The Central Administrative Court Thursday issued an injunction demanding the prime minister to strictly observe the international standards on crowd control when dealing with the protesters.
The court issued the injunction in the case in which some senators filed a suit against Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and police, accusing them of using excessive force to disperse protesters on Tuesday.
The court said the injunction would be in place until the court makes a ruling in the case.
BP: That is it? Matichon has the court decision here. After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled that:
- the "actions of the protesters caused others to be afraid of their safety and for their freedoms so that they would not enter the parliament or to leave the parliament and affects the rights of others" (การกระทำดังกล่าวของผู้เข้าชุมนุมจึงมีลักษณะทำให้ผู้อื่นกลัวว่า จะเกิดอันตรายต่อชีวิตร่างกาย เสรีภาพ จนไม่กล้าที่จะเข้าไปในรัฐสภา หรือออกจากรัฐสภา อันเป็นการกระทบต่อสิทธิเสรีภาพของบุคคลอื่น).
- "Therefore, the protests in front of parliament is not a peaceful protest which should be protected by Section 63 of the Constitution" (ดังนั้น การชุมนุมหน้ารัฐสภาดังกล่าวจึงมิใช่การชุมนุมโดยสงบอันจะได้รับการคุ้มครอง ตามมาตรา 63 ของรัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช 2550)
NOTE: Section 63 states "A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms." - The actions of the protesters might have an affect the government's ability to administer the country as required in Section 176, Paragraph 1. Therefore, the police have the authority to disperse protesters to resolve this (ซึ่งจะก่อให้เกิดผลกระทบต่อภาระหน้าที่ในการบริหารราชการแผ่นดินและการจัด ทำบริการสาธารณะ เจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจจึงมีอำนาจหน้าที่ที่จะเข้าสลายการชุมนุมเพื่อแก้ไขปัญหา การกระทำของผู้เข้าชุมนุมได้)
NOTE: Section 176, Paragraph One states
"The Council of Ministers which will assume the administration of State affairs must, within fifteen days as from the date it takes office, state its policies and explanation for an implementation of the directive principles of fundamental State policies under section 75; provided that no vote of confidence shall be passed, and must, after giving such statement, prepare a plan for the administration of State affairs as guideline for the administration of State affairs for each year under section 76." - The actions of the police in dispersing the protests must be in accordance with what is necessary and appropriate [ie proportionate] and procedures must be in place for the dispersing of protesters, the police cannot act beyond this (การกระทำของเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจเพื่อสลายการชุมนุมจะต้องกระทำเท่าที่จำเป็น โดยคำนึงถึงความเหมาะสม มีลำดับขั้นตอนตามหลักสากลที่ใช้ในการสลายการชุมนุมของประชาชน เจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจไม่อาจดำเนินการตามอำเภอใจได้ ).
- [There is an implicit criticism that the actions of the police were not in accordance procedure] in the actions of the police on October 7 to disperse the protesters, one person died and many were injured and many protesters were not warned of the dispersal of protesters and what measures would be used (ในเหตุการณ์สลายการชุมนุมของเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจในวันที่ 7 ตุลาคม 2551 มีประชาชนเสียชีวิตหนึ่งรายและได้รับบาดเจ็บจำนวนมาก โดยประชาชนที่เข้าร่วมการชุมนุมจำนวนมากไม่ได้รับทราบการแจ้งเตือนและมาตรการสลายการชุมนุมของเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจ).
BP: So the actions of the protesters in (1), (2), and (3) police must act in accordance with (4) and (5). I agree on (4) and it seems a perfectly reasonable decision. I think the problem for the police is they lack (or did not follow) any guidelines in the use of tear gas and other measures.
UPDATE: The Nation calls it "another perceived legal victory for the PAD", but continues to fail to mention that the Court found the protests not to be peaceful and which were not protected by the Constitution.
BP: Matichon, which usually has a slightly anti-Thakin bent to it, again is the most informative and has been very even-handed since Tuesday in its news coverage.
Excellent clarifier.
oh, man ! 100mln kudos 2 u for such UNBIASED coverage!
nowadays it seems like your blog is the ONLY source of the straight and blunt truth. keep up the good work ! (well, few other blogs do the same - but often they base their posts on materials already presented by you :) )
Anon1
"Therefore, the protests in front of parliament is not a peaceful protest which should be protected by Section 63 of the Constitution"
One sentence that can make or break the PAD. Off course, the Nation(along with everyone else who call themselves "mainstream media") will just turn blind eyes and do-the-Yoon as usual.
In brief, PAD got slap on the wrist and then got a candy.
On the other hand, in junction is superficial. In fact, there is no need for court injunction. The police is already legally bound by law. And what exactly is those "international standard".
Do they negotiate?
Some news say that they first negotiate to open they way for MP to get into the parliament. Is this enough?
Do they have to explicitly announce that they will use force?
Do they really need to announce that they will use tear gas?
Must they really use water spray before using tear gas?
Is it enough to follow US (let's say Washington DC police) riot control procedure?
If they follow that, I'm pretty sure that they will storm government house long time ago.
Khun Chamlong Is Wrong
this sounds like a PAD headline, but in this case its true
In this news item Khun Chamlong insisted the PAD supporters had never resorted to violent means, and its activities have been under the constitution. But Khun Chamlong must know that the PAD have been operating outside the Constitution.
After the tragedy of October 7 the Administrative Court ruled that the protest was not a peaceful public rally under Section 63 of the Constitution of Thailand.
It also ruled that the protest violated and disrupted other people’s rights and obstructed the government from performing its lawful duties under Section 176, Paragraph 1, and the police had the authority to disperse protesters to resolve this.
The injunction did not ask the police to stop all riot control activities but asked them to follow international standards, only when reasonable and to be conducted proportionately.
When we look for precedents for riot control in the international scene we can come up with some horrific examples:
- in WACO Texas USA, large numbers of armed protesters were burned when police accidently set fire to their building. Investigations afterwards held that the police were doing their duty.
- in Northern Ireland a very long history of deaths and injuries caused by operations of the UK police have been deemed lawful and within police rules of engagement.
- even unarmed protesters get quite roughly handled with mass arrests when they occur in areas that are declared security areas by the police (at the orders of the government, for example the events at various international meetings including APEC in Melbourne Australia).
Note that the Court does not distinguish individuals, if some of the protesters are armed then it is an armed protest and all protesters should consider themselves at risk.
People should be aware of the rights, duties and power of a government democratically elected that enjoys the support of the majority of the people (even today, see recent ABAC polls) and if they wish to protest then should follow the normal rules.
The message here is that people should be quite cautious about joining any protests that are not lawful. In Thailand this means only joining protests that are truly unarmed and peaceful and not inconveniencing others!
This is not about Thaksin. He is only one of a new breed of leaders of democratically elected governments since 1997, Chuan, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai.
The actual voting margin is not overwhelming, if the Democrats manage to clean up their wishy-washy image and think up some policies that are sufficiently attractive to the majority of the people of Thailand it is possible they could win the next election, or the one after....
In democratic countries they say "a week is a long time in politics"... leaders can be dumped and replaced, governments can be voted out and replaced. This is the advantage of a democracy under a monarchy. Unlike republics, dictatorships and nominated governments the people can choose the government, the parties can choose their leaders and the Royal Family provides structure and continuity.
The situation today is quite different from 1972 and 1976.
In those terrible times the governments were supported by a minority of the population. Today the government is supported by the majority.
It was not as clear cut then as now but the protesters led by Khun Chamlong in 1972 and the Thammasat students appeared to be supported by a large part of the Thai population. Now the protesters represent a small minority.
As far as we could tell the protesters in 1972 led by Khun Chamlong and the Thammasat students in 1976 were unarmed. Now the protesters are very well and illegally armed.
Then the minority governments acted with obscene speed and force. Now the majority supported government has shown great restraint and, unfortunately, have allowed the issue to fester.
I am expecting a slow death for the protest but unfortunately it is a painful and destructive process and ultimately quite unproductive for all involved.