Writer's disapproval of protests flawed, unfair

I think most reasonable-minded people would reject John Arnone’s disapproval of demonstrations, which are surely an integral part of any free and democratic society, even if they are sometimes disruptive and violent.

I would also harbour some reservations regarding the historical examples cited. First, his claim that in Europe, it was traditionally the courts, rather than demonstrations, that achieved results is nonsense. 

In 1789 the French people didn’t wait for the courts to improve their lot, nor did the Russians in 1917! They took matters into their own hands. In 1848, there were riots and demonstrations across Europe against the old order, and in Britain we have had demonstrations against all manners of things from the 18th Century right up to the present day. Indeed, in the 17th Century the English fought a civil war to assert the supremacy of parliament over the will of the monarch.

Second, his views on the civil rights protests in America in the 1960s are questionable. It had by then been a century since the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, yet black people were still suffering discrimination, segregation and abuse in southern states. If the civil rights campaign had not occurred, then how long would it have taken the courts to resolve these abuses? It’s impossible to say.

Finally, the writer’s intemperate comments regarding Khun Burin’s involvement in the civil rights movement are ludicrous, but I doubt if Burin will be unduly troubled. Certainly, to my knowledge, Burin has never abused those of us foreigners who express our usually ill-informed views on Thai politics.

Robin Grant

Bangkok