U.N. agency visits lese majeste detainees

As the attached letter indicates, the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights has visited seven lese majeste detainees.

The officers visited Darunee Charnchoensilpakul for an hour on 8 May 2013, and Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, Thanthawut Thaweewarodomkul, Wanchai Saetan, Surachai Danwattananusorn, Yuttapoom Martnork (this is the only name not appearing in PPT’s lists) and Akechai Hongkangwarn, also for an hour.

The OHCHR states that it heard from all the prisoners and will relay issues to the government and will continue to encourage the Thai government to ensure that the lese majeste law meets the country’s international human rights obligations.

The OHCHR letter to 112 Family Network dated 21 May 2013 can be downloaded here.

Regularizing restrictions on free speech

As many readers will know, the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) is a non-governmental organization with general consultative status at the U.N.’s Human Rights Council. It makes regular reports to the HRC on Thailand. Find PPT’s earlier posts on these reports here.

Below,we reproduce the latest report by the ALRC:

A written statement submitted by

THAILAND: The regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 22, 2013

ALRC-CWS-23-05-2013

Language(s): English only

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Twenty-third session, Agenda Item 3, General Debate

1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to bring the regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand to the attention of the Human Rights Council. This statement is the sixth on this topic that the ALRC has submitted to the Council since May 2011. During the seventeenth session of the Council in May 2011, the ALRC highlighted the rise in the legal and unofficial use of Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) to constrict freedom of expression and intimidate citizens critical of the monarchy (A/HRC/17/NGO/27). During the nineteenth session in February 2012, the ALRC detailed some of the threats faced both by those who have expressed critical views of the monarchy, both legal and extralegal, as well as those who have expressed concern about these threats (A/HRC/19/NGO/55). During the twentieth session in June 2012, the ALRC raised concerns about the weak evidentiary basis of convictions made under Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/37) and the concerning conditions surrounding the death in prison custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul on 8 May 2012, then serving a 20-year sentence for four alleged violations of Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/38). During the twenty-second session in March 2013, the ALRC highlighted the January 2013 conviction under Article 112 of human rights defender and labour rights activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (A/HRC/22/NGO/44).

2. In the prior five statements, the ALRC has been concerned with the urgency of the threats posed by the constriction of freedom of expression. Particularly in the context of the 19 September 2006 coup and the violent clashes between state security forces and citizens in April-May 2010, the protection of fundamental human rights is necessary to foster the rule of law and democratization. The ALRC is again raising the issue of freedom of expression with the Council because the constriction of speech in the name of protecting the monarchy and national security has now become regularized. This is no longer an unusual breach of human rights, but one that has become constitutive of political and social life in Thailand. The entrenchment of the violation of freedom of expression threatens to normalize an additional series of human rights violations, such as the routine denial of bail to individuals awaiting trial and appeal, the provision of substandard medical care in prisons, and the use of secrecy to restrict the openness of trials and public information about ongoing cases.

3. Article 112 criminalizes criticism of the monarchy and mandates that, “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” The 2007 CCA, which was promulgated as part of Thailand’s compliance as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, has been used to target web editors and websites identified as critical of the monarchy or dissident in other ways. The CCA provides for penalties of up to five years per count in cases which are judged to have involved the dissemination or hosting of information deemed threatening to national security, of which the institution of the monarchy is identified as a key part. While Article 112 law has been part of the Criminal Code since the last major revision in 1957, available statistics suggest that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints filed since the 19 September 2006 coup; how often these complaints become formal charges and lead to prosecutions is information that the Government of Thailand has failed to provide up to this point. The CCA has often been used in combination with Article 112 in the four years since its promulgation; similar to the use of Article 112, complete usage information has not been made available by the Government of Thailand. This failure to provide information itself raises many unanswered questions about the use of both laws to diminish space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy and creation of uncertainty.

4. At present, there are 6 persons known to be serving prison terms for alleged violations of Article 112 and/or the CCA and 1 person behind bars while awaiting trial.

a. Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to 55 minutes of speech and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 28 August 2009. Following examination of her case by the Constitutional Court, her sentenced was reduced to 15 years in December 2011.

b. Wanchai Sae Tan was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to leaflets he made and distributed and sentenced to 15 years in prison on 26 February 2010.

c. Thanthawut Taweewarodomkul was convicted of violations of Article 112 and the CCA related to his work maintaining the NorPorChorUSA website and sentenced to 13 years in prison on 15 March 2011.

d. Surachai Sae Dan (Danwattananusorn) was convicted of a series of violations of Article 112 related to political speeches he made and sentenced to a total of 12.5 years in prison in a series of cases in 2012.

e. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to his work in editing and publishing Voice of Taksin magazine, which was deemed to include two anti-monarchy articles (written by someone else) and sentenced to a total of 11 years in prison on 23 January 2013 (10 years on Article 112-related charges and 1 year related to a prior case).

f. Ekachai Hongkangwan was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to selling VCDs of an ABC Australia documentary and copies of WikiLeaks material and sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in prison on 28 March 2013.

g. Yutthapoom (last name withheld) has been held in the Bangkok Remand Prison since 19 September 2012 on charges of violating Article 112.

5. While there have been several other convictions in recent years, these 7 cases stand out because the individuals involved have repeatedly been denied bail, always on the grounds that their crimes are too grave a threat to national security to permit even temporary release. Although some individuals were granted bail while awaiting trial, upon conviction they were all denied bail, despite ongoing processes of appeal. This is in contravention to Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party, which specifies: “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.” Bail is routinely granted during trials and after conviction while awaiting appeal in cases of committing violent crimes in Thailand, but routinely denied for cases involving freedom of speech.

6. As highlighted by the May 2012 death in custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul, who was then serving a 20-year sentence for allegedly sending 4 anti-monarchy SMS messages, which the ALRC commented on in a June 2012 submission to the Council (A/HRC/20/NGO/38), the prison healthcare system in Thailand falls well beneath the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. As part of the testimony provided during the April 2013 postmortem inquest hearings into Amphon’s death in custody, as reported by Prachatai, Amphon reported to fellow prisoners that when he went to seek treatment at the prison hospital, physicians made contemptuous comments about his alleged defamation of the monarchy. This goes far beyond institutional failure to meet minimum standards and indicates that physicians have become partial and may not provide an equal level of care to all prisoners.

7. Prosecutions under Article 112 and the CCA are surrounded by several different kinds of secrecy. The first is that the total number of charges and prosecutions under these two measures has not been made public by the Government of Thailand. The reason that the ALRC noted above in the list of current prisoners above that these are the known cases of individuals currently serving prison sentences or under detention while awaiting trial is that in the annual U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Thailand, released in late April 2013, they reported that the number of persons detained or imprisoned under laws related to lèse majesté was between 7 and 18. Those 7 individuals listed above are those who are known to be behind bars, but the U.S. State Department report indicates there may be an additional 11 individuals being held. The failure of the Government of Thailand to provide precise information to the public itself raises many unanswered questions about the use of the laws to diminish space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy. In addition, in at least two cases, those of Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul and Wanchai Sae Tan, the trials were held in camera and were closed to the public on the basis that the dissemination of the testimony may constitute a threat to national security. In a 2011 comment, the Constitutional Court argued that there was no contradiction between a secret trial and the protection of rights and liberties as provided for in the 2007 Constitution. Taken together, these two forms of secrecy create uncertainty about what consequences citizens may face for the basic exercise of human rights and makes political participation filled with possible danger.

8. The ALRC is very concerned about the effects of the regularization of the constriction of freedom of expression on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Thailand. The danger of this regularization is that it naturalizes violations of rights and causes them to appear normal and justified. The ALRC would like to remind the Government of Thailand that under Article 19 of the ICCPR, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are only permissible under two circumstances: “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” and “for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” While measure 112 is classified as a crime against national security within the Criminal Code of Thailand, and this is frequently cited by the Government of Thailand when faced with the criticism that the measure is in tension with the ICCPR, to date a clear explanation of the precise logic for categorizing the measure as such has not been provided. Without an adequate explanation being provided, the constriction of freedom of expression is arbitrary.

9. In view of the above, the Asian Legal Resource Center calls on the UN Human Rights Council to:

a. Call on the Government of Thailand to release all those convicted or facing charges under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.

b. Demand that the Government of Thailand revoke Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.

c. Demand that the Government of Thailand provide an accounting of how they will improve the provisions for healthcare in prison and ensure that all prisoners receive the same treatment, without regard for the alleged crimes that they have committed.

d. Urge the Government of Thailand to allow and support the full exercise of freedom of expression and political freedom, consistent with the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is a signatory, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party.

e. Request the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression to continue ongoing monitoring and research about the brought situation of constriction of rights and individual cases in Thailand; and, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to continue to monitor and report on those cases of persons arbitrarily detained under Article 112.

Visiting lese majeste prisoners

Some time ago PPT received several emails asking us about visiting those held for lese majeste offenses. We are pleased to say  that a guide is now available in English.

For those interested in this information, and seeing and encouraging these political prisoners, visit this Facebook page.

 

 

Somyos and his jailing

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), and Media Defence – Southeast Asia (MD-SEA) have filed a legal brief in support of the appeal by Somyos Phruksakasemsuk.

They note the courts’ continuing refusal to grant bail pending his trial and appeal.

PPT reproduces the announcement below:

On 23 January 2013, Somyot was convicted by the trial court to ten years’ imprisonment for two violations of Thailand’s lese-majeste law (Article 112 of the Criminal Code), which prohibits defamation of and insult to the monarchy. As editor of the Voice of Taksin (“Voice of the Oppressed”) magazine, Somyot is accused of allowing publication of two articles that were deemed to be “insulting” to the monarchy. In April, Somyot filed an appeal against the decision of the first instance court and also filed his 14th request for bail. The appeals court rejected Somyot’s bail request due to the “severity of his crime”, which had “affected the morality and feelings of the people”.

This submission by FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA suggests that the grounds on which the court refused bail to Somyot do not comply with Thailand’s obligations under international law. It requires that, in light of our fundamental right to liberty, denial of provisional release can only be justified if the court is able to demonstrate meaningfully that it is necessary to prevent an actual threat to public security or the judicial process and that no alternatives to detention are possible. FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA additionally opine that Somyot’s freedom should be granted because his detention results from the exercise of the rights and freedoms of expression.

FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA urge the courts to take Thailand’s obligations under international law into consideration in their review of Somyot’s appeal and to grant Somyot bail.

The briefs can be accessed in Thai and English (clicking on either link downloads a PDF).

Remembering Ampol

The 10th of May was the anniversary of the death in custody of lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul. PPT has the whole sorry tale of royalist vindictiveness against an old man they believed had insulted the queen here.

As many readers will know, Ampol  should never have been in jail and should certainly not have died there.

At Khao Sod it is reported that many activists marked Ampol’s sad passing and observes that his wife, Rosmalin, “called for immediate release of other political prisoners.” She specifically mentioned those held for lese majeste.

Ms. Rosmalin added that she is now “quite numb to the deep pain she feels because she needs to act as a model for the grandchildren so that they can see that she is still strong.”

Ampol’s  lawyer restated that “there is no evidence of Mr. Ampon ever sent the offensive SMS.”

Academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul spoke of how case strongly moved him, stating: “any person with common sense can clearly see that Ah Kong was an innocent victim.” He added that the harsh treatment he received – no bail, 20 year sentence – as absurd: “Anyone with the slightest bit of humanity would not have come to this judgment since there was no evidence of Ah Kong’s guilt at all…”.

He also criticized “self-proclaimed civil rights groups” that lacked any shred of “bravery” in failing to “protest the ruling, even though they all believed Ah Kong was not guilty.”

Somsak says his own lese majeste case has “reached the proscecutor.”

It is a sad anniversary, yet Ampol’s case serves as a reminder of the feudal nature of the lese majeste law.

Lese majeste and Yingluck

In a translation posted at the Red Shirts blog, lese majeste prisoner Somyos Prueksakasemsuk has written to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. We reproduce that translation here, from a letter dated 9 April 2013:

9 April 2013

To: PM Yingluck Shinawatra

Thai people should be pleased that the Pheu Thai lead government is fulfilling its campaign promises with the rice pledging scheme and the increasing of the minimum wage to 300 baht per day in every province. These changes are improving the lives of the people. The most exciting project is the construction of double track railway and the high speed train that will run throughout the whole country. These infrastructures can only reshape and increase our economy competitiveness through the advancement of transportation technology.

But we should not forget that the appreciation for the current elected government comes with the price of bloodshed and freedom. It is unfortunate that political prisoners are being incarcerated like animals. This ill-fated circumstance is preventing us from welcoming the success of this government and the true democracy that we have fought for.

Reality is always painful. Members of the Coup Council who tore up the constitution and destroyed Thailand’s democracy, a crime which is punishable by death, received amnesty and their freedom but, because of a judicial conspiracy that has became a double standard in the process, ordinary citizens whose only crime was to stand up against martial law and a military appointed government are locked away without bail.

Granting amnesty will provide justice for the political prisoners. We deserved it because we are fighting for democracy, for peace and the prosperity of the country and we are part of the reconciliation process in the future.

Therefore we urge the government to release all political prisoners through amnesty legislation in all cases where the offender is punished for the struggle of democracy or as a result of political conflict and political rallies. We also ask the government to listen to the proposals made by Mr. Jaturon Chaisnag and Mr. Kanin Boonsuwan which suggest that the government; 1. Grants amnesty to all political prisoners 2. Passes the bill that was drafted by NRLC or Mr. Worachai Hema and 3. Drafts constitutional amendment on the amnesty law.

During the amnesty legislation process, we also urgently ask that the government take serious action to ensure bail for all political prisoners whose case is under appeal or in the supreme court of inquiry, which is their fundamental right under Article 39 to 40 Constitution 2550.

Sincerely yours,

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk

Inquests

Several inquests recent political deaths are continuing. Three recent reports on these caught PPT’s attention.

The first was at Prachatai a few days ago and is a report on the inquest into the death in custody of lese majeste victim Ampol Tangnopakul in May 2012. The inquest began in February 2013. This report recounts evidence provided by fellow lese majeste convict Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul, who provided great support to Ampol when in jail together.

Tanthawut’s testimony included details of overcrowding and work assignments that were beyond Ampol’s capacity as a sick and aged man. For example, he was assigned “to produce 5 kilograms of paper cups or about 2,500 cups each day.” However, he never reached the target.

He also commented on medical facilities and pointed out that the Bangkok Remand Prison has extremely limited medical capacity, with doctors visiting twice a week. Only “20 prisoners are allowed to go to the medical facility, and each prisoner is allowed to go there only once a week.” Ampol told Tanthawut that:

when he went to the medical facility for the first time, the doctors did not diagnose his illness, but gave him painkillers for his stomach pain. Only when he cried out the second time did the doctors examine him, but with some contemptuous remarks about his alleged offences to the monarchy.

His condition worsened and he was eventually sent to the Corrections Hospital on 4 May 2012, and died four days later.

The second report is about a “friendly fire” death of a soldier. Back in 2010, the BBC and other outlets reported a case of a soldier being killed by what seemed like “friendly fire.” The inquest found that “Private Narongrit Sala from the Second Battalion of the Ninth Infantry Division in Kanchanaburi was killed by a high-velocity bullet fired from one of the troops operating in the area [Don Muang]…” on 28 April 2010. A high-velocity bullet hit Narongrit at “his left elbow, travelled through to the skull and destroyed brain tissue…. The court concluded that the bullet was fired by a soldier operating in the area.”

MCOT reports that he “was fatally shot by a high-speed bullet which passed through his upper left eyebrow to the skull…. The bullet was fired from a military weapon.” There seems there was no doubt that Narongrit was killed by “friendly fire” as the inquest was concluded quickly with none of his relatives at the hearing and no “plaintiff and related military officials.”

The third report is of an inquest into the deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram. A senior police officer has testified to the court that “military personnel were acting suspiciously when he and his men investigated Pathumwanaram Temple, where 6 civilians were murdered during the crackdown on Redshirts protest on 19 May 2010.”

Pol. Lt. Col. Sutad Chaiprom explained that

… he and his bomb squad were sent to collect evidences at Pathumwanararm Temple … on the morning after the incident. He said he found a number of automatic rifles at the temple, but they were all clearly army-issued firearms, and the soldiers were already stationed inside the temple when his team arrived.

He provided examples of military interference with his investigation saying that when “his men requested a closer investigation at a pond inside the temple, but they were refused by the military officials.”

The monarchy, freedom and democracy

The US Department of State has released its Human Rights Report for 2012. PPT was alerted to this by a story at the Bangkok Post that referred to this report as “a highly critical report detailing … Thailand’s human rights failings.” It added that: “Observers noted this year’s report was more rounded and detailed, especially regarding the southern insurgency.”

Indeed, on our first skim of the report, released a week ago, it does seem somewhat better than its somewhat bland and repetitive reports of recent years. PPT has been especially critical of the State Department’s reports for their failure on lese majeste and the existence of political prisoners. Indeed, last year we commented on a:

hopelessly, probably deliberately, deceitful U.S. “human rights” report for Thailand in 2011. If it wasn’t deliberately deceitful, then we imagine that everyone on the Thailand desk at the Department of State and in the Embassy in Bangkok has been lobotomized to the extent that they are deaf, dumb and blind on lese majeste and other political prisoners in Thailand.

This year there is a change. As in previous years, there are useful comments on a range of issues including officials’ impunity, the use of emergency and other special laws and a range of abuses by security forces and local defence volunteers in the south. That list is disturbing reading. As the Post has it:

Security forces, the report said, were guilty of using excessive force, including killing, torturing and otherwise abusing suspects, detainees and prisoners.

PPT wants to highlight some of the report’s comments on politics, monarchy, lese majeste and political prisoners, which we think represents an attempt to break out of the previous genuflecting to the royalist propagandists and flunkies who have previously shaped American official discourses on Thailand. We will just quote and highlight (with some of the headings added by us):

Red shirts: According to an advocacy group, as of December, 16 protesters jailed after the 2010 United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD or “Red Shirts”) protests remained in pretrial detention, charged with protest-related crimes such as rioting and arson. Lawyers affiliated with the UDD movement continued to pursue bail for these remaining detainees held in several provinces. According to a UDD-affiliated information center, of the 1,857 arrests related to the 2010 protests, authorities prosecuted 1,664 individuals as of December, and the courts dismissed 91 cases, sentenced 850 individuals to probation and/or fines, and imprisoned 220 for less than one year, 63 for one to three years, 10 for three to five years, 10 for five to 10 years, and 27 for more than 10 years. According to the Department of Special Investigations, of the 270 protest-related cases under its jurisdiction, it completed 216 investigations as of December, and trials in 62 cases continued at year’s end.

Lese majeste: A July 10 royal pardon allowed the release of dual-national Joe Gordon (also known as Lerpong Wichaikhammat), who was sentenced in December 2011 to two and one-half years’ in prison for lese-majeste offenses. On August 16, a mass pardon in honor of the birthdays of the crown prince (July 28) and the queen (August 12) led to the release of approximately 30,000 prisoners. On August 24, in honor of the queen’s birthday, Suchart Narkbangsai and Suriyan Kokpuai, who were both serving three-year sentences for lese-majeste convictions, received royal pardons and were released.

PPT isn’t quite sure how releasing lese majeste convicts a bit early is an “honor” for the anyone. Thailand’s royals should be ashamed – not honored – that this feudal law remains in place; they could easily have it done away with if they had sufficient honor.

Trials: While most trials are public, the court may order a closed trial, particularly in cases involving national security, the royal family, children, or sexual abuse.

PPT can’t help but wonder why the State Department didn’t point out that closing courts infringes Section 40 of the current constitution. In other words, a court may close its proceedings but in doing so is infringing Thailand’s basic law.

Political Prisoners and Detainees: There were no government reports of political prisoners or detainees; however, sources estimated that seven to 18 persons remained detained under lese-majeste laws that outlaw criticism of the monarchy…. Some of those cases involved persons exercising their rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

While this statement is something of a step forward for the State Department, it still makes serious errors. For example, the claim that there are no government reports of political prisoners is simply a stupid claim. After all, the government has established a special prison for political prisoners at Laksi. Indeed, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra mentioned political prisoners in a speech this week.

Freedom of Speech and Press: The international and independent media operated freely, except in coverage of matters deemed a threat to national security or offensive to the monarchy…. Journalists generally were free to comment on government activities and institutions without fear of official reprisal. Nonetheless, they occasionally practiced self-censorship, particularly with regard to the monarchy and national security. For example, in April the Thai distributor of The Economist magazine withheld one issue because of a story about lese-majeste prosecutions…. The government imposed some restrictions on access to the Internet and reportedly monitored Internet chat rooms and social media without judicial oversight. Individuals and groups generally engaged in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail, although there were several limitations on content, such as lese majeste, pornography, and gambling…. The RTP Electronic Crime Suppression Division reported receiving 776 computer-related complaints during 2011 that resulted in 442 investigations–a complaint rate markedly greater than the 47 in 2009 or 285 in 2010. Most cases involved alleged defamation, lese majeste, and illegal activity such as gambling and pornography. Separately, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology operated the Cyber Security Operations Center to monitor and block Web sites. According to a report by the NGO iLaw, court orders officially blocked nearly 21,000 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) during the year, 80 percent of which were related to lese majeste. Since passage of the 2007 Computer Crime Act, authorities blocked more than 102,000 URLs, 76 percent related to lese majeste.

From this list it is crystal clear that the major impediment to free speech is the monarchy, lese majeste and national security. Indeed, “national security” is usually defined n terms of the monarchy as well. Can it be said that, apart from the monarchy, Thailand is relatively free? It certainly seems that way.

And finally, this: The constitution provides citizens the right to change their government peacefully through periodic, free, and fair elections based on universal, compulsory suffrage.

How true is this? Yes, there are periodic elections, but there are also periodic military and judicial coups…. More to the point, Section 68 of the constitution effectively makes it illegal to advocate for a republic in Thailand. Again, the monarchy is an obstacle to full democratic freedoms.

Updated: Spooner, Asia Sentinel and HRW

A couple of weeks ago we had a couple of posts (here and here) regarding Andrew Spooner’s short career at Asia Sentinel. One of the reasons he thinks he was shunted by Asia Sentinel was a story he did regarding Brad Adams at Human Rights Watch.

When Asia Sentinel showed Spooner the electronic door, they deleted this story. He has now re-posted it at his Asia Provocateur blog.

The post refers to a 2011 appearance by Adams at a meeting held in the UK Parliament. The post includes a video of Adams speaking at the parliament on arson in Bangkok in May 2010. Spooner questions Adams and HRW on their claims in 2011.

Update: A reader points out that former lese majeste political prisoner Joe Gordon has also posted a link to another Spooner post on HRW that caries a specific warning about HRW. Read Joe’s comment here and the Asia Provocateur article he refers to here.

One more day is too much!

We thought readers might be interested in the May Day poster being circulated in solidarity with those political prisoners incarcerated for the political crime of lese majeste. Highquality versions are here and we got our version from here.