FACTback – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (Backup)

Britain’s publishers are silenced by Islamist bullies

Ed West

Telegraph: May 18, 2009

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edwest/blog/2009/05/18/britains_publishers_are_silenced_by_islamist_bullies

Last October the London home of Gibson Square publisher Martin Rynja was firebombed because they were planning to publish Sherry Jones’s historical novel about the chap the BBC calls simply “the Prophet”.

Guess what? The Jewel of Medina will not be published in Britain. The book is now effectively banned in the country of Tom Paine and George Orwell, not by Government order but by religious bullies. Jewel has already come out in seven other countries, including Denmark and Serbia, but Britain is considered too dangerous for anyone who offends Islam.

So even though Somali minicab driver Abbas Taj and two others have been convicted of the crime, they have still won, through intimidation.

Author Sherry Jones writes on her blog:

“As anyone who has read The Jewel of Medina knows, it does not insult Islam – a fact that enrages Islamophobes enough to have one radio talk-show host calling me a ‘wack job,’ among other flattering names.

“Whether or not my book is respectful, however, has little to do with the real issue here. For, although the extremists lost in court, they have apparently won where it really counts – in the UK’s book stores.

“After Gibson Square’s publisher announced, a couple of weeks after the arson attempt, that he was indefinitely postponing publication of The Jewel of Medina – following in the footsteps of Random House in the U.S. – I awarded world English publication rights to Beaufort Books, my U.S. publishing house whose publisher and small staff have supported my book unwaveringly, despite hate male, lawsuit threats, and Mr. Choudary’s own assertion that not only I, but my publishers, might deserve to die.

“Beaufort publisher Eric Kampmann and associate publisher Margot Atwell headed to the London Book Fair in April with a full display of The Jewel of Medina and confidence that they would find the right distributor to supply stores in the U.K. with the book. But – no. Everyone, it seems, is too afraid.

“Forget the fact that The Jewel of Medina has been published in seven countries, including Denmark, with no threats or repercussions of any kind. Well – OK. In Serbia a conservative mufti protested the book two days after its release last August and issued threats grave enough to cause my publisher there to withdraw it from publication. But that mufti hadn’t read The Jewel of Medina, because he merely repeated false rumors that the book contains ‘brutal acts of pornography’.

“The people of Serbia spoke loudly and clearly against censorship. So did the press, and other groups including moderate Muslims. Beobook re-released the sold-out The Jewel of Medina one month after it discontinued publication, and it rocketed to the top of the country’s best-seller lists, where it remained for at least four months. It’s still selling so well that Aleksandar Jasic anticipates a fifth printing in June.

“What made the difference in Serbia? The memory of facist dictator Slobodan Milosevic apparently remains fresh in the public consciousness. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom: ‘We believe that this kind of censorship is very dangerous – the next step is that any crazy group in the world can threat to kill someone if the book/article/picture is published,’ an editor at the Serbian daily newspaper Blic said to me.

“Despite the efforts of extremist groups, The Jewel of Medina has not been banned in the UK. Nor should it be, in spite of the country’s crackdown on those seen as an insult to Islam. The book isn’t insulting. I had hoped it would be a bridge-builder between non-Muslims and Muslims — something it appears the UK could really use right now.

“These three Muslim thugs who tried to torch the British people’s right to read a book would be easy to shrug off as isolated cases, as simple bullies. The fact is, though, that soon after that attack, extremist groups in the UK exerted an organized effort to keep The Jewel of Medina out of British bookstores. Luke Johnson, chariman of Borders UK, wrote in the Financial Times online that his company had received threats that it would ‘suffer’ if Borders UK sold The Jewel of Medina.

“’Surely, in a civilised society, we cannot allow thuggish behaviour to intimidate us. Otherwise we could all end up being tyrannised by violent and vocal minorities, cowed into submission in pursuit of a comfortable life. How then would humanity and invention progress?’ Mr. Johnson wrote.

The implication is that, given the opportunity, Borders UK would, indeed, sell The Jewel of Medina. Unfortunately, it seems, they won’t have the chance in the near future. The ‘thugs’ have accomplished their task – and freedom of speech, the first freedom to go when fascism gets a foothold, has taken a blow in the western world.”

How to unblock your website in Thailand

[Note: The ICT ministry has just moved offices on May 11. All of these phone numbers have changed. We shall keep the numbers in this article updated as we verify them. Please check back.]

We have never before been privy to the mechanism of censorship in Thailand. If your website is blocked, here are some steps to follow.

Chances are, your website has been blocked by order of the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crimes Centre. First contact HTCC’s chief, Yanaphon Yungyuen 02-913-6699 <htcc@police.go.th> and <yanaphon@dsi.go.th>. Your primary questions here are when and why your site was blocked.

The order to block a website then passes to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s IT Regulation Bureau. The Bureau’s chief is Aree Jivorarak 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. Aree actually sends the blocklists to the ISPs.

Under the requirements of the Computer Crimes Act 2007, there must be a court order to block a website, unless government has declared martial law or is under the provisions of an emergency decree issued by the prime minister. Therefore, you may request a copy of this court order and the reasons for blocking. Court orders must be public. Be polite but firm. Remember, these are civil servants and you pay for their kids’ school and wife’s hair perm–you are the boss here.

If Khun Aree is unresponsive, his superior is Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai <angsumal@mictmail.go.th>

02-505-0588. If the deputy permanent secretary does not offer you satisfaction, his superior at MICT is Su Lo-utai, Permanent Secretary 02-568-2521 <sue.l@mict.mail.go.th>. If you still have no success with the permanent secretary, you must appeal directly to the ICT Minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee <bowbo43@gmail.com> tel. 02-505-8888, 02-505-7370

The Ministry also has a handy complaint form for you to fill out: http://www.mict.go.th/main.php?filename=index_complaint

Internet censorship is only made possible with the cooperation of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs. Your business is important to your ISP. Remember that many of the ISPs are publicly traded companies on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET); some are even subsidiaries of foreign companies trading on international stock exchanges. They will be inclined toward not offending their shareholders if you start to make a fuss. Use this as leverage when dealing with them. You only need buy a single share to be a shareholder; this is your ticket to ISPs’ annual general meetings to fight censorship policy. Private companies are also more easily sued for damages than government.

Always talk to the top person, someone who is capable of making decisions. CEOs and executive vice-presidents. Hassling office workers makes them feel bad because they can’t help, are afraid of losing their jobs, and a waste of your time. you pay these people’s salaries with your custom so remember who is in charge. Use these phone calls for patient education and consciousness-raising.

You will notice that some of the ISP censors are mobile telephone services, which provide access to GPRS and WiFi. Mobile phone companies are even more responsive than ISPs to losing your business.

Every ISP also has a helpdesk or other phone contact for technical support. Open a complaint with them, too. If your ISP is a university or other academic institution, call its computer centre and talk to the administrators.

Follows a list of the contacts MICT uses at each ISP to effect blocking. Your ISP should have a copy of the court order blocking your website to ensure it is acting legally, know the reasons for the block, and be able to tell you the exact date and time of MICT’s order and the precise date and time the ISP blocked.

101 Global Co. Ltd. <support@101g.com>;

Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband] <noc@adc.co.th>, <ktnrg@adc.co.th>, <nattapong@adc.co.th>, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>;

Advanced Info Service [AIS] <naruepoi@ais.co.th>, <krits@ais.co.th>;

Alltelecom Co. <cindy@alltelecom.co.th>, <BIOICE1981@hotmail.com>, <nocworldweb@hotmail.com>;

ANET Internet <psanti@anet.net.th>, <system@anet.net.th>, <uaichai@anet.net.th>, <premchai@anet.net.th>;

BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet] <apinan_k@beenets.com>;

CAT Telecom (CAT Public Co. Ltd., CAT Internet Data Center) “kittipong m” <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, <admin-thix@cat.net.th>, <schaka@cat.net.th>, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, <noc@cat.net.th>, <bkriengsak@cat.net.th>, <suchok@cat.net.th>, <suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th>, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, <support@idc.cattelecom.com>;

CS Loxinfo <webblacklist@csloxinfo.net>, <phup@csloxinfo.net>;

Far East Internet Co. Ltd. <admin@fareast.net.th>, <surasak@fareast.net.th>;

Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.] <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>;

Infonet Thailand <sarayuth@infonetthailand.com>;

Internet Thailand <chakrit@inet.co.th>, <noc@inet.co.th>;

Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?] <noc@uni.net.th>;

ISP-Thailand (Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd.) <thaweesak@isp-thailand.com>, <support@isp-thailand.com>, <csupport@isp-thailand.com>, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, <helpdesk@isp-thailand.com>, <chatree@isp-thailand.com>, <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM>;

IT.co.th <kung@it.co.th>;

Jasmine International Net [JI-net] (Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd.) <sathinut@ji-net.com>, <boonma1222@yahoo.com>, <nprattha@jasmine.com>, <noc@ji-net.com>, <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, <tsutee@jasmine.com>, <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, <mubooh@gmail.com>;

Kirz Communications <thana@kirz.com>, <sarayut@kirz.com>;

KSC Commercial Internet <ictcensor@ksc.net>;

Milcom Systems [WLANNet] <patcharabuls@milcom.co.th>, <tomesiam@hotmail.com>;

NTT Communications (Thailand) Co. Ltd. <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, <kalant@ntt.co.th>, <uthai@ntt.co.th>, <jaroonchai@ntt.co.th>;

Otaro Internet [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan] <noc@otaro.com>;

Pacnet Thailand <noc@pacific.net.th>, <noc.th@pacnet.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>;

Proen Internet <noc@proen.co.th>, <suvinit@proen.co.th>, <mars2551@yahoo.com>;

Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel] prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, <se@samart.co.th>;

SIPphone Unlimited Communication <info@sipphone.co.th>;

Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd. (TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway) <boonmak@tot.co.th>, <totnoc@tot.co.th>, <noc@totisp.net>, <blockweb@totisp.net>, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, <noc@totiig.net>;

Total Access [DTAC] <Parinyar@dtac.co.th>;

True Internet ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, Surparsorn Run <Surparsorn_Run@truecorp.co.th>;

TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet] narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, <matisa@ttt.co.th>, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, <ict@tttmaxnet.com>;

Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd. <info@uploadtoday.com>,

World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai] <support@internetthai.com>;

Be patient–jai yen yen! But be persistent. Expect this process to take some time.

FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

http://facthai.wordpress.com

Follows my email to MICT below, updates in brackets. FACT readers will find my questions and suggestions eminently sensible, reasonable and non-confrontational. MICT is not the enemy.

What is the enemy is the concept adopted by Thai government that censorship serves the public good. Censorship does not create good citizens, a thinking, questioning public. Quite the opposite.

Censorship tells Thai people “You’re too stupid to look at this. Let us do your thinking for you.”

There can never be real democracy in Thailand under the shadow of government censorship.

———————————————————————————————

Most of my earlier questions have been resolved by the ISPs themselves so there is no need for you to reply to my last email. However, more concerns and questions have come to my attention.

Have you yourself looked at FACT’s website? If so, you can see that our goals are not at odds with MICT’s.

One can readily see that FACT is completely non-partisan and non-political. All we try to do is raise public awareness of censorship issues worldwide and in Thailand but viewed from the Thai context, making things better for everyone in a truly democratic society.

Unlike many Thai websites, FACT has never been anonymous. I am the registered owner of FACT’s website. Accordingly, it would far better serve both citizens and government were MICT to request websites, including mine, to simply remove illegal content first, rather than immediately blocking or, worse, arresting website owners. A lot of these problems could be solved by prompt discussion between government and citizens.

I am scrupulously careful not to host or post illegal content or comments, including lese majeste. However, in two and a half years, I have only had to edit three comments and one post! [Obviously, the problem of illegal opinion is not as severe as government would have us believe!] FACT does not promote censored content but simply defends citizens’ rights to express their opinions.

I can accept that there may be a need for some level of censorship. But Internet censorship always overblocks. The censorship of FACT’s website is a perfect example.

FACT wants to encourage transparency and accountability in the censorship process. Censorship should not be kept secret because, for one thing, this makes censored information far more attractive.

One of FACT’s goals is publication of Thailand’s blocklists of banned websites. Were this to happen, I think initially a lot of people would try to access these sites out of curiosity not out of malice. But that initial curiosity would die down quickly and Thailand would take the moral high ground with transparency in government, a novel concept!

MICT should redirect Internet users trying to access a blocked website to a blockpage telling the user who ordered the blocking, why the site is blocked and containing clear and easy instructions for requesting unblocking, anonymously so citizens don’t feel threatened with repercussions. After all, if MICT thinks it’s doing the right thing, a public service, by censorship, it should be open about it.

FACT’s goal was not merely to have MICT unblock our website. The goal is to understand the whole process of Internet censorship.

I have some pertinent questions regarding Internet censorship in Thailand.

1) Do the block orders always come from the Police High-Tech Crimes Centre or does MICT also compile its own lists?

2) Why do the Police not send the block orders to ISPs themselves but forward them to MICT to send to the ISPs?

3) In fact, why does MICT involve the ISPs at all? Why does MICT not order direct blocking at the international Internet gateways?

4) Are the block emails from MICT to the ISPs, government to private companies, official documents, even though they are sent from free, cloudmail services like Yahoo or Hotmail? Are they secret or confidential? (See 9 below).

5) Does MICT review the block orders from Police before sending them to ISPs to ensure that all sites really contain illegal content? This is a crucial point which MICT should implement. If this were done, FACT’s website would never have been blocked.

6) Will you please tell me the precise dates and times of the recent Emergency Decree? If FACT’s website was blocked under the Decree, MICT did not need to seek a court order under the Computer Crimes Act.

7) Why does MICT not make the court orders public, removing the list of blocked websites, if they desire?

8) May an Internet user contact MICT to inquire if a website is blocked?

9) Lastly, why do Thai government email addresses never function? There was some talk of government banning civil servants using cloud email but almost everyone in government uses Hotmail or Yahoo (even to send out block orders, which is extremely insecure, to say the least!) I think MICT might make it a goal making government computers, servers and email actually work.

I have opposed Internet censorship in Thailand since 1997 when the first such law was proposed by Dr. Charmonman Srisakdi. The proposal was quietly dropped.

[UPDATE: Dr. Charmonman did not come up with this idea on his own. He was advised by an international charity, ECPAT International (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) <http://www.ecpat.net/EI/index.asp>, which raised the spectre of child pornography on the Internet. ECPAT, of course, owes its budget to the public purse and support of governments in many countries.

At this time, there was much media discussion over the trafficking of women and children, underage prostitution and the sale of Thai village girls, particularly in the North, to brothels.

Economist and former senator Mechai Viravaidya, “The Condom King”, singlehandedly and at great personal risk in stratified Thai society, taught AIDS awareness to sex workers and their customers in Thailand.

The practical result was that poor farmers became aware of the dangers to their daughters and the waiting “AIDS explosion” never materialised here.

Dr. Charmonman styles himself the “Father of the Thai Internet”. FACT readers will enjoy his homepages at <http://www.charm.au.edu/index.htm>, especially the photos of his home <http://www.charm.au.edu/PhotoRes/picture.asp>.]

I am making MICT an offer. I would like to consult with MICT officially to develop a process by which Internet users could request unblocking of MICT. I would also be eager to help MICT make the censorship process more equitable and transparent to serve everyone’s best interests.

Please forward me a copy of the email MICT sent to the ISPs to order UNblocking of FACT’s website.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Best wishes,

CJ Hinke

087-976-1880

How Thailand Censors the Internet

No. 72  – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

The details of FACT’s website censorship have finally become clear as Thai ISPs have provided FACT with concrete data, including the email requests from both Royal Thai Police and the ICT Ministry. This is the Thai public’s first real look at the implementation of Internet censorship in Thailand which is usually accomplished by  government-in-secret.

On April 22, 2009 at 16:45:47 from IP address 124.108.115.147 (ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F) email was sent from the Royal Thai Police High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th> to Aree Jivorarak, Chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>. It is certain that a blocklist of banned websites was attached to this email.

On April 23, 2009 06:49:43 Aree forwarded the Police email to 94 ICT contacts at 38 of Thailand’s more than 100 ISPs and mobile telephone providers–CAT Telecom, Pacnet Thailand, ISP-Thailand, Internet Thailand, Advanced Datanetwork Communications [Buddy Broadband], KSC Commercial Internet, True Internet, CS Loxinfo, Telephone Organisation of Thailand [TOT] Public Co. Ltd., Jasmine International Net [JI-net], ANET Internet, Far East Internet Co. Ltd., Milcom Systems [WLANNet], World Internetwork Co. Ltd. [INTERNET Thai], Otaro [you may remember they were the first company to delete the website of Same Sky Books/Fah Diew Kan], 101 Global Co. Ltd., Kirz Communications, TT&T Public Co. Ltd. [Maxnet], Proen Internet, Jasmine International Public Co. Ltd., IT.co.th, Infonet Thailand, Inter University Network [UniNet--are these the people responsible for the censorship at Kasetsart University, Mahidol University and others?], Alltelecom Co., SIPphone Unlimited Communication, TOT ISP, TOT International Gateway, Internet Solution & Service Provider Co. Ltd. [ISP-Thailand], NTT Communications (Thailand) Co., Ltd., BB Broadband Co. Ltd. [Beenet Broadband Internet], CAT Public Co. Ltd., Hutchison CAT Wireless Multimedia Ltd. [formerly Tawan Mobile Telephone Co.], Upload Today, True Corporation Public Co. Ltd., Samart Infonet Co. Ltd. [Samtel], Total Access [DTAC], Advanced Info Service [AIS], CAT Internet Data Center–with a the subject “ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง”  (” Fwd: We send a list of sites that affect security”). The email’s message was ”เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์ ”  (“to ISPs and whom it may concern to take action”) followed by ”หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว” (“Remarks: Forwarded mail attached”) which is obviously the original Police email. (Full details below.) This message may well have been truncated before it was sent to FACT. Why did Aree send this email before seven a.m.? To take advantage of the government’s Emergency Decree?

Although FACT was not made privy to the ICT Ministry’s blocklist itself, as FACT’s website started to be blocked by some ISPs around noon April 25, 2009 and diverted to MICT’s blockpage at http://w3.mict.go.th, it is safe to assume we were on it!

Further information from another ISP states that FACT’s website was included on the list of 71-plus alleged “Red-shirt” websites blocked.

Of course, FACT is not a Red-shirt (nor any-shirt) front nor do we play partisan politics. One can readily see how easily any website can be swept up by government paranoia. This is the first time FACT’s website has been blocked since our inception on November 15, 2006. We are proud to join the ranks of our colleagues at Midnight University, Sept19,org, Same Sky and Prachatai; we wear our censorship as a badge of honour.

FACT will defend anyone censored in Thailand because the public has a basic human right to freedom of information. We will continue to expose secret censorship in Thailand and provide circumvention strategies and software to enable Internet users to ignore the censorship.

When these 71-plus websites were unblocked by MICT on April 26, why was FACT not included in the list? FACT was finally unblocked by at least one ISP by request of MICT at 01:29 on April 28, 2009. We have yet to receive of copy of MICT’s email to ISPs or order FACT unblocked but we know there to be one.

The email exchange also raises further interesting questions. Who surfs the Internet looking for illegal content? Does Internet censorship always start with the Police or are there censors in other agencies such as the ICT ministry and Ministry of Culture? How many people are employed to censor?

This gives a real glimpse into the shadowy, clandestine world of censorship in Thailand. And it shows that F/freedom is under police scrutiny in Thailand.

Nothing has changed at Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT). We didn’t change, edit, alter or deleted any information, postings or comments on our website before, during or after MICT’s censorship.

So why did they censor FACT in the first place and why did they unblock us so rapidly?

The Prime Minister’s Emergency Decree was in effect April 12 – April 23, so it would appear that legally MICT was not required to seek a court order for blocking under the provisions of the Computer Crimes Act 2007 as normal laws were suspended. For those FACT supporters who were hoping FACT would be the first to challenge MICT in court over Internet censorship, it appears MICT acted legally. We’re saving that fight for next time!

The moral of this story: FIGHT BACK! Take back the power! Freedom NOW!

This has been an interesting and valuable exercise because now we know who the censors are and how they operate. If your website in blocked, notify FACT, call all media you can think of (FACT will help with this) and get in touch with MICT at 02-505-6213 <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th> to request immediate unblocking.

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

http://facthai.wordpress.com

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: aree jivorarak <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>

To: kittipong m <kittipong.m@cattelecom.com>, admin-thix@cat.net.th, schaka@cat.net.th, varin c <varin.c@cattelecom.com>, noc@pacific.net.th, thaweesak@isp-thailand.com, support@isp-thailand.com, csupport@isp-thailand.com, noc@adc.co.th, ktnrg@adc.co.th, nattapong@adc.co.th, top kab <top.kab@hotmail.com>, noc@cat.net.th, noc th <noc.th@pacnet.com>, chakrit@inet.co.th, noc@inet.co.th, ictcensor@ksc.net, ictcensor@trueinternet.co.th, webblacklist@csloxinfo.net, network@trueinternet.co.th, watanyu chu <watanyu_chu@trueinternet.co.th>, boonmak@tot.co.th, sathinut@ji-net.com, boonma1222@yahoo.com, nprattha@jasmine.com, noc@ji-net.com, psanti@anet.net.th, system@anet.net.th, admin@fareast.net.th, surasak@fareast.net.th, patcharabuls@milcom.co.th, tomesiam@hotmail.com, support@internetthai.com, noc@otaro.com, support@101g.com, thana@kirz.com, narits ss <narits_ss@ttt.co.th>, ekkarachu ss <ekkarachu_ss@ttt.co.th>, noc@proen.co.th, taewa k <taewa.k@jasmine.com>, kung@it.co.th, sarayuth@infonetthailand.com, noc@uni.net.th, cindy@alltelecom.co.th, BIOICE1981@hotmail.com, nocworldweb@hotmail.com, info@sipphone.co.th, noc@totisp.net, blockweb@totisp.net, sittiraj tot <sittiraj.tot@gmail.com>, neeyada sirisampandh <neeyada.sirisampandh@pacnet.com>, duangjai s <duangjai.s@jasmine.com>, noc@totiig.net, bkriengsak@cat.net.th, chaiwat@isp-thailand.com, admin issp <admin_issp@isp-thailand.com>, surachaiji ss <surachaiji_ss@ttt.co.th>, matisa@ttt.co.th, issn ss <issn_ss@ttt.co.th>, totnoc@tot.co.th, sarayut@kirz.com, channira no <channira.no@ntt.co.th>, apinan k <apinan_k@beenets.com>, suchok@cat.net.th, suchok@bulbul.cat.net.th, helpdesk@isp-thailand.com, suttiporn y <suttiporn.y@cattelecom.com>, wasan s <wasan.s@cattelecom.com>, chatree@isp-thailand.com, sariya s <sariya.s@hcwml.com>, rommuk p <rommuk.p@hcwml.com>, jirawan c <jirawan.c@jasmine.com>, info@uploadtoday.com, Surparsorn Run <EAK@ISP-THAILAND.COM, ict@tttmaxnet.com, Nongluck p <Nongluck.p@jasmine.com>, prasitchai v <prasitchai.v@samtel.samartcorp.com>, se@samart.co.th, tsutee@jasmine.com, suvinit@proen.co.th, mars2551@yahoo.com, kalant@ntt.co.th, uthai@ntt.co.th, jaroonchai@ntt.co.th, uaichai@anet.net.th, Parinyar@dtac.co.th, uraiporn s <uraiporn.s@jasmine.com>, mubooh@gmail.com, naruepoi@ais.co.th, krits@ais.co.th, premchai@anet.net.th, support@idc.cattelecom.com, phup@csloxinfo.net, aree mict <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>

Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:49:43 +0700 (ICT)

Subject: ส่งต่อ: ขอส่งรายชื่อเว็บไซต์ที่มีผลกระทบต่อความมั่นคง

เรียนผู้ isp และผู้เกี่ยวข้อง เพื่อโปรดดำเนินการ

อารีย์ จิวรรักษ์

หมายเหตุ: แนบจดหมายที่จะส่งต่อแล้ว

______________________________________________

Details of original Royal Thai Police email to MICT:

X-Apparently-To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th via 124.108.115.147; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800

X-YahooFilteredBulk: 203.144.222.214

X-YMailISG: fp65WQ0WLDvYG3YSo55j2geZUpCKkKvyZloXeOzMEj3eOtRsh2QOnvrJ0j03CBU6aDgqLBis88fT1JETW52gDaisZrdSGx.nUGGanUZ1BE.YX5VGp.dPxT0DnHrzdyOrhfQyznmlWcnZScV2Nnjg0N8ZBozwFbviCjUQAbwDFJ2M9BPOGOzRNSwdvfIALCGObg2ZeRFQEsa9kx7mxqZj1.6pHKnojTI6Fbp6fgAFbY1bHhpJ8gXwGdTPZJO55GShFoGsTflsrnkF9h5wew3E0K1LeL5w7_h_BbTCx3gmNLWn9Y0HTtJtJ9_dRrnG7d5OaFGTnHKO8QXZ9jgSsVyq_1lRp6Cx13VKlQ0gVnyPa2txJsijkfBVcbJFIdC0ac4c9N9Vb0pmzodMPmpFM2h22cLii1TEPn53xR1ACEZ0Ndkg_lw6qpUgEt1NuDsqcgxsZ0PKAB7AU2I_O2zyGcpUQ3Y.4xkca1PmyiUTg8t0CftrR6.rymSSof8e4vYmhdwxKpoDcxgVNXmFWtdQ5YF_zHyi4ygx

X-Originating-IP: [203.144.222.214]

Authentication-Results: mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com  from=police.go.th; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=police.go.th; dkim=neutral (no  sig)

Received: from 203.144.222.214  (EHLO mail.asianet.co.th) (203.144.222.214)

by mta108.mail.sg1.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:47 +0800

Received: from irgb9.truemail.co.th ([203.144.173.225])

(envelope-sender <htcc@police.go.th>)

by mail5.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; 22 Apr 2009 15:45:44 +0700

X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true

X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggUAOt17kk6YSut/2dsb2JhbAATgTyTToI4lnukZIN2Bg

X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i=”4.40,229,1238950800″;

d=”scan’208″;a=”449055345″

Received: from mail.police.go.th (HELO police.sran.net) ([58.97.43.173])

by irp4.truemail.co.th with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2009 15:37:50 +0700

Received: from localhost (pmail.police.go.th [127.0.0.1])

by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FD7274C64F

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:43 +0700 (ICT)

X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at

X-Spam-Score: -0.952

X-Spam-Level:

X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.952 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6

tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599,

DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2, MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME=0.224,

SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE=1.723, URIBL_PH_SURBL=2.8]

Received: from police.sran.net ([127.0.0.1])

by localhost (police.sran.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)

with ESMTP id fH3fy0iY1wyj for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>;

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

Received: from police.sran.net (unknown [192.168.1.2])

by police.sran.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC1D274C64B

for <aree.mict@yahoo.co.th>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:46:39 +0700 (ICT)

From: High-Tech Crime Center <htcc@police.go.th>

To: aree.mict@yahoo.co.th

Subject: =?utf-8?B?4LiC4Lit4Liq4LmI4LiH4Lij4Liy4Lii4LiK4Li34LmI?=

=?utf-8?B?4Lit4LmA4Lin4LmH4Lia4LmE4LiL4LiV4LmM4LiX4Li1?=

=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lih4Li14Lic4Lil4LiB4Lij4Liw4LiX4Lia4LiV?=

=?utf-8?B?4LmI4Lit4LiE4Lin4Liy4Lih4Lih4Lix4LmI4LiZ4LiE4LiH?=

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

X-Originating-IP: [127.0.0.1]

Content-Length: 1516

FACT blocked in Cambodia!

I live in Bangkok and my server is TRUE but currently I am in Ratanakiri, Cambodia, and I tried to access your website but could not and I contacted the Cambodian IP server (CAMSHIN) and they told me that all internet communications from their platform are routed via Thailand and perhaps this is the reason I am denied access.

Kind regards,

Shane Tarr, PhD

FACT blocked in Shanghai!

In answer to recent tlc posting, I cannot access your site in China (Shanghai). There is quite often a problem with wordpress sites here, even in Shanghai.

Professor Nicholas Tapp

Censorship Thai-style: The FACT story

How easy to censor, how difficult to unblock!

Monday, April 27, six calls to the ICT ministry. Permanent Secretary Su Lo-uthai refused to take my call. I found this rather typical, insulting abuse of government power considering I had petitioned him personally on behalf of FACT. Su referred me to Deputy Permanent Secretary Angsuman Sunarai. I was given two numbers for him but he did not work at the first office and the second did not answer. I was given his mobile and it was turned off. Angsuman’s secretary didn’t answer hers. Angsuman was reported to be in Khon Kaen so I was given two numbers at the ministry for his deputy, Aree Jivorarak, chief of MICT’s IT Regulation Bureau. Neither number was answered and so I was given his mobile number. He asked for details by email, copied below:

Further to our telephone conversation, it has been brought to my attention that my website, Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked by around noon Saturday by at least six ISPs.

The URL is http://facthai.wordpress.com. Internet users trying to access the FACT website are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th.

I have been the registered owner of this website since November 15, 2006. We definitely do not host, post or tolerate any illegal content on FACT’s website and we have never been blocked before.

Please investigate this matter thoroughly and report your results to me

immediately.

I hope the results of your investigation are such that you will immediately

unblock my website.

However, if MICT wishes for some reason to continue to block access to FACT, I require your reasons in full for so doing and a copy of the court order authorising you to do so under the requirements of the Computer-Related Crimes Act 2007.

My mobile telephone number is below my name.

Thank you.

Two followup calls to Aree but he could not deal with this matter because he was in a meeting. He gave me a mobile number for Nut Payongsri, IT Specialist. Nut replied he would read my email and get back to me today. Nut called back to advise me that he found FACT’s website accessible from his office using TOT ISP (wouldn’t one expect all MICT computers not to be blocked?) and that FACT’s website does not appear on the blocklist for April 24 but this is the latest blocklist he had available.

He promised to contact his superior, Aree, for copies of the MICT blocklists for April 25, 26, and today and to call another office to check using a different ISP.

MICT, at 2 pm April 27, denied blocking FACT’s website despite the fact that users are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th. This is, of course, simply not credible! Meanwhile, FACT’s website is still inaccessible for me on CAT Hi-net ISP.

All administrative functions for FACT’s WordPress site using https are now blocked. Furthermore, the latest post in which I advised users to switch to HTTPS for access had been modified so the URLs read only HTTP on FACT’s public front page but, on editing, return to HTTPS. Hackers or MICT?

TOT unblocked FACT’s website (“sorry for your inconvenient”) around four PM April 27; CAT unblocked around six PM April 28. (True never implemented blocking.) I have insisted to both ISPs that they provide detailed information on the MICT “request” and the dates of blocking. If this was accomplished during the Emergency Decree, it’s legal; otherwise, MICT needed a court order to comply with the Computer Crimes Act. It is likely smaller ISPs will be slower to unblock.

The very least FACT expects from the ICT minister, Ranongruk Suwanachee, is a formal and public apology. None of the information on FACT has been deleted or altered from the time of blocking to the time of unblocking. This means there never was any illegal content on FACTsite.

This has been a valuable lesson for FACT and shows how completely arbitrary Internet censorship really is, in Thailand and everywhere.

FACT wishes to work with MICT and the ISPs to create a clear and simple procedure for website owners to appeal blocking.

Very few have fought or would fight as hard as I did. Next time, FACT hopes to see them in court!

CJ Hinke

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)

Thailand: Replace Flawed Rights Panel

Unqualified Candidates Were Selected by Secret and Illegal Process

Human Rights Watch: May 13, 2009

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/13/thailand-replace-flawed-rights-panel

Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them. Instead, inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down.

The newly appointed members of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission, whose selection process violated constitutional requirements and international standards, should resign to restore the commission’s credibility, Human Rights Watch said today. Upcoming constitutional reforms should include a new selection process that will ensure independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation.

The seven new members approved by the Senate on May 1, 2009, in a closed session, include one who was a subject of a commission investigation and several with no experience in human rights. Several highly qualified candidates were rejected.

“Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead, inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down.”

On March 11, the secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) invited applications for new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners had expired. The commission received 133 applications. The selection committee, consisting of five senior judges and the president of the parliament, met to consider the applications on April 8. On April 10, the committee sent seven nominees, including one who has been the subject of a commission investigation, to the Senate for consideration and approval. The Senate effectively rubber-stamped the committee’s nominees.

The seven nominees were: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) and a prominent industrialist; Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitutional Court; Visa Penjamano, inspector-general, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubon Ratchathani; and Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

The new commissioners do not come from a diverse range of social backgrounds, nor do any of them represent human rights groups. More important, local human rights groups have protested that the new commissioners lack necessary first-hand experience in protecting and promoting human rights. Vanchai, Parinya, Paibool, and Visa, in particular, have no experience at all and have no public record of demonstrating basic understanding of human rights.

In 2007, Parinya was named in a commission investigation as responsible for causing environmental damage in Thailand’s northeastern region, where he holds a license to extract salt. Parinya’s lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed “Western criticisms of Burma” as “foreign interference” in domestic affairs. In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.

Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on Justice for Peace, who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards.

“None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights,” said Adams. “The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests.”

Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta. But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.

Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be persons “having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights.”

The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (“The Paris Principles”), which were adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1993, state that: “The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights.” The Paris Principles state that members of government departments, if included in a national human rights commission, “should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity.”

“The commissioners should resign to make it possible for a new selection,” said Adams. “To prevent the same mistakes from being made again, the constitution should be amended to establish a selection process that ensures independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation in the selection of NHRC commissioners.”

The selection of the previous commission was made under the terms of the 1997 Constitution and was based on the active involvement of representatives of civil society, the media, and other social sectors, unlike the exclusive panel of judges and one representative of the incumbent party that made the new selections under the military-junta-sponsored constitution of 2007.

This new selection committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. In contrast, the nominees to the previous commission were thoroughly examined by the Senate before approval. There was virtually no attempt in the process used this year to inform the public about what was going on, let alone to allow public scrutiny and debate on the appropriateness of the short-listed candidates. An online form to leave questions on the Senate website was not available until the afternoon before the cutoff date.

Competence, efficiency, and independence have been the main challenges facing the human rights body from its inception. Former Prime Minister Thaksin had encouraged government officials and the security forces to disregard investigations and recommendations of the commission concerning state-sanctioned abuses. These included the 2003 “war on drugs” and extrajudicial tactics used by various police and security units in the context of counterinsurgency in Thailand’s southern border provinces. Annual budget allocations for the commission had also been restricted by the government.

Yet some commissioners and staff worked hard to monitor and investigate abuses across Thailand. Some of their interventions in the southern border provinces saved the lives of victims of arbitrary arrests and torture. Similarly, they had exposed and stopped a number of government and private projects that severely endangered public safety and the environment across the country.

Udon Thani: US crimes and secret prison unpunished

Azian Thahrir

WFOL-TV: March 31, 2009

http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=32

The International Criminal Court (ICC), hiding behind jurisdictions and what it calls its limitations to act, has left the US President George W. Bush free of charges after the US admitted to criminal acts in Udon Thani, the US secret prison for torture in Thailand.

In March this year, the United States government admitted for the first time that it had a secret jail in Thailand where suspected al-Qaeda operatives were flown in to be interrrogated, including being subjected to “waterboarding”.

Federal prosecutors revealed the details in documents submitted to a court in New York as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Prosecutors also revealed that 92 videotapes made and stored in Thailand of the questionable interrogation techniques had been personally ordered to be destroyed by the then head of the CIA, Jose A Rodriguez Jr.

Reports said that Indonesia’s most famous terror suspect Hambali, or Riduan bin Isomuddin, known as the ‘Bin Laden’ of Asia in an overblown representation of the personality, was also incarcerated in Udon Thani before his transfer to the US. Another elusive but now dead suspect in the ‘Bali 1’ bombing that killed 202 foreign and local disco-goer in Indonesia in 2002, Omar Al Faruq was also at Udon Thani sources said. Al-Faruq was subsequently given the duty to mix with pro-Bin Laden contacts who were jailed in Baigram, Afghanistan.

However, it is confirmed that Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were incarcerated, beaten and tortured by US officials with the help of Thai officials at Udon Thani, this after Thai and US officials denied the very existence of the prison. It was known since 2002 that several secret jails were functioning either in Afghanistan or elsewhere across the globe where victims of ‘rendition’ or ‘kidnap by CIA’ suspects were flown to such prisons for torture. The Bush regime practiced one of the most violent forms of torture against Muslims arrested on suspicion of terror and the ICC has walked away from indicting Bush, citing jurisdiction and non-membership of the US to the ICC. Both fallacies that can only be told by a ‘racist’ whitemen’s club, said an observer to WFOL.

In November 2005, the Washington Post and ABC News ran stories accusing the CIA of using “rendition” flights to transfer alleged al-Qaeda operatives to Thailand. Mr Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan while Mr al-Nashiri was arrested in the United Arab Emirates.

Thousands of Pakistani citizens, mostly Islamic religious leaders and followers were either kidnapped or brutally killed by pro-US agents in Pakistan since the war on terror began. The orders were directly made by Bush and his cabinet in Washington. Evidence of such orders still exists in the memo’s seized by the US courts well before Bush left the White House hence there’s little reason to doubt the ‘one sided’ and ‘racist’ attitude of the ICC and of the UN in their quest for ‘justice’.

Thailand denied the existence of the jail, indicating a government cover up of the illegal practices by the US. Such practices can take place in other nations deemed independent but that are actually clustered and held hostage by the US government. This is a dangerous trend and it indicates the fact that the US is a colonial power and is controlling many governments across the globe with possible threats of military or other interventions if they do not follow Washington’s orders.

In the 2005 report, ABC News said Mr Zubaydah was first held in Thailand in an unused warehouse on an active airbase. It also said that after he recovered from life-threatening wounds, incurred during his arrest, he was made to stand long hours in a cold cell and strapped feet-up to a “water board” until he begged for mercy and began to cooperate.

In “waterboarding”, a detainee is strapped to a board, dunked under water and made to believe he might be drowned.

Mr Zubaydah has never been charged and remains at the US-run Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba.

Mr al-Nashiri became the first person to be charged over the bombing of the USS Cole while it was in port in Yemen. He was captured in 2002 and held in secret locations before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.

Last month the new Barak Obama government dropped those charges but said he remains a “high value” detainee at Guantanamo. (with input from news agencies)

[FACT comments: We have bracketed unsubstantiated opinions about the King in this article. However, the rest of the article calls our politics with complete accuracy. Indonesia, a Muslim state, has woven human rights into their society. Thailand only shows arrogance and impunity against our citizens.]

Thailand turns into Indonesia – and vice versa

Peter Hartcher

Sydney Morning Herald: May 12, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/thailand-turns-into-indonesia–and-vice-versa-20090511-b0ip.html?page=-1

Thailand likes to call itself The Land of Smiles. And for a while after the advent of democracy in 1992 this seemed to be unusually accurate for an official slogan.

Democracy seemed to flourish. Even during the traumatic Asian economic crisis of 1997 the generals stayed in their barracks. Growth quickly returned. The tourists flooded in. Foreign investors smiled on the Thais, who returned the favour.

In the parallel universe known as Indonesia, the picture was more ominous. Its slogan, Unity in Diversity, seemed an exercise in dark sarcasm. Diversity was hammered into frightened unity by its military dictator, Soeharto. When the Asian crisis forced Soeharto out of power in 1998 the outlook only seemed to darken.

A succession of simpletons and underperformers took the presidency. The economy was moribund. Islam woke from its long slumber under Soeharto and seemed to be asserting itself. Its diversity would now be repressed by the Muslim majority, it appeared.

Indonesia’s prospects seemed to go from bad to worse. Terrorists bombed tourists in the peaceful holiday destination of Bali. The Petri dish of Indonesian Islam seemed to be breeding a newly virulent form of violent extremism. Investors gave the country a wide berth.

If Thailand seemed to represent sunrise in South-East Asia, Indonesia appeared to be the region’s nightfall.

Today we see an extraordinary role reversal. Thailand is now a wreck, suffering a constitutional crisis, emergency rule and an investment strike.

As the Bangkok Post put it last month: “How could the Rice Bowl of Asia, a trade and transport hub of the Greater Mekong sub-region, an erstwhile Asian Tiger and ‘Amazing Thailand’ in tourism terms … come dangerously close to becoming a failed state?”

Indonesia, on the other hand, is stable and tolerant under a mature and clean president, with better growth prospects than any of the states in the region. The US think tank Freedom House has designated Indonesia for the first time as the only fully free and democratic country in South-East Asia.

As Andrew MacIntyre and Douglas Ramage put it in a paper for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute: “Indonesia in 2008 is a stable, competitive electoral democracy, with a highly decentralised system of governance, achieving solid rates of economic growth, under competent national leadership, and playing a constructive role in the regional and broader international community.”

While Indonesia glowed with the success of hosting 189 nations’ representatives at the Bali climate change conference in December 2007, Thailand was humiliated last month when it had to abort a summit of 16 national leaders for the East Asian summit.

With the Thai Army rendered impotent by surging red-shirted protesters in Pattaya, the leaders of China and Japan were evacuated by helicopter, and other leaders’ planes turned around in midair. It was a shocking blow to Thai credibility, unable to host a meeting, incapable of protecting world leaders on its soil.

Consider the same point and counterpoint last weekend.

While about 20,000 red-shirted protesters took to the streets of Bangkok to demonstrate against the violently repressive tactics of the unelected government, Indonesia announced the results of its peaceful parliamentary elections.

What happened? How did these two key states of South-East Asia come to trade places so dramatically?

Thailand’s trajectory changed with the decision to mount an unconstitutional coup against the prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, first elected in 2001 and resoundingly re-elected in 2005.

The billionaire businessman was a polarising leader. He was wildly popular with the rural poor and the working class, but bitterly opposed by the urban elites and the army.

[The decision to send the army to remove him came from the royal palace.]

The last time the king had intervened decisively in politics was to end a violent constitutional crisis. [This time he provoked one.]

The army and the palace imposed an unelected regime on the country, promising future elections. But Thaksin’s supporters wage an unending war of civil disobedience. Thaksin himself, running from a corruption charge, continues to foment protest from abroad. Thai analysts say it is hard to see any resolution. The two sets of opposing forces are roughly equal, and an election would be unlikely to solve the stand-off, they say.

Indonesia’s fortunes pivoted on the election of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, known universally in Indonesia as SBY. The former general has proved to be wise as well as popular since taking power in 2004. He is pro-business and pro-West, and also forcefully anti-terrorism and anti-corruption. Indeed, he has allowed the prosecution of his own brother-in-law on corruption charges.

Islamic political parties have moderated, not radicalised.

Indonesia now has a vibrant free press and a judiciary that is uneven but improving. Democracy has become solidly legitimised – generals and muftis alike compete for power at the ballot box, not in the streets. He is the easy favourite for the two-step presidential election due in July with a run-off in September, if required.

The region is suffering from the global financial crisis. But while the Asian Development Bank forecasts that Thai economic growth will fall from 2.6 per cent last year to minus 2 per cent this year, it expects Indonesia to suffer more mildly, slowing from 6.1 per cent to 3.6 per cent.

The essential difference is that Indonesian power elites universally respect the legitimising power of democracy. The Thais have not. [And the leading source of anti-democratic arrogance in Thailand has proved to be the king.] So Indonesia has emerged as a model state, a living rebuttal of the notion that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Its diversity has unified behind democracy. Thailand is turning into just another sad, broken autocracy. The smile has become a grimace.

Peter Hartcher is the Herald’s international editor.

[FACT comments: Nobody likes hate speech but speech is very much in the mind of the listener’s interpretation. Nobody needs to listen.]

Hate Crime Legislation – Back Door to Censorship

James Simpson

American Thinker: May 13, 2009

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/hate_crime_legislation_back_do.html

An extension of the Hate Crimes law recently passed the House of Representatives which will essentially codify into national law the “speech codes” that are smothering academic freedom on college campuses today. This law is the back door method Obama and his fellow socialists will use to stifle free speech in this country, as explained in an informative article by Jerry Kane at American Daughter.

To heck with the “Fairness Doctrine.” Who needs to limit censorship to the airwaves? This legislation will silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Hate crimes legislation has its roots in the communist-inspired, so-called Frankfurt School founded in Frankfurt, Germany by Bolsheviks in the 1920s. Its goal was to implement communism in the West quietly by gradually subverting popular culture — a movement known as Cultural Marxism. One of its leading lights, Herbert Marcuse, opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates against minorities simply by existing.

This creates a phenomenon he called “repressive tolerance” because even though other views are allowed within Western culture — you know, by that insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment — the Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be unacceptable.

Instead, he proposed what he called “partisan tolerance,” i.e. tolerating the views of those “repressed minorities” only — who Marcuse assumes share his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist — while actively muzzling the views of the majority.

So now we have a word for Democrats’ eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left’s double standard in championing “repressed minorities” only when those minorities share their politics, while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college campuses, supposedly the society’s heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even violently intimidate conservative speakers — when they let them onto campus at all.

They have been practicing “partisan tolerance.” That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and virulent intolerance of anything else.

Marcuse, among other Frankfurt School advocates, was brought to the U.S. in the 1930s by Edward R. Murrow who at the time headed a program to resettle intellectuals facing Nazi repression. According to Wikipedia, Marcuse worked at the OSS, the State Department and taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis. Now doesn’t that tell you something? He has been called the “Father of the New Left” and inspired many of the 1960s’ young radicals, who now have tenured teaching positions at colleges throughout the U.S. It is easy to see his Frankfurt School influence in university speech codes – indeed it is largely the reason they exist.

In fact the New School, currently run by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, counts the Frankfurt School as one of its main influences. Barack Obama has an indirect connection to the school, in that his father was offered a scholarship there. According to Wikipedia:

In the early 1960s, the New School offered the father of the US President, Barack Obama, a generous scholarship package that would have paid for his immediate family (including wife Ann Dunham and son, the future President; then residents of Hawaii) to join him in New York City, where he would complete his PhD. He declined and instead abandoned his family and departed for Harvard University, where he had a less-generous scholarship with no family allowance.

The Frankfurt School was dedicated to the destruction of the West. One of its founders, Willi Munzenberg, stated explicitly that its goal was to:

…organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink [sic]. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

According to an article by Timothy Matthews in Catholic Insight, key strategies to achieve this goal were:

1.  The creation of racism offences.

2.  Continual change to create confusion.

3.  The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.

4.  The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.

5.  Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6.  The promotion of excessive drinking.

7.  Emptying of churches.

8.  An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.

9.  Dependency on the state or state benefits.

10. Control and dumbing down of media.

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

Munzenberg stated flatly, “We will make the West so corrupt it stinks.”

Today, his mission appears to have been largely accomplished. Assisted by American public education advocates, Frankfurt School proponents aggressively worked their way into our public education system to the point that today their priorities virtually define it. Their influence explains most of today’s sick popular culture.

So this is the last piece in the Manufactured Crisis puzzle. It seems apparent that “Hate Crimes” legislation is the vehicle by which free speech will be permanently silenced in America. And after that, the thugs will be firmly in charge.

You need look no further for proof that Marcuse’s “cultural Marxists” are in charge in Washington now. Since it is their intention to destroy this country, intellectual appeals to them will fall on deaf ears. The only recourse is to lobby Senate Republicans and those few remaining Democrats with a shred of integrity, if indeed there are any.

We are witnessing the death of our country.

Facebook Shouldn’t Have to Censor Holocaust Denial

Lon Harris

Crushed By Inertia: May 10, 2009

http://crushedbyinertia.blogspot.com/2009/05/facebook-shouldn-have-to-censor.html

Facebook’s failure to ban groups that promote Holocaust Denial has created something of a stir on tech blogs this week.  Brian Cuban makes a passionate argument against Facebook’s policy here, and Michael Arrington takes up the discussion here.

These guys thoughtfully argue that Facebook has set a dangerous double standard.  The company censored a group dedicated to breastfeeding, but refuses to censor a group that actively promotes antisemitism.  They are correct.  This IS a ludicrous double standard.  There is nothing wrong with breastfeeding – it’s an entirely natural activity that women should be allowed to openly discuss in any public forum – but there are many things wrong with Holocaust Denial.  The main one being, that it’s totally wrong, and the Holocaust happened, and it needs to be discussed and remembered.

But I think Arrington, Cuban and others are approaching this argument from the wrong perspective.  In essence, this double standard exists because Facebook SHOULD NOT have censored discussion of breastfeeding, not because it SHOULD censor discussion of Holocaust Denial.  BOTH discussions should be allowed to take place on the site, to my mind.

In my opinion, Facebook shouldn’t censor speech unless it’s absolutely vital.  The discussion should only even come up in extreme cases…Essentially, anything that could cause direct, immediate harm to another individual or group of individuals. Instructions on how to make a weapon or commit a violent crime, requests or orders for group members to go out and commit crimes, private information such as Social Security numbers that must not be made public…That kind of speech would understandably be removed from Facebook.

But, like it or not, a massively-popular website dedicated to free and open discussions will, eventually, attract some odious and repellent contributions.  There are a lot of sick people out there who use the Internet say horrible, untrue, offensive things.

The best antidote to something like Holocaust Denial is not censorship…Quite the opposite.  There is no evidence supporting Holocaust Denial.  Anyone armed with THE TRUTH should be able to outsmart its proponents.  Shine a light on these sorts of pernicious lies rather than trying to hide them.  The cover-up only grants them unearned legitimacy.  Intelligent people who feel strongly about pushing back against hateful lies like Holocaust Denial should confront their real enemies – Holocaust Deniers – publicly, pointing out their factual, logical and moral errors for all to see.  Why cover up something that can be so easily refuted?

Facebook has now painted itself into a corner by censoring the breastfeeding stuff.  Now, they have no choice but to go around censoring any material that a considerable majority of the site’s users might find objectionable or offensive.  This is not an enviable position.  Far better to be very very permissive about what can be discussed on Facebook, limiting censorship ONLY to those discussions which present a direct and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of individuals or groups.  (Holocaust Denial, while offensive to Jews, does not put us in any kind of immediate danger.  People have hated Jews for millennia and we’re still here.)