fable wrote:
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.