AI, lese majeste and finding a prisoner of conscience
Pravit Rojanaphruk in The Nation has a very interesting story regarding Amnesty International and lese majeste.
Pravit reports that, for "the first time in several years, Amnesty International acknowledged yesterday that there was at least one prisoner of conscience in Thailand. This was declared in the agency's recently released 2011 report on human rights, which details how the freedom of expression is being curbed through the use of the emergency decree, the lese majeste law and the Computer Crime Act."
Some of us might be tempted to cheer and say, "At last! AI is doing something concrete about prisoners of the repressive lese majeste law in Thailand!" But we'd be mistaken.
The case taken up is that of Wipas Raksakul, a "businessman who was arrested last April for allegedly violating the lese majeste law by forwarding a message on Facebook." Pravit reports that a "reliable source, who personally knows the Rayong-based businessman, told The Nation that Wipas is out on bail but 'does not want to make news for fear that his family might be affected'."
While Pravit admits that this information could not be independently confirmed, it does raise an interesting set of questions about AI, lese majeste and how AI operates. Does Wipas know that AI is making his case high profile?
It seems that "key members of the Thai chapter of Amnesty International" claim to not know why "Wipas is the first to be classified as a prisoner of conscience since the end of the communist insurgency three decades ago." Nor does "Alex Bamford, an adviser to the Thai arm of the agency "know why others detained under the lese majeste law were not classified as prisoners of conscience."
Bamford is cited as saying: "It's a question I ask Amnesty [International] as well," and adding that some at AI "believe that actions against the lese majeste law might be 'counterproductive'. However, he did not elaborate." Readers can easily use PPT's search function to get these opinions from Benjamin Zawacki at AI.
Pravit's report points to the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, mentioned in AI's report but not a prisoner of conscience for AI.
So what is AI doing nominating one out of what may be hundreds of cases of people accused, charged and imprisoned on lese majeste charges? What makes Wipas' case so significant? Does Wipas know he's now in this position?
PPT is not clear on any of this. We looked at AI's website and found this on Thailand from the 2011 Annual Report: "Thailand, a country which boasts a more open media environment than most of its neighbours in Southeast Asia, witnessed greater government restrictions on free speech in the face of serious political unrest and street violence. As large, sometimes violent, protests broke out in Bangkok, the government imposed a state of emergency and cracked down on thousands of websites, shutting down tens of thousands of sites on grounds that they threatened national security or had somehow insulted the monarchy in violation of the country's harsh lese-majesty laws."
The country report for Thailand has more details and found this: "On 29 April, businessman Wipas Raksakulthai was arrested for forwarding a message on the social networking site, Facebook, which allegedly violated the lèse majesté law. A prisoner of conscience, he was refused bail and at the end of the year [2010] remained in detention awaiting a trial date."
AI's Thailand report is curious in that it only mentions cases related to the computer crimes laws and lese majeste is a kind of passing reference related to these. Okay, the focus of its report is internet-based media, but this seems like there is a huge blind spot, especially as many of the other cases of lese majeste are related to media and the internet-based dissemination of information. It seems to PPT that AI remains in a self-induced and politicized muddle on lese majeste.
No comments:
Post a Comment