore he should be punished under Thai law. The fact that he lived there means that he should already have been aware of the consequences anyway so he really can't complain that he got 10 years.

I totally agree with you. However, by pointing out that he was an expat in Thailand for quite some time, it is higly expected of him to know better than your average tourist. By emphasizing this, it just magnifies this person's lack of discernment of proper behavior.

I'm merely echoing what the others have posted in the first page of this thread.

This guy had already prior knowledge of what Thai culture truly is because he was immersed in the said culture. I won't be surprised if he knows how to speak Thai since he is based in Chiang Mai. Chang Mai is a province that isn't cosmopolitan unlike Bangkok. For you to live in a place like Chiang Mai you just could not expect everyone there to be able to communicate in English. Chances are, you really need to know how to speak the language to get by there even if money isn't a problem.

In Bangkok, it's common to see expats living there for years and still not know the language and not being fully immersed in the culture. This type of expats would probably live a life where their needs are catered and taken cared of by English-speaking locals, hence, full appreciation of the culture is very much limited.

Regardless, compared to tourists, this type of expats would still know the culture and recognize --- if not appreciate --- it relatively better.

@fable: I like the way you put it on that particular perspective.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 am

I'll take the unpopular position here and express my opposition to this man's (relatively lengthy) prison term over defacing a likeness of the Thai King. I know full well the monarch's popularity and near-divine reverence in Thailand, something which I feel is irrelevant when viewing this from a human rights perspective. In regards to the imprisoned man's nationality: that doesn't matter either, though I imagine if he were Thai, it would have never become an international news item. Sad but true.

I've lived abroad, spending most of my formative years living in countries other than my own. I appreciate the diversity of cultures and recognize the simple fact that there's more than one dry patch of land in the sea, and more than one way to carry out our lives on our prospective lots. Keeping this in mind, then, it seems that most of us can agree on what is commonly referred to as international human rights. Amnesty International is a big champion of that ideal, one in which I happen to agree with.

There's no question in my mind that this fellow perpetrated callous bufoonery in his vandalism of the Thai King's likeness: to me, it was senseless spittle in the face of his host nation, and while I am certainly against the severity of his prison sentence, I am not opposed to some sort punitive action being taken against him for the act: community service, for example.

I think this is not an issue of insulting a man who is mostly adored by the citizens of his country...but rather, one of human rights which by its nature needs to be blind to the fact that the figure so insulted is either a benevolent monarch or brutal tyrant. Where do we draw the line? Who calls the shots? The entire concept of international human rights rests on the idea that there are certain limits to what a society can do to a human being. Passing those boundaries invites international condemnation and rebuke. In this case, I think Thailand is deserving of that.

I totally embrace the concept of equal rights for all humans. Equal. I will put forward the assertion that if it were a likeness of George Bush (or another President) that were defaced by someone here in the United States...and the person who did the act was apprehended, charged, and sentenced to a prison term for it...the same people in this thread so cavalier in their support of Thailand's action would quickly condemn the United States for their action.

@Mah: You won't find me disagreeing with anyone regarding the fact that this guy should have known better. While I am opposed to what I see as a severe penalty for insulting a public figure, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to Thailand giving that guy the left foot of fellowship, so to speak, for his action. Send him on his way back to his nation of origin. I would support that. A lengthy prison sentence though? No, as benign as Thailand's King has proven himself to be, nothing justifies (in my eyes anyway) 10 years of imprisonment for this fellow's actions.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:28 am

Chanak wrote:I totally embrace the concept of equal rights for all humans. Equal. I will put forward the assertion that if it were a likeness of George Bush (or another President) that were defaced by someone here in the United States...and the person who did the act was apprehended, charged, and sentenced to a prison term for it...the same people in this thread so cavalier in their support of Thailand's action would quickly condemn the United States for their action.

Yes, because 1) the US has laws protecting this kind of thing (as protest), 2) the national myth claims the US stands against such near-deification and worship of a leader, and 3) the image the US officially tries to project abroad is as a champion of equal rights. Of course we'd all be against it. Thailand does not have such laws, such a national myth, nor a foreign image of this sort; so when it acts to enforce its laws on someone who definitely should have known better, it doesn't draw outrage.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:10 pm

@fable: Ah, so I *think* I understand now. The government of China has no laws preventing it from taking any sort of action against individuals such as what occurred several years ago when students were massacred for protesting. The government of Cuba has no laws preventing the imprisonment of anyone who voices or otherwise evidences opposition to Fidel Castro and/or his regime. Neither are concerned with being perceived as champions of human rights abroad. We also have the matter of the former USSR sentencing political prisoners to lifetimes in Siberian prison camps for their opposition. None of these these countries have (or had in the case of the former USSR) laws protecting dissenters. Therefore, the international outrage associated with the massacre of those Chinese protesters, political prisoners in Cuba, and the former USSR's prison camps shouldn't have occured, if I judge your intent correctly?

I'm not sure the presence of a nation's laws necessarily justifies actions which can rightly (in my view anyway) fall under the sphere of human rights.

EDIT: and not that it even needs to be pointed out, but our own country has perpetrated some horrific human rights violations during its history (internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WW2, for example). Some of the worst are occuring right now: Guantanamo Bay being but one of them.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:35 pm

A man was sentenced to 12 months of prison today in Canada after perpetrating death threats to Quebec's Prime Minister, Jean Charest. Different cultures, different laws that's for sure. :speech:

BTW, I don't think that because something is accepted in another culture it necessary means that we cannot oppose/discuss it. There are abominations in every cultures and one has the right to express his/her disagreement when he/she sees one. For exemple, in North America it is encouraged to move your business in poor countries to exploit those penniless human beings and make tons of money on their back without giving these workers enough money to eat everyday. Everyone has the right to oppose to that, even if they don't live in North America. Maybe Galraen is wrong in this thread, maybe he is right, but nobody can accuse him of ignoring is neighbour and thinking only about is own self. He is not trying to condemn the Thai culture, he is saying that 10 years in prison is a whole lot of time for a crime that did not harm anyone directly.

I don't know what are the laws of Thailand, but I hope they are not only severe when the crime concerns the king. I hope everything is in just proportion. For exemple, what is the sentence for rape? for theft? etc.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:38 pm

For exemple, in North America it is encouraged to move your business in poor countries to exploit those penniless human beings and make tons of money on their back without giving these workers enough money to eat everyday.

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the current US and Canadian administrations, but this is the first I've ever heard of this. And I've lived in the US for 56 years.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:59 pm

@Fable, you are right, I should have been more precise. I don't really know if it is encouraged by the government administrations, but it is very well seen by the shareholders of companies and the business magazines. I should also have precised that it is not really about moving your entire business, but some departments in foreign coutries. That is what Nike, Levi's, etc. did. Oil companies do it in Congo, and coal companies do it in China.

I have not seen it yet, but the documentary The Corporation tells a lot about this. One of my friend even told me that at one time in the documentary they convinced some high executives that they should go in a foreign country to help business. They told them that some foreigners would die in the process, but that it was a sacrifice worth it since it would be good for business, and the high executives were in favor of it.