Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category
Art censorship in Pakistan-Dawn
Censoring the image
Niilofur Farrukh
Dawn Media: May 17, 2009
It’s the potency of the universal language of images and its ability to communicate directly that has always been seen as a threat and put under strict scrutiny by dictatorial regimes and extremists.
The state tries to impose censorship from the outside through different mechanisms while each society develops a more organic form of censorship and the artist learns to subconsciously edit taboo imagery. One such example is the depiction of religious images which are acceptable in Iran but consider a blasphemy in other parts of the Islamic world.
State censorship policies are either dictated by morality or ideology, or both. Moral limits can vary from culture to culture and are mostly determined by established norms. This can also vary within a country, between the more traditional rural population as compared to sophisticated and liberal urban dwellers.
Ideology often has a political agenda and is enforced through coercive strategies via legislation and policy. Hitler had Modern Art declared decadent and banned it from museums which compelled many Modernists to migrate under threat. The famous Bauhaus Academy too had its share of problems when it resisted changes in the curricula under the Third Reich and had to shift its location several times.
Artists in Pakistan too have felt the heat of State disapproval and sometimes public pressure since 1947. Sadequain and Colin David’s work was vandalised in Lahore for its figurative content at a time when General Ziaul Haq’s drive of Islamisation had emboldened extremist elements in society to flex their muscles against artists and dancers. Virtuoso Kathak dancer Nahid Siddiqi was forced into exile by widespread state intolerance towards dance in the 1980s in much the same way M F Hussain no longer feels safe living in Mumbai.
The 1970s saw Modernism come into its own with figurative painters like Shakir Ali, Bashir Mirza, Colin David, Jamil Naqsh and Sadequain at the zenith of their careers with the liberal state patronage of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government. So when the ban started in the 1980’s on figures, their art was excluded from national shows as many of them refused to abide by the more conservative edits of the non-democratic ruler. The resistance also turned the tide to a more subversive content as seen among others in the work of Nagori that critiqued the role of the army in post-ZAB era. During the Zia era he was banned from holding exhibitions in Islamabad.
The 1990s saw the re-emergence of the figure in full force but after 2000 a new generation of artists are depicting sexuality through association and suggestion. This is done with different forms taking on the physical characteristics of genitalia. Because of an obscure and abstract representation it often escapes closer scrutiny despite provocation content.
Hard hitting political satire dominates cartoons in the dailies and the electronic media and is often taken in good spirit until the recent Shanakht festival where the entire event was closed down and the artist and organiser threatened with dire consequences.
It’s important to look deeper into the cause behind such an extreme reaction. Why did this particular work, cause such an outrage while other more scathing satire has been accepted?
The offending image by a UK-based artist of Pakistani origin, Nilofer Akmut was a photo collage based on a family photograph whose faces had been altered into those of politicians like Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, Yahya Khan, Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq , ZAB and Benazir Bhutto. Reports say that it was the proximity between Ziaul Haq and late Benazir Bhutto that incensed the protestors who not only seized the work but also destroyed parts of the exhibition and festival.
This work arrived in response to an open call to artists to submit an art work as a ‘Gift to Pakistan’ which was displayed in an exhibition at the venue of the festival.
While everyone felt strongly about the way the Festival was interrupted, there have been different responses since censorship is more stringently enforced in the public space, the audience in democracies has a big role to play in determining the boundaries of freedom of expression.
One group feels that the Shanakht festival that was supposed to be inclusive should have taken the ultra-sensitivities of the large number of visitors into consideration. Others feel strongly that right of freedom of expression should remain paramount. Many feel the group that carried out the violence should have shown more tolerance in keeping with the spirit of their own leader’s respect for artists. She looked upon them as friends and made the rare appointment of Bashir Mirza as Pakistan’s Cultural Attaché to Australia where during his tenure he painted the Nuke series. Dictated by his conscience he painted the series when his host country supported the tests in the Pacific Ocean. This may have been in violation of diplomatic code but he felt the urgency to listen to his creative voice.
In a society that has been brutalised and compelled to grab their rights through street muscle, perhaps it’s too much to expect a simple request to take off the offending work.
Besides pressurising the Arts Council to provide more security at exhibitions and working out a mechanism of registering citizens’ protest, there should also be a greater effort from the art community to hold regular public shows to increase exposure to art.
This incident can also be taken as an opportunity to rethink the artist’s relationship with the man on the street. Since most artists’ exhibit only in the white cube of the gallery the limited interface with the public has prevented them from listening to each others voice first hand and responding with sensitivity. An increase in exhibitions in the public space will not only lead to the democratisation of the cultural space but also help the audience and artist to negotiate the boundaries of freedom of expression together.
Saudi cracks down on websites-Asharq Alawsat
Saudi Arabia to Regulate Kingdom-Based Websites
Khaled al Oweigan
Asharq Alawsat: May 13, 2009
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=5&id=16714
Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat- Minister of Culture and Information, Dr. Abdulaziz Khoja revealed Saudi Arabia’s intention to enact laws, regulation, and legislation for newspapers and internet websites. The most important of the proposed legislation is for websites to require official licenses to be granted by a special agency under the purview of the Ministry of Information.
Saudi Arabia will hold its first International Media Conference in Riyadh under the Patronage of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.. During a press conference Dr. Khoja confirmed the need for clear regulation and legislation with regards to websites and online journals as such controls will ensure that everything is run in the correct way. Khoja said “We hope to deter any dangerous [writing] that may be published in these newspapers and websites via this regulation. These issues have forced us to think seriously about enacting laws to regulate publishing and the media in this way.”
The Minster did not hide his concern at some of the things published under aliases or by organizations whose writers have found a fertile ground to writer whatever they wish due to the lack of strict and deterrent regulation and legislation.
The Saudi Minister of information also confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat the formation of an official committee comprised of members of the Ministry of Information and others to study the draft privatization project of Saudi television and the Saudi News Agency, following in the example of some other Arab countries. The Minister said “There is an official committee that is studying the project of privatizing some braches of the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information such as the television and the Saudi News Agency. This committee will complete its study soon…within a few months.”
The Saudi Minister of Information also disclosed that his Ministry was considering granting a number of radio license, and he also revealed Saudi’s non-objection to granting [publishing] licenses to newspapers that wished to set up offices in Saudi Arabia. However he linked the approval [of licenses] to studies conducted by the Saudi Journalist Association [SJA], as the SJA had asked the Ministry to carefully consider the granting of licenses whilst its studies were ongoing.
Khoja also confirmed that the first Saud Arabian International Media Conference would seek to take advantage of any studies and research into all branches of the media, as that due to technical developments the media now falls under the umbrella of information.
How to unblock your website in Thailand
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)
FACT has further questions for MICT over censorship
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
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)
—– 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 <Surparsorn_Run@truecorp.co.th>, 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
USA: Past & future human rights-In These Times
The Past and Future of Human Rights
Barack Obama could become America’s first human rights president.
Julie A. Mertus
In These Times: May 5, 2009
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4405/the_past_and_future_of_human_rights/
There is remarkable continuity from president to president on human rights issues: From Harry Truman to George W. Bush, all have embraced American exceptionalism and selectively made good and bad moves on human rights.
When I was in law school, I was cynical about human rights. But that was before I spent time in places where people did not have rights guaranteed by the state, and needed international human rights for their survival. That was before I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and rights issues became a bit less abstract.
And that was before the Albanians in Kosovo taught me to see the glass as half-full, and never half-empty.
But even Kosovars are growing skeptical about human rights—they’ve heard a lot of rights talk without the right actions. In Pristina, Kosovo, which I visited early this year, things are a mess. The international efforts to promote reconciliation between Serbs and Albanians and to support a multicultural society have fallen flat. Sure, Serb-Albanian conflict is now rare, but that is because very few Serbs live in Kosovo and, with the two groups nearly completely segregated, there are fewer opportunities for communal conflict. So much for human rights…
So how can I be so steadfastly optimistic about human rights? Without human rights, I am convinced, things would have been much worse in Kosovo. In her splendid book Inventing Human Rights, Lynn Hunt writes of “the bulldozer force of the revolutionary logic of human rights.”
But how is the logic of human rights revolutionary? Why are states so afraid of its “bulldozer force”? And what would it take for the Obama administration to demonstrate that the United States no longer fears enforcement of human rights?
This essay attempts to answer those three questions. After explaining the revolutionary past of human rights, I turn to an illustration that has been hidden in history—the efforts of African-American leaders and Nigerian students immediately after World War II to draw attention to human rights issues pertaining to race and colonialism—to show that the United States has always been extremely afraid of implementing human rights. Finally, I make specific suggestions for the Obama administration with respect to the unmet potential of human rights.
The human rights revolution
The modern human rights movement stems from two revolutions—the French and the American. In both cases, individuals who had never fought back were called upon to rebel against authority.
The idea and practice of human rights proved to be both an instigator and sustainer of revolution, and a source for radicalization of social change campaigns. The development of human rights opened space for new actors, working across what had been boundaries with different needs, interests and demands. Revolutionaries seized upon human rights to craft their demands for structural change and new patterns of human/government interaction.
The logic of human rights is simple. Given that human rights are something people have because they are human, the state cannot act like they are privileges; it cannot grant human rights or take them away. And because human rights are something people have because they are human, they are universal. Believing in human rights means believing in the equal moral worth of all of mankind.
The successful development of human rights required a major shift in how individuals perceived themselves. As Lynn Hunt observed: “Thinking and deciding for oneself…requires psychological and political changes as much as philosophical ones.”
Many commentators have discussed the political changes required for human rights to become rooted in a society: States cannot do what they want to their own citizens. States act as duty bearers, and the people are rights holders.
The exact contour of their relationship, however, remains contested. States now have a negative responsibility to refrain from doing certain things—like interfering with one’s choice of religion, ability to speak, and privacy at home. They also have other, positive, responsibilities—but those responsibilities are still being debated, at least in the United States (for example, healthcare, housing and employment).
The psychological shifts required to accept human rights have received less attention. Prior to their acceptance, individuals were born into circumstances that determined their degree of freedom. Moving out of one class and into another was rare and difficult. People were owned by, or at least controlled by, lords and kings—their master.
This arrangement worked in favor of those seeking security. Very little was expected other than obedience from servants, who were identified not as individuals with dreams and desires of their own, but by their position within their society.
In sharp contrast, the logic of human rights blasts these notions apart by making individuals the subject of their own lives. Agency. Bodily inviolability. Empathy. Dignity. These concepts are encouraged by human rights.
Consider this: For a long time, people used to gather in town squares for exhibitions of pain and suffering. They cheered on the hangman as he prepared the noose for the poor fellow who was already almost dead, having been nailed to a cross and put on display.
Today, although torture certainly occurs, it is done clandestinely—and we publicly condemn it. Why? Because human rights presume an individual’s right to bodily integrity, and we want to see ourselves as being on the side of human rights.
The UN and a post-war compromise
Flash forward to the creation of the United Nations at the end of World War II, when the United States was called upon to show what kind of human rights advocate it would be. Would it accept all human rights for all people? Or just some rights for some people?
In his fascinating book, Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of the Black Power Movement, Timothy Tyson observes how the debate in the mid-1940s over the UN Charter’s human rights provisions gave African Americans a powerful podium from which to address race issues.
Human rights held promise in the United States where civil rights had failed. As Professor Carol Anderson observed in her book Eyes off the Prize: “Human rights…had the language and the philosophical power to address not only the political and legal inequities that African Americans endured but also the education, health care, housing and employment needs that haunted the black community.”
U.S. anti-racism advocates at the UN Charter negotiations in San Francisco in 1945 knew that without economic rights, civil liberties rested, at best, on quicksand. But at that time, any group or individual fighting for economic rights risked being branded communist. Afraid of losing what little they had, African Americans muted their demands for economic rights.
Support for anti-colonialist efforts also proved untenable for the U.S. delegation and its consultants at the Charter talks. Highly organized Nigerian students met individually with delegates and pressed for the words “independence” and “freedom” to be added to the Charter, along with a specific provision on colonialism. But outsides the confines of the negotiations, tensions were heating up between Washington and Moscow. The United States did not want to lose the support of any of its allies—or change the positioning of military aircraft that rested on colonized islands within striking distance to the Soviet sphere.
Thus a deal was struck between the United States and colonial nations. The names of the individual colony-ruling states would not be mentioned by name in the Charter, and the United States would support adding a slick little provision that for decades would prove to be an effective roadblock to human rights enforcement: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state….
A dream deferred (by Eleanor Roosevelt)
This anti-intervention provision also kept racists in the United States happy. They read the provision as complementary to their “states rights” movement, which argued that in a federal system, issues like racism were matters to be decided on a state-by-state basis. Wearing American federalism as a shield against human rights demands, the U.S. delegation at the UN Charter negotiations rejected the NAACP’s demand that it acknowledge and address the ill-effects of American racism.
Ignored, the NAACP filed its own petition with the UN two years later, in 1947. That petition squarely linked racism to U.S. foreign policy, declaring: “It is not Russia that threatens the United States as much as Mississippi, not Stalin or Molotov, but Bilbo and Rankin.” (Senator Theodore Bilbo and Congressman John E. Rankin, both of Mississippi, were two outspoken racists on Capitol Hill at the time.) The petition went on to condemn the denial of human rights to minorities of African descent in the United States.
It was Eleanor Roosevelt, of all people, who led the drive against the NAACP petition, despite being on the organization’s board of directors. At the same time, Roosevelt worked to block a complaint to the UN concerning race discrimination and related human rights abuses in South Africa. Her reasoning? The old slippery slope argument: If the South Africa complaint won, it would set a dangerous precedent that could ultimately lead to the UN investigating the condition of African Americans in Alabama.
Not surprisingly, the NAACP petition went nowhere. Frustrated from its experience and fearful of being red-baited, the NAACP almost completely withdrew from the global campaign for international human rights, situating itself as an American organization concerned with American civil rights.
The U.S. delegation’s actions (or inactions) in San Francisco set the stage for America’s fear of engagement with human rights during the next 61 years. In its dealings with the UN, Washington has kept international human rights laws at bay by excluding the issue of race as much as possible and creating weak enforcement structures whenever possible—unless the U.S. was in control of that structure, or exempted from its ambit. In other words, human rights have not been immune to “American exceptionalism.”
And yet, also from the very beginning, human rights abuses committed by Americans on U.S. soil—in particular, race discrimination and abuse—have inevitably bled into foreign policy.
While serving as vice president in 1954, Richard Nixon—not exactly well-known for his liberal beliefs—adamantly scolded racists: “Every act of discrimination or prejudice in the U.S. hurts America as much as an espionage agent who turns over weapons to a foreign country.”
Still, there is remarkable continuity from president to president on human rights issues. From Harry Truman to George W. Bush, all have embraced American exceptionalism and selectively made good and bad moves on human rights diplomacy, treaty-signing and human rights assistance. While some presidents stand out as exceptionally bad—for example, George W. Bush, who actually “unsigned” the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court—and some exceptionally good—perhaps Bill Clinton, minus all activities in Africa—the trend is consistent. None can really be considered a human rights president.
End of ‘American exceptionalism’?
Flash forward to today, when America’s human rights reputation is in urgent need of repair. Might America finally have a human rights president who doesn’t embrace American exceptionalism?
Almost immediately upon taking office, President Obama did announce that the United States would abide by international law on torture, and that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would be closed by the end of the year.
Three months into his administration, Obama announced that Washington would try to restore its relationship with international institutions, and would run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the top UN human rights monitoring body. Obama has also exercised a strong commitment to human rights in his choice of key staff—for example, Harold Koh, the Yale Law School dean who was nominated to become State Department Legal Advisor. There is no question that the White House is moving in the right direction.
For a clear break with the Bush era, however, Obama needs to demonstrate leadership and redefine human rights as nonpartisan and in the U.S. national interest. To do so, his administration must follow through with signing and submitting for ratification all core international human rights conventions. It might begin by re-signing the International Criminal Court treaty and adding the America’s name to the Convention on the Rights of the Child—signed by every country in the world except for the United States and Somalia—and the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which is largely modeled on American disability law.
These are no-brainers. As for other human rights treaties that are not signed and/or ratified, Obama should appoint an independent board of experts to study and report on the likely outcome of greater American engagement in the treaty processes. The U.S. Senate, which has traditionally blocked these treaties through filibusters, is much more likely to approve human rights treaties now that Arlen Specter is a Democrat, and his new party holds a nominal 60-member majority.
Barack Obama could be our first human rights president by showing the world that America is no longer afraid of human rights and the international institutions that enforce them. He could prove that America is willing to apply human rights to itself, not just to other nations.
[Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a presentation at The Past and Future(s) of Revolutions: A Global Exploration, a conference held at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago March 2009. A longer version of the article will appear in a forthcoming book based on that conference.]
Ireland's anti-blasphemy law-The Register
Ireland bucks trend with anti-blasphemy law
Protection for the pious cometh, and that right soon?
The Register: May 8, 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/ireland_blashpemy/
Take the Lord’s name in vain and if the lightning bolt doesn’t get you, the Irish Government soon will.
That’s the fond hope of Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, who last week proposed the insertion of a blasphemy clause into the Defamation Bill, currently before the Irish Parliament. The clear intention behind this move is to hit naysayers and non-believers where it hurts them most – in their pockets.
The clause states: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”
It then defines “Blasphemous matter” as “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage”.
The reason behind the proposal would appear to be a small logical difficulty with the Irish Constitution. This contains provisions which state that “the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law” – but there is no actual law against blasphemy.
On the single occasion that an attempt was made to prosecute a satirical Irish newspaper under this provision – Corway v Independent Newspapers, in 1999 – the Supreme Court eventually concluded that it was not possible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.
For these reasons, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, last year recommended that the Constitution be amended to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafted to bring it into line of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing a positive right to freedom of expression.
That would be one solution: the Minister for Justice’s proposal is another. Critics of this proposal point out that the Constitution also includes provision for freedom of expression, subject to the proviso that it not undermine public order and morality. Moreover, a law that defended only the Christian deity would be in breach of article 44, which guarantees religious equality.
Labour spokesman on Justice Pat Rabbitte has proposed an alternative approach. He has put forward an amendment that accepts the principle of a blasphemy law, but reduces the maximum fine to €1,000 and specifically excepts from the definition of blasphemy any material which has “literary, artistic, social or academic merit”.
It may appear strange that the Irish are looking to introduce such a law at the very moment that other governments – in particular the UK government – are doing away with specific provisions on blasphemy. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 made it an offence to “stir up hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion”.
This was followed by the abolition of much older common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, on the grounds that they were inappropriate to a modern society and Christian-centric. However, they left open the possibility of quirky prosecutions, such as that of Gay News by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 for daring to publish a poem – “The Love that dares to speak its name” by James Kirkup – that openly speculated about Jesus’ sexuality.
The law has therefore evolved away from protecting the dignity of a remote celestial being – whom many clergy have always believed to be quite capable of looking after Himself – to dissuading people from attacking other individuals on the grounds of their religious belief. According to the Government, the test in UK law – of inciting hatred – goes some way further than simply hurting the feelings of believers, and requires a conscious effort on the part of the offender to threaten or cause harm.
Insofar as it talks about the feelings of religious groups, the Irish proposal appears to sit halfway between the older UK concept of blasphemy, and the newer model designed to protect individuals from harm.
However, if the Government gets its way, UK Law in this area looks set to move on a stage further, as the Equality Bill, now before Parliament brings together nine separate pieces of legislation and creates a single framework for all legislation on discrimination. This is either a simple tidying up measure or, as some critics have warned, a rag bag of “protected characteristics” that will give those who have such characteristics greater rights before the law than those without them.
A person bullied for their intense belief in Scientology, then, will receive strengthened protection under this law – someone bullied because they are obese, dress like a Goth, or for no apparent reason will have to stick up for themselves.
DIY suicide doctor on tour-Independent
Right-to-Die Doctor Goes on Tour with Suicide Workshops
Chris Green
Independent: May 7, 2009.
The doctor promoted his DIY suicide kit, which included an “exit bag” to use as a suffocation device and a selection of powerful drugs from Mexico.
An Australian euthanasia activist staged the first of a series of “suicide workshops” in Britain yesterday, in a town affectionately termed “God’s waiting room” due to its elderly population.
Almost 100 people attended the event, held at a hotel in Bournemouth, to listen to Dr Philip Nitschke lay out the options for people wishing to kill themselves.
The doctor promoted his DIY suicide kit, which included an “exit bag” to use as a suffocation device and a selection of powerful drugs from Mexico. The vast majority of his audience were of retirement age, many of them married couples.
During his presentation, Dr Nitschke detailed various legal loopholes which could allow medical professionals to legally assist suicide. The crowd were also shown a mocked-up DIY suicide video featuring a pensioner called Betty, who was seen fashioning a special plastic bag with which to kill herself.
The doctor also promoted his “Deliverance Machine” – which tests drugs to make sure they are strong enough to kill people – and screened video testaments recorded by people who had killed themselves after contracting terminal illnesses.
Dr Nitschke, who founded the right-to-die organization Exit International, said: “We were aware of the demographic in Bournemouth. We knew that there was a lot of retired folk down here. The people that generally join Exit are well, elderly folk who are interested in this issue.
“They want options, they want choices. They know the choices or changes to legislation are likely to occur one day but they don’t have the time to wait.”
The Australian doctor flew into the UK on Saturday, but was detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours for questioning by immigration officials before he was eventually issued with a one-week visa. Assisted suicide is currently illegal in the UK and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail.
Dr Nitschke will continue his tour of the country today, speaking in Brighton before continuing to Stroud and finally Glasgow on Saturday. Although the initial talks are open to all, anyone who wants to attend more “in-depth” workshops must be over 50 or seriously ill, and be a member of Exit, for which there is a £25 charge.
The doctor added: “People see it as a fundamental right, the right to decide that if your life is not worth living that you should be able to end that life. We provide people with information. That information allows them to make valid choices.”
One of the people who attended yesterday’s event was Charles Beech, 76, from Ringwood in Hampshire.
He said: “I often observe elderly people suffering long, lingering deaths. Let’s get it organised, let’s be fair to everyone. Why should it be so important for people to suffer an awful life? It is so wrong. In pain, agony and despair, it should be stopped.”
Another member of the audience, Peter King, 66, from Christchurch in Dorset, added: “I think he [Dr Nitschke] is brilliant. I think in 50 years time this whole thing of letting people suffer will be looked back on like when they burnt witches.”
Dr Nitschke, from Darwin in Australia, successfully campaigned for the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia in Australia’s Northern Territory in 1996, after which he administered lethal injections to four people. However, the Australian federal government overturned the law nine months later.
Turkish citizen challenges Darwin censorship-Hurriyet Daily News
Citizen opens case on Darwin censorship
Hurriyet Daily News: May 4, 2009
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11569093.asp?scr=1
A citizen has filed a complaint against Turkey’s top science and technology institution, stating that the institution’s censorship of a Darwin story in its magazine was malpractice. The Prosecutor’s Office has accepted the application and has opened a case.
İzzet Arıkan, a citizen residing in Ankara but originally from Sivas’s İmralı Arın village, filed the complaint against The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, or TÜBİTAK, on the allaged censorship of the Darwin cover story. “It is a crime to impair our knowledge. I am a prep school graduate village man, but I believe what has been done is a crime” Arıkan said.
Arıkan, who is also a founder of the Arın Culture Society, stated in his complaint that although TÜBİTAK’s management should be celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday with ceremonies, they have censored the magazine instead.Arıkan requested TÜBİTAK management be trialed.
TÜBİTAK was going to feature Charles Darwin, the first evolutionary biologist, as the cover story of their science publication’s March issue but it was withdrawn before printing.
Dr. Çiğdem Atakuman, executive editor of the publication, had prepared the cover story for the 200th birthday of Darwin as part of Darwin Year. However, the issue changed before printing after TÜBİTAK Vice President Professor Ömer Cebeci intervened. The press put the matter on the news agenda as an act of religious censorship.
No joke for human rights in Thailand-UPI
Thailand’s new rights commission a joke?
Awzar Thi, Rule of Lords
United Press International: April 30, 2009
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/04/30/thailands_new_rights_commission_a_joke/3301/
This week the Asian Human Rights Commission issued three open letters on the selection of candidates for the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. The regional body has warned that if the Senate goes ahead and accepts the seven current nominees then the commission may cease to meet international standards, causing it to lose its status before the United Nations.
The seven candidates have been thrust forward after a hurried selection process about which almost no one in Thailand knows anything. The process began only in March after a long delay. It is set to be completed Friday, when the country’s upper house of military and bureaucratic yes-men will consider making the appointments.
While few people in Thailand know that new commissioners have been nominated, few of the nominees know about human rights. Only one of the seven aspirants, Nirand Pithakwachara, formerly an elected senator under the repealed 1997 Constitution, has practical experience. Nirand has worked with environmental and citizens’ groups on a variety of issues, and was on Senate committees that inquired into rights abuses prior to the 2006 military coup.
The other six include Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, who states that he has conducted various human rights training courses but does not indicate from where he has obtained his knowledge on the topic; Constitution Court Secretary Paibool Varahapaitoorn, who claims to have participated in the making of judgments favorable to human rights, even though his role is administrative, not judicial; and Taejing Siripanich, head of a group that does good work in discouraging drunken driving but which has little if any relevance to the job for which he is applying.
The worst of the lot is Parinya Sirisarakarn, an industrialist who was a part of the undemocratic assembly that drafted the regressive 2007 Constitution. Not only does he have nothing to suggest himself to the post of rights commissioner, he was himself named in a 2007 NHRC investigative report as responsible for causing environmental damage in the northeast, where he holds a license to extract salt.
The dirty facts about Parinya only came to light after his name was presented to the Senate. In the meantime, the six days given for comment on the nominees had passed, in which no attempt was made to inform the public about what was going on. Even an announcement that remarks could be left on the Senate website proved bogus: there was no online form provided until the afternoon of the last day before the cutoff date.
These facts also did not come to the notice of the selection committee because it did nothing to verify the details that each applicant gave it. Nor did it bother to interview them, instead just choosing them on the basis of the documents they had submitted. The committee itself seems to have met only briefly and conducted its business by some quick shows of hands. There are no details given in the report that it submitted to the Senate explaining why it chose these seven people over the 126 others who had put their names forward.
The former human rights commission, which has now stepped down to make way for the new nominees, could hardly be described as a success story. It was often out of step with the times as well as within itself, unable or unwilling to tackle the big issues. While the Thaksin Shinawatra regime launched its bloody “war on drugs,” the NHRC campaigned on genetic papaya. When the army seized control of the government for the umpteenth time in 2006, its chairman tacitly supported the power grab. A commissioner who went to join protestors against the new junta was forced to resign.
But among its members were hardworking people with a demonstrated understanding of human rights and genuine commitment to their values. It was these individuals and those working with them in the agency’s subcommittees who kept the commission going, against the odds and despite the vested interests stacked up against them.
The noticeable absence of such persons among the seven new nominees, bar one, places the future of the commission in serious doubt. If indeed these seven persons are passed through the Senate on Friday, the NHRC of Thailand will cease to be anything worthy of its name.
What all this goes to show is that the emphasis once put on the establishing of governmental human rights agencies in Asia was misplaced. The setting up of human rights commissions has done little if anything to address the region’s immense and growing abuses of rights. In some countries, these agencies have been nothing more than cynical exercises in the manipulating of international donors. In others, they have been used to deflect criticism of abuses, rather than highlight them.
From Sri Lanka to South Korea, reactionary forces are now moving against the region’s national rights bodies. Whether or not these institutions have the stamina to carry on with their work depends on the extent to which they can get public support and find suitable mandate-holders who will fight to make their voices heard.
Where the procedure for nominating and appointing commissioners is subverted and defeated and where public debate is denied, as in Thailand today, there is little hope for a future human rights commission. All that can realistically be expected is a human rights joke. Under these circumstances, people will have to look elsewhere for the ways and means to defend their common dignity and advance their shared interests.
(Thai-language documents related to the selecting of the new NHRC of Thailand used in the writing of this article are available at: http://nhrcthai.wordpress.com/).
—
(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)
FACTback - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (Backup) 