Swiss man jailed for Thai insult

[Ashen]

Flame all you want but I believe this is absolute rubbish! 10 years for that? You have got to be kidding me. I couldn't care less what country it is, even mine, but that is just ridiculous.

And I for one do not care whether he has lived there for 10 or 100 years and is or isn't aware of the laws/customs/blind worshiping of certain people. He acted the fool yes, he did bring it down upon himself yes but that does not in any way alter the fact that this is not the point - the point is the law, and the law is appalling. Talk about Thai culture all you want, but there is such a thing as human rights and international law, as well as an accepted set of standards for what is and isn't an appropriate punishment by law.

So it's Thai culture ah? Well it was Taliban culture too when they did what they did in Afghanistan. It was also a part of culture for certain civilizations to sacrifice their own people for good fortune in battle, torture prisoners of war etc. Fun practices that. All good tradition too.

For Eru's sake, 10 years for that. Unbelievable.

[xxslainxx]

Ashen, I don't believe he will end up serving the whole 10 years. It is in part a symbolic gesture aimed at highlighting the importance given to the ideology and the man (the king).

But then from what I hear, even 1 year in a Thai prison is going to be extremely harsh on a native Thai national let alone Firang.

P.S. I think the history of the region in general with regards to British rule/occupation has a factor to play in the sentiments expressed by the Thai people. I would like to point out as well that this is just a personal opinion.

[galraen]

I think the history of the region in general with regards to British rule/occupation has a factor to play in the sentiments expressed by the Thai people. I would like to point out as well that this is just a personal opinion.

For once Britain is not a guilty party, in fact IIRC Thailand wasn't occupied or ruled by any European imperialists.

[Ashen]

Ashen, I don't believe he will end up serving the whole 10 years. It is in part a symbolic gesture aimed at highlighting the importance given to the ideology and the man (the king).

But then from what I hear, even 1 year in a Thai prison is going to be extremely harsh on a native Thai national let alone Firang.

But then again that is not the point - the point is that such a law exists, and if this were not a Swiss citizen, he or she would spend the 10 years in jail. I agree about even one being too much, also from what I hear.

Again, the existence of the law is the issue, not anything else.

[fable]

For once Britain is not a guilty party, in fact IIRC Thailand wasn't occupied or ruled by any European imperialists.

Not quite. The French twice created fake crises to grab portions of territory from Siam (as Thailand was then called). To end further encroachment by the French, the Siamese had to agree to give yet a third portion of their nation to the British. So while it's true there was no occupation per se, a large amount of land was grabbed from Siam by two European powers--and that amounts to something just as invasive.

[Moonbiter]

Well, he is now officially pardoned, and will be sent home to Helvetica. End of story. Hey, what a relief!

[Vicsun]

i don't think the followers of Jesus love him for "selflessness" and "helping the less fortunate". I am not going into religious explanations concerning Christian beliefs (I am not good at it anyway, you should ask Mah).
Besides, with all due respect, Thai King is not a God, even if he is worshiped.
You analogy is invalid.

If anything, that lends credibility to what I said. If Jesus, the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind, shouldn't be offered protection from disrespect why should the Thai King, a mere mortal, be offered such protection?

Wow, IN A FEW YEARS... That is one of the funniest rumors I've heard recently. I hope you do not really believe it.

I hope you don't really believe I really believe it

I don't see how it's flawed. If you don't think such a law would be a good thing in Western Europe/North America, how can you think it's a good idea in Thailand? Please don't say cultural relativism.

The man jailed in Thailand didn't show a lack of respect to its king; he showed a lack of respect to its king through defacing his image on commercial displays in public locations, if I recall correctly. The latter part is pretty important as a series of qualifiers that offer context to the incident. We might assume he could get away with showing disrespect to the monarch verbally, or that he could deface an image in private. I'm not saying this is the case; but it's possible, and if so, it kills the iidea of Thailand as a totalitarian state that enforces a pattern of rigid respect for the king in private, or in any other fashion that isn't visual.

I'm not trying to push an idea of Thailand as a totalitarian state. I'm criticizing a specific law.

Regardless, I don't know that any of us in this thread actually agree with the idea of jailing a person for 10 years for defacing an image of a ruler.

Mah does.

If you disagree with it, then I agree with you

The man is an idiot the same way someone who leaves their Porsche unlocked in the ghetto is an idiot. I'd agree that he has no one but himself to blame, but that's far from saying he deserves it.

[fable]

I don't see how it's flawed. If you don't think such a law would be a good thing in Western Europe/North America, how can you think it's a good idea in Thailand? Please don't say cultural relativism.

Why not? Because a concept is overused doesn't make it any less viable in situations where it is truly effective. And where did I go on record as discussing whether such a law would be a good or bad thing? There are plenty of laws on the books of various nations meant to reinforce cultural norms, rather than address wrongs and ensure rights. I can state that I find the idea of a head of a secular government as semi-divine ridiculous, but who am I to tell millions of people they are wrong to do so? And if they believe this, I can understand the need for laws respecting the monarch's portrait, much as we have laws in Europe and the US against people barging into religious sanctuaries and defacing altars or images of Christ, etc.

I'm not trying to push an idea of Thailand as a totalitarian state. I'm criticizing a specific law.

But are you arguing that the law itself is bad, or that the law is alright, and that the punishment is bad?

Mah does.

Mah feels that the sentence was just. I'm not sure Mah agrees that the man should serve out 10 years in jail. Two very different things.

The man is an idiot the same way someone who leaves their Porsche unlocked in the ghetto is an idiot. I'd agree that he has no one but himself to blame, but that's far from saying he deserves it.

Your choice. I think he deserved a very bad scare, and that's precisely what he got.

[Cuchulain82]

Tempest in a teacup?

I don't know if someone else already posted this in the thread, but the man was pardoned by the King:

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/12/thai.king.ap/index.html"]Thai King Pardons Swiss Man[/url]

[Vicsun]

Why not? Because a concept is overused doesn't make it any less viable in situations where it is truly effective. And where did I go on record as discussing whether such a law would be a good or bad thing? There are plenty of laws on the books of various nations meant to reinforce cultural norms, rather than address wrongs and ensure rights. I can state that I find the idea of a head of a secular government as semi-divine ridiculous, but who am I to tell millions of people they are wrong to do so? And if they believe this, I can understand the need for laws respecting the monarch's portrait, much as we have laws in Europe and the US against people barging into religious sanctuaries and defacing altars or images of Christ, etc.

The reason defacing religious sanctuaries is against the law in Europe and the States is because their defacement would constitute destroying someone else's property. As Xandax said in the first post, vandalism should be punished - just not with ten years. I'm sure there are a lot of laws enforcing cultural norms in the West - laws against obscenity or earlier laws against promiscuousness come to mind - and those laws are silly as well. I wasn't exactly applauding the response to Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction when that happened. I don't think I'm wrong to proclaim that millions of people overreacted.

But are you arguing that the law itself is bad, or that the law is alright, and that the punishment is bad?

It's a bad law made worse by a severe punishment. If people were merely fined for disrespecting the King, I'd still consider that to be unnecessary, though a maximum sentence of ten years in a Thai prison is just ludicrous.

Mah feels that the sentence was just. I'm not sure Mah agrees that the man should serve out 10 years in jail. Two very different things.

The sentence was ten years, wasn't it

Your choice. I think he deserved a very bad scare, and that's precisely what he got.

As it currently stands, I can't really argue what happened to him was a huge injustice. A bad scare is a fitting, if unusual, punishment for vandalism, I suppose.

[Moonbiter]

YouTube - Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Argument Clinic

[Vicsun]

YouTube - Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Argument Clinic

You seem more bitter than usual. First the War Czar thread and now this. Is everything OK?

[Moonbiter]

Awwwww, never mind. I've just been on the grape for a couple of hours. Snide & 2 The Point is the name of my crew..y'all.. ... and I'm doing my taxes....

[Vicsun]

Haha, I figured after I read your reply to the Vonnegut thread.

(I'll stop derailing now)

[fable]

(I'll stop derailing now)

Thank you. It will be appreciated. And Moonbiter...? Please don't post in SYM while doing your taxes. Save it for the RPG threads.

The reason defacing religious sanctuaries is against the law in Europe and the States is because their defacement would constitute destroying someone else's property.

Surely you don't believe this, and are only stating it for arguement's sake? Because whenever a church, temple, etc, is vandalized, it isn't the destruction of property that's emphasized among the faithful, the civic officials, or the more serious media, but the damage done to a cultural artifact. It is an attack on religion itself, on spirituality, says the bishop. The worshippers line up outside in silent protest. These vicious criminals will be punished to the full extent of the law, says the mayor. The media doesn't report it on page 35 beneath the obits alongside the vandalism done to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Percy Hollingsworth of 18 Butternut Drive. They give it front page coverage. THe law, in this case--vandalism--is used to redress a violated cultural norm.

It's a bad law made worse by a severe punishment. If people were merely fined for disrespecting the King, I'd still consider that to be unnecessary, though a maximum sentence of ten years in a Thai prison is just ludicrous.

Nicely put in that first sentence. We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. My boundaries for ethically universal concepts are different from yours. I would not accept as good a national law that permitted slavery, for example, or defined men as the masters, under law, of their wives. The law that sends a person to jail for defacing a monarch's image in a divine monarchy strikes me as culturally congruent. And if you don't want to fall into the very visible ditch far to one side of you, you don't deliberately walk all the way over there and jump in.

The sentence was ten years, wasn't it

Perhaps we both need enlightenment as to whether Mah truly meant sentience," including the length of time, or simply "verdict," meaning the court's decision of guilt. Regardless, this is a niggling detail: would you agree that apart from Mah, nobody else in this thread has argued that keeping the man in jail for 10 years is reasonable?

As it currently stands, I can't really argue what happened to him was a huge injustice. A bad scare is a fitting, if unusual, punishment for vandalism, I suppose.

But it was only vandalism in your mind. Under Thai law, in Thai culture, it was a much more serious crime. I personally think he was freed because like you, his parent culture regards the crime as one of vandalism, perhaps with a nice side order of boorishness. The Thais had the law on their side, but then, in light of the king's pardon, its divine to forgive, isn't it?

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Vicsun

If anything, that lends credibility to what I said. If Jesus, the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind, shouldn't be offered protection from disrespect why should the Thai King, a mere mortal, be offered such protection?

I think everybody's dignity should be equally protected by something similar to a defamation law. I would be interested in your opinion.

@fable

Perhaps we both need enlightenment as to whether Mah truly meant...

Indeed. Maharlika is not an "obviously deceased person" yet; he can clarify his position himself to everyone who still needs enlightenment.

[Vicsun]

Surely you don't believe this, and are only stating it for arguement's sake? Because whenever a church, temple, etc, is vandalized, it isn't the destruction of property that's emphasized among the faithful, the civic officials, or the more serious media, but the damage done to a cultural artifact. It is an attack on religion itself, on spirituality, says the bishop. The worshippers line up outside in silent protest. These vicious criminals will be punished to the full extent of the law, says the mayor. The media doesn't report it on page 35 beneath the obits alongside the vandalism done to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Percy Hollingsworth of 18 Butternut Drive. They give it front page coverage. THe law, in this case--vandalism--is used to redress a violated cultural norm.

Interesting thing is, I pretty much thought "you don't actually believe this but are only stating it for the argument's sake" when you said it's illegal in the west to deface churches just because they're religious institutions. Sure, people probably get their panties up in a bunch when someone defaces something they consider holy, but they do that whenever a social norm is broken. Can you only imagine the demonization that a woman would face for proclaiming she was the equal of a man a century ago? I'm obviously not saying that there shouldn't be a law against vandalizing churches, I just don't think it should be more severe than a law against vandalizing other property of equal value.

After some thought, though, I'm inclined to agree that having a law against insulting the Thai King is no different than analogous laws protecting religious figures or flags in Europe (and possibly the US. Is burning the American flag illegal in any states? I know there was a discussion about adding a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, but I'm uncertain if certain states have implemented such a law). I just happen to disagree with all of them. How do you feel about the whole flag-burning debate?

Nicely put in that first sentence. We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. My boundaries for ethically universal concepts are different from yours. I would not accept as good a national law that permitted slavery, for example, or defined men as the masters, under law, of their wives. The law that sends a person to jail for defacing a monarch's image in a divine monarchy strikes me as culturally congruent. And if you don't want to fall into the very visible ditch far to one side of you, you don't deliberately walk all the way over there and jump in.

I wouldn't accept as good a national law that permitted slavery in any culture, not for cultural reasons but because I can rationally come to a conclusion that a society in which slavery is allowed would be worse of than one in which it is banned. Laws based on culture hinge on emotion, and if they don't also hinge on rationality I'd consider them bad laws. The law we're discussing here is a clear case of this - people love their king, so they feel they need a law to protect him. I don't want slavery outlawed because I hate it; there are a myriad of other reasons for that.

Perhaps we both need enlightenment as to whether Mah truly meant "sentence," including the length of time, or simply "verdict," meaning the court's decision of guilt. Regardless, this is a niggling detail: would you agree that apart from Mah, nobody else in this thread has argued that keeping the man in jail for 10 years is reasonable?

Yes I would

But it was only vandalism in your mind. Under Thai law, in Thai culture, it was a much more serious crime. I personally think he was freed because like you, his parent culture regards the crime as one of vandalism, perhaps with a nice side order of boorishness. The Thais had the law on their side, but then, in light of the king's pardon, its divine to forgive, isn't it?

I think this is one of those things that exists outside, independently of my mind. Under Thai law, it is a much more serious crime, true, which is why I think the law is bad. Thai culture can consider it a serious offense (that's absolutely fine), but don't think offensive things should be illegal (partly due to the subjectiveness of what's offensive).

By the way, since you seem to think that a different culture justifies different laws; at what point do you draw the line? Many African countries practice female genital mutilation as a part of their culture. Slavery used to be a culturally accepted practice in the US. When can you flat out say "this is wrong" to a culturally accepted practice? Surely you don't think slavery was fine two hundred years ago because the times were different and it was acceptable back then.

I think everybody's dignity should be equally protected by something similar to a defamation law. I would be interested in your opinion.

That's obviously not the case in Thailand since the King's dignity is much more protected than everyone else's, and as such I'm afraid that if I answer you here it'll steer the thread in a different direction (namely, should people's dignity be protected under the law, versus the current discussion of "is the Thai law protecting their king good"). I'd be very happy to address this question in a PM or a new thread, however

edit: Oh, and to steer this back to Thailand, can I interpret your response to mean that you would support a law protecting Jesus from disrespect?

editedit: To address your point superfluously, since I can't help myself: it's a difficult question to answer. A reason rape (rightfully) gets a severe punishment is because along with the physical abuse, it also strips the victim of their dignity. On the other hand, I abhor the idea of saying "F you" to someone being illegal; I don't think politeness enforced by the state (as opposed to society) would be a good thing. I guess that if I had to make one encompassing statement, I'd say that people's dignity should only be protected under the law when damaging their dignity can cause permanent, or long-lasting damage. By that rationale continually stalking someone and debasing them would be illegal, but insulting them wouldn't and showing breasts on television would be fine unless someone can come up with evidence that breasts are damaging. I realize that something like that would pragmatically be a nightmare to enforce, but I also think that's kind of how the legal system functions now in most places.

For what it's worth making factually wrong statements in order to hurt someone (the defamation you mention) is a bit different than attacking people's dignity, and falls under my "permanent or long-lasting damage" clause. Burning someone's picture wouldn't be defamation, but it might damage their dignity.

I'd be appreciative if we keep further discussion of this topic outside this thread though, as I don't think we've milked the original topic dry yet.

[Lady Dragonfly]

edit: Oh, and to steer this back to Thailand, can I interpret your response to mean that you would support a law protecting Jesus from disrespect?

No, I did not mean that.

I'd be very happy to address this question in a PM or a new thread, however

Although you somewhat answered my question, I am going to create a new thread. You can address the flag desecration controversy there as well.