Exploiting free speech: the unique privilege of supra-legal citizens

A case in point is the “Charlie Hebdo phenomenon”. The French weekly satirical magazine was the target of two deadly attacks, one in 2011 and the other this year, after it published derisive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. In the wake of the latest attack, “Je suis Charlie” became a popular rallying cry for free speech and valour, while circulation figures for the magazine shot up from 60,000 to half a million.

There has been hot debate over how far we can and should push the envelope when it comes to free speech. Philosophers argue that freedom always comes with responsibilities and self-restrictions. In January, Pope Francis told reporters that, though waging war in God’s name was wrong, responding violently to one’s religion being mocked or insulted was “natural”. Right then and there, the debate over the freedom to offend took on new life.

In Thailand, Article 112 has been the target of attacks by both Thais and (more so) foreigners. The best account ever given on this issue came from then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2009 during a talk at his alma mater, Oxford University. The talk was reported thus by the Australian National University’s New Mandala website: 

“Abhisit then defended the lese majeste [law] by saying that there are similar laws in some European countries that have constitutional monarchies. There was a person in one European country who has been imprisoned by a similar law. The law itself is not necessarily undemocratic, ‘if you say the same thing or make the same allegation against ordinary people, you will also be taken to court. … What the law does is to give protection to the Royal Family in the same way that libel laws protect ordinary people’. Abhisit then argued that some difference between the two laws (lese majeste charges can be filed by anyone) exist because the Thai Royal Family is a neutral institution – above partisanship, above conflict, revered by the Thais and a key pillar of national security – and therefore the law does not want the monarchy to take legal action against people. Abhisit said that there are number of people who are still fighting this charge, and a number of charges have been dropped. Abhisit then played his trump card: ‘There are a number of people who stay [in the country] and fight the charge because they believe they are innocent, and they don’t run away from being charged’.”

It was the last sentence that prompted Giles Ungpakorn – who fled Thailand after being charged with violating Article 112 and was in the audience – to respond, “I am not running away from the charges”. Abhisit retorted “I did not say you did.” A big round of applause ensued.

Yet running away appears to be what Giles and others are indeed doing. Such people want to have their cake and eat it too, truly believing that some laws do not apply to them. They exploit free speech in many different ways, to wage vendettas, whip up mobs and disguise lies. What they utter is blasphemy, but they call it freedom of expression. Essentially, they believe they are above the rule of law while they repeat their democracy mantra. They are not willing to accept the consequences of their actions because the vacuous term “democracy” provides a cure-all for their deeds.

These are people who have scant regard for civility, accountability or truth. The most pathetic part of it all is that some find their behaviour honourable rather than despicable. They talk nobly of democracy, yet at the same time they behave to the contrary. They do not and cannot tolerate people with different viewpoints, preferring to resort to name-calling and personal attacks. This is their mentality, one of supra-legal entities. They have this extraordinary sense of misplaced entitlement.

In many places in the world, laws against hate speech can backfire by making free-speech martyrs out of provocateurs. Thailand belongs in this category. This year’s “Freedom in the World” from rights organisation Freedom House downgraded Thailand from “partly free” to “not free”, based on the increased number of Article 112 cases and laws against public demonstration.

Yet it should be remembered that, in our era of social media, where lies can travel around the world while truth is still putting on its shoes, people publish vicious lies – often couched in utterly foul language. No one wishes to hear such slurs about their own relatives.

Also, let us not forget that, for the past nine years, Thailand has teetered towards becoming a failed state, with hatred spewing from all sides and corruption practically legalised. Impunity became our culture, polarisation our way of life. The political system prior to the military coup last year was a de facto kleptocracy shoved down the throats of Thais via an “election”. It was not democracy.

But it proved too bothersome for the West to pay attention. Instead, it is willing to bypass badly needed meaningful reforms and push towards a new election at any cost, which would mean the country going back to Square One – a bogus democracy. But that doesn’t matter so much when you don’t actually live here.

Demonstrators will gather outside UN headquarters in New York next week to protest against what they call “dictatorship” in Thailand, and call for “democracy”. Yet it has become evident that accountability and truth have no place in the actions of such people. Everything they do is right – not because it is righteous, but because it’s they who do it.

This is the new principle of Thai “democracy” according to our supra-legal few.