Thai Gov't Sets Up Site For Snitching On Royals' Critics 329
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that would make the old eastern German Stasi green with envy, the Thai government has modernized a system that allows citizens to snitch on fellow citizens. 'Internet users are being urged to show their loyalty to the king by contributing to a new website called protecttheking.net, which has been set up by a parliamentary committee. On the site's front page it is described as a means for Thai people to show their loyalty to the king by protecting him from what it calls misunderstandings about him. It calls on all citizens to inform on anyone suspected of insulting or criticising the monarchy.'
An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy."
Their country, their loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
Their government try to sell the country as a tourist destination. Well you know what, if I have tourist dollars to spend you can bet I won't be visiting a country where I can go to jail just for criticising someone.
Re:writeinjackthompson (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking of writing in myself. Anonymously, of course.
"I am here to report myself, who frequently claims that the king has inappropriate sexual relations with monkeys. My name is Anonymous."
Submit some good names (Score:5, Insightful)
Either spam it full of garbage or some important people close to the king.
The Thai King (Score:5, Insightful)
In some ways, the Thai Gov't kinda reminds me of an unpatched Windows Machine that needs lots of reboots and eventually a disk-wipe to get working again -- but talking about the gov't structure itself doesn't really explain why insulting the King is a big deal.
Again, like I said... the King is a "moral authority". In many ways, he's the Thai equivalent to the Pope although more in the moral sense than religious sense -- he is a man who is loved by the people and is wished to be seen as "good" by most Thai's. Insulting the King (or Queen) is a personal insult to many Thai people and is one of the few things the Thai in general do not tolerate well overall. Insulting the King in Thailand is the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Pope while visiting the Vatican.
That said, I'd rather visit Thailand again anyday than the many countries in the world that are significantly less tolerant [timesonline.co.uk].
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Thai King (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps he's popular precisely because he doesn't have real power. It's the pricks that do meddle in peoples lives that become unpopular.
The peculiar thing about the USA is that it invents it's own royalty. What else could explain political families like the Bushes, Kennedys etc?
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take visitors into your country and jail them for speaking their minds, you probably deserve whatever it is they said about you.
Re:The Thai King (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Thai King (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think there is an obvious American opinion to this matter, you are a moron. Travel a bit. Open your mind and your eyes.
The Thai people do love him, which is why it is such a problem to criticize him. They personally hate it when the king is insulted (I speak from experience, having lived and worked in Thailand for over a year). The government constantly use this popular love to pass laws that favour themselves and not the king because they can use such legislation to lock people up on the slightest context.
The king him disfavours the lese majeste laws, and wishes aloud for their abolition.
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots! (Score:1, Insightful)
Too many people are spouting off and running off at the mouth because they are imposing their cultural views on the Thai people.
The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.
You should also understand that the Thai people think very highly of the king and he has done a great many things to improve the lives of the everyday man. He is one of the great philanthropists of the 20 & 21st centuries.
Be more respectful of other cultures. Contrary to what most Americans seem to think, you are NOT the highest form of culture the world has ever seen and the rest of the world DO NOT want to be like you. We in the rest of the world have our own ways and, frankly, we've been doing it a lot longer than you lot.
i think the russians and french had the right idea (Score:3, Insightful)
monarchies are a ridiculous anachronism
uk, thailand, japan: follow nepal please, lose your bullshit historical baggage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_monarchy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Ants (Score:3, Insightful)
Only on slashdot would such a post be modded insightful. Not that I disagree.
Rights and freedom based on laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i think the russians and french had the right i (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should they, if it isn't causing problems? Last I looked, in Japan the monarchy wasn't even politically relevant or a problem.
Last I checked, the king of Thailand was pardoning most people arrested under the law. This is the government abusing their King to silence critics.
Or just idiocy to a phenominal degree,
Re:Idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)
The king of Thailand is protected by a set of old laws called Lese Majeste, which essentially means it is a crime to injure the king in any way (including verbally).You may not agree with it, and in fact, the Thai king himself is against these laws, but this is their way.
And in some parts of Africa a female child may have her clitoris excised to save her from sexual temptation later in life. Now in some less-enlightened quarters, this is considered a bad idea. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ugly American imposing my cultural views on the world, right?
Cultural relativism is as harmful a mind virus as religion. Some things in the world are broken, and sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does not make you morally superior.
Re:The Thai King (Score:4, Insightful)
Or shitting on the star spangled banner in front of the white house.
See? Now some of you might get it - a corrupt republic is no better than a monarchy if all you've done is replace the monarch with a flag.
Re:Idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when it comes to improper use of blades, America is not all that enlightened either... (see sig below)
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ants (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not racist. Americans don't see Thais as a race, only a nationality.
It's really no more racist than insulting Canadians.
Besides, the Thai king was born a US citizen, in Cambridge MA. If he's never renounced his citizenship, he still is. And we certainly reserve the right to insult our own citizens.
Re:They should be like good Americans and (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait and watch.
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:2, Insightful)
Were are talking about a country that executes drug users [csdp.org]. They are fucking barbaric & I personally hope there whole government dies in a revolution.
Re:Their country, their loss! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather all the politicians were executed first, Bush has done far more damage to this world than the British queen ever will.
Re:Ants (Score:3, Insightful)
And it speaks volumes about *your* culture that you believe that freedom of expression is something that *doesn't* need to be protected.
When something is offensive (like your post), sometimes insults are appropriate, fuckwad.
Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not as barbaric as a country that kills kids? (Score:3, Insightful)
Based on the history of other UN documents (and my knowledge of world history), I'd rather take my chances as a child in the U.S. than in over 50% of the signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Re:writeinjackthompson (Score:3, Insightful)
"You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose."
Yes, they can pass whatever laws they choose; and when those laws are oppressive and specifically deny people certain human rights, challenging them in any way possible is an action which has integrity and validity.
Let's say a country passes a law under which member of a particular racial group are all subject to execution by the state. Anyone caught sheltering or providing help to any member of that racial group will be prosecuted for it. So if some American guy decides to go to that country and smuggle out as many children from that group as possible in order to save their lives, you would condemn him for breaking the law? You would say he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for what he did?
In the end, it's attitudes like yours that allow totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes to flourish. Of course we need to abide by the law, but only inasmuch as the law itself does not impinge upon our human rights or the human rights of others. To uphold the value of a law that does otherwise is to uphold the legitimacy of despotism.