Melbourne man Harry Nicolaides has been imprisoned in Thailand for committing the crime of lèse majesté, or offending the dignity of the sovereign. Nicolaides wrote a novel in which he referred to an unnamed crown prince in a way which was deemed to be insulting. The novel had a negligible print run, and was self-published.
Read more about the case here at A Roll of the Dice. As Paul says, this man should not be imprisoned as a result of a notion that certain individuals are beyond reproach merely by birthright. It doesn’t sound like the book was particularly good, or that Nicolaides was particularly wise to write and publish it, but in the end, that is immaterial.
Update:
More on Harry at Larvatus Prodeo.
And Paul cites another case in which a legal academic, Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, is to be charged with lèse majesté for querying the basis of the law.
38 Comments
Stupidity should be its only reward, I suppose. But we have something very similar here in Australia. Picking on welfare recepients will get you into trouble (as if they were royalty) and with Mr Hulls’ new laws minority groups will be in the same position as the Thai king.
(My understanding is the king usually pardons individuals for this offence and they are subsequently deported – so I don’t expect him to be in prison for too long).
As much as I’m opposed to this kind of thing I can’t help feeling the guy is either a moron or perpetuating a publicity stunt.
Anyway as Hunter Thompson said: a lot of fine books are written in prison.
Sinclair, you’re right – the King does usually pardon perpetrators. As a matter of fact, the King has also doubted the use of the laws: but no one has followed him up on this (perhaps because to do so risks contravening those laws).
Usually, foreigners are treated with more leniency. I suspect Nicolaides was sailing close to the wind and thinking he wouldn’t get in trouble because he was a foreigner, but he crossed the line somehow, or trod on someone’s toes.
As stupid as these laws are, there’s a part of me that still says ‘when in Rome, yadda yadda’. It’s like the British couple that got pinged for getting hot and heavy on a Dubai beach. Yes I think Islamic sexual codes are variations on (a) twisted and (b) just plain wrong, but it is their country, and if you’re going to go there, then it’s wise to play by their rules. We expect the same when people come here (hence the blow-up over ‘Catmeat Hilaly’). Sauce for the goose and so on.
If it was just attention seeking and a gimmick, does that make it “Thai shtick”?
That sort of thing carries a stiff penalty here, too!
Pity we don’t have something like that in the UK…
It’s an interesting clash for progressives – some take the line suggested by skeptic, i.e. “you’re a guest in their country, so obey their laws”, whilst others (like myself) find it to be a stark example of why universal human rights are not something which can be subjected to the vaguaries of cultural relativism. In other words, I strongly believe that it is morally and rationally wrong to severely punish a person for (a) having consenting sex with another adult or (b) writing anything whatsoever.
It’s a challenge we face in our own countries – I believe that the cultural relativists have gone too far, which in turn has opened the door for borderline racist whites to claim ownership of “traditional” values. Much better that the members of the progressive/multicultural vanguard clarify their absolute adherence to certain universal values, and thereby make defence of those values a defence of a society of equal humans, not equal “cultures”.
grr – “now” = “noT” in my post for it to make any sense
I’ve updated it, Paul, to reflect your amendment.
Paul, I would agree with you; I think these kind of rights have to apply across the board, regardless of culture. I suppose the criticism would be that it ill-behooves a first world gal like me to sit here and criticise the way another nation chooses to run its affairs, but I think that particularly when one of our citizens is involved, it’s a criticism that I can legitimately make.
With drugs and more obvious crimes I tend to lean towards the ‘when in rome’ argument. But insulting the royalty? In a country that tolerates so much libertarian behaviour in tourists and thrives off their dollars?
Ditto sex in public in a muslim country- that’s pretty obvious I’d have thought.
Here, despite the tossy maxim about ignorance of the law, this really is a bizarre and not readily predictable mess he’s landed in. We have sovereignty over our citizens and reasonable steps should be taken to get him out and back as soon as practicable.
Actually no. We don’t have sovereignity over our citizens, only over our territory. The notion that personal law followed you wherever you are in the world is an ancient notion, but the modern nation state won’t have a bar of it.
We don’t have sovereignity over our citizens, only over our territory.
The Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act 1994???
And inevitably. Hey it’s the King of Siam right?
I’m not making an argument from cultural relativism. As I think should be pretty clear from everything else I’ve written, I believe in moral and political universals, that western cultures are generally superior to the alternatives and that — shock, horror — multiculturalism is one of the larger scams to be foisted on the citizenry.
However, I’m also a pragmatist. Western countries don’t have the resources to send their armies into all the dark corners of the world and smash sundry shrines to benighted ignorance. By way of evidence, I present you with Afghanistan and Iraq, and while I acknowledge that we succeeded with Germany and Japan and South Korea, those exercises in imperial liberalism cost a fortune in blood and treasure.
The best we can do is be bold about the enlightenment in our own countries, not apologetic (hence my view of multiculturalism, which really is an exercise in advanced rent-seeking), and leave the rest of the world to get on with it.
LE
I’m gonna play Devil’s Advocate here, as this issue taps into some other “justice” thinking I’ve been doing. Can you legitimate this claim?
… this man should not be imprisoned as a result of a notion that certain individuals are beyond reproach merely by birthright.
Are there other “certain individuals” who might possibly be “beyond reproach” apart from reasons of “birthright”? From what I gather Thai culture does not agree with Paul’s radical democractic ideas.
Paul
As you yourself say you are a “progressive”, I am going to give to it you straight in the language and mindset of said “progressives.”
You are a [FINE EXAMPLE IN THE OBAMA 'MUTT' TRADITION].
[SOONED BY ADMIN]
An interesting philosophical question, JG. It’s a truism of political discourse that no-one is above criticism, but I do wonder if there are certain things that do make people harder to criticise, and if any of those reasons are legitimate. It’s a very Razian move, to turn the question around like that.
Ultimately, I think the issue turns on how we rank empirical evidence and normative claims. Women, for example, will most often be able to provide superior evidence on an issue like, say, abortion, but anyone can make normative claims about it and raise arguments to support those claims.
SL
Fair enough on the Sooning, but I didn’t mean it like that. I meant it more in the “by the language and statndards of your opwn position……..” That is, “perhaps you might to rethink your confidence in the notion of transcultural values.
I do/did not (necessarily) hold those views myself.
SL
I think people spend too much time onanistically on this issue. Outside organised religion, Values/Rights/Laws can never really exceed the ability and willingness to enforce/protect them,
SL
On abortion, as a male, I long ago relinquished the possibility – and propriety – of my own view ever being able to trump that of women.
JG, yes that is an interesting question. The only reason I can think of someone being intrinsically “beyond reproach” is where that someone cannot be criticised merely on the basis of their race, sexuality, gender, religion etc. It is really difficult to balance ideals of freedom of speech against freedom from discrimination, persecution etc.
Let’s take a recent scenario. Should a person be allowed to march in a rally holding a sign which calls for the slaughter of Jews? (via Tim Blair) Should I be able to stop the person from holding the sign? If I do stop her, am I then suggesting that a particular group in society is “beyond reproach”? I wouldn’t class that sentiment as mere “reproach” anyway (rather, let’s call it “genocidal sentiment”), but there are more borderline examples such as Michael Backman’s controversial column on Israelis in The Age the other day.
So, yes, I think there are other scenarios where someone might be imprisoned for writing something offensive against a particular group in society merely because of their status. But we’d have to be very, very, very careful when exercising such a power, and I’d lean in favour of freedom of speech in most cases.
LE said: “he only reason I can think of someone being intrinsically “beyond reproach” is where that someone cannot be criticised merely on the basis of their race, sexuality, gender, religion”
Unless they were of a religion that advocated extremist discrimination based on race/sexuality/gender/religion/medical_condition or something like starting a war to bring on an apocalypse. Oh course, that’d only be hypothetical, wouldn’t it!?
It’s a very hard question, and you have to separate normative from empirical claims (not always easy).
For me, in my country, free speech always wins — even the idiot with the Nazi sign — if only for the reason Bob Menzies once gave against banning the Communist Party: ‘better to have them where you can see them’.
Dave, my reason for picking current affairs as an example is that I think there are legitimate ways to reproach Israel, but sometimes the line is crossed into racism/anti-Semitism.
The sign waving woman is someone who clearly crossed the line. Yes, I think she does have a right to say that, and that free speech wins, but the minute she puts it into action…
Backman’s article is more subtle. It essentially says, “It’s the fault of the Jews that we are all suffering from Islamic terrorism. If they just gave up their claim to Israel, then we could all live in peace together.” The view that Israel started “a war to bring on an apocalypse” is similarly a “blame the Israelis” approach.
My thoughts on that kind of view are here. As I say in that post:
I don’t think it’s productive to say that the present conflict is Israel’s fault or that Israel started it. Perhaps the thing could be ended if Israel withdraws, ceases killing scores of Palestinian civilians and continues letting Hamas bomb its civilians. But one could equally well say that Hamas should withdraw and cease bombing Israeli citizens. Why aren’t people calling for that action? (Well, because people implicitly recognise Hamas are psychopaths who don’t listen to reason, but we expect the Israelis to be more reasonable).
The power to end this thing lies not with one side, but with both. Both are responsible for the current state of affairs. It is only when we recognise this, and recognise the legitimate grievances on either side, that this present situation can be resolved.
An anomaly, along with worldwide taxation.
I should specify re comment @25 above that I think Backman’s article is anti-Semitic – but this is not because he disagrees with the Israeli invasion of Gaza. One can legitimately disagree without being anti-Semitic. However, he then goes on to suggest that Jews/Israelis are arrogant, unpleasant, penny-pinching people who hoard money, and that’s why they have created conflict in the Middle East (shades of Der Stürmer). That’s the anti-Semitic bit!
LE
Knowing full well I face a ‘Sooning’ I shall soldier on nevertheless.
Don’t you think your dilemma is premised on the holy-writ of late 20th century values among primarily white bourgeois secular type?. In order to assess what has happened to this poor, poor – silly – bloke in Thailand, we need to start with THEIR values. “You wanna see [CAT] with dart, with ping pong?” 
[SOONED BY ADMIN]
JG, I would characterise the essence of Thai values to be encapsulated in the saying Mai pen lai – translates loosely to “No worries”, but it means much more than that. It’s all about maintaining face, not embarrassing anyone by pointing out that they’ve made a mistake, just chillin’ about life. So a Thai person may not approve of ladyboys or the Thai sex trade – but mai pen lai means it’s not something which should be stated to the person’s face.
Perhaps mai pen lai has a double edge. It means the society is incredibly permissive on some levels (particularly because they don’t have the Judaeo-Christian hang-ups about sex and sexuality). However, face is very important, and perhaps these lese majeste rules can be explained on that basis – don’t openly criticise people in a way that causes them to lose face, particularly if they are royalty. Those are the two sides of mai pen lai.
I suppose I should declare an interest as my sister-in-law is Thai, and I’ve noticed the slightly sideways take she has on things. Thais are bloody brilliant at tolerance, but built into that is an understanding that they do not need to accept something they don’t like. They just draw the line in places we tend to find slightly weird.
SL/LE
I have spent quite a bit of time in Thailand, and they truly are a unique people – admirable examples to us all. I agree with SL on the “slightly sideways take”. I have concluded that much of this reflects the fact they were the only Asian country not to be colonised by the British/French.
Questions:
1. What the heck is “soon”ing?
2. What the heck is JG trying to say?
I do not generally like to subscribe to movements and labels insofar as they carry a raft of implicit positions with them. My lifelong struggle with the notion of party politics reflects this.
I am a ‘progressive’ in the sense that I reject the notion that “the old ways are best” and I reject the notion that as a society we are best off pursuing radical individualism. On the other hand, I also believe that individuals are sovereign in and of themselves, and that any control exercised must be commonly understood to be via the social contract (despite the inherent problems with that notion) rather than by some notion of independently sovereign government.
However, I am quite prepared to say that western liberal values as exhibited by the best of our nations’ achievements in the latter part of the 20th century (nominal racial, sexual, religious freedom, for example) are objectively the “best” that humans have ever achieved. I am also prepared to nail my colours to the mast and say that a society founded upon a broad acceptance of empiricism and rationality is not even the same thing as a society founded on religious or otherwise irrational precepts. It is not only superior to the latter, it is an evolutionary step forward from it and deserves to be recognised and championed as such.
I am happy to respect other cultures. But not when they require a regressive step from the point we have managed to get ourselves to. And no, I do not believe we are approaching some utopia – but I do believe that things can get objectively better or worse.
Do those views remove my ‘progressive’ credentials? I doubt it, unless you compare them to some particular brand of liberal/social democratic politics or academic theory.
Sorry if I misrepresented you, I do understand that this is your position.
I think my post above this one shows that we generally agree – although I perhaps take a slightly different view of military intervention. To me the tragedy of Iraq and Afhanistan is that they have virtually eliminated the possibility of genuine humanitarian interventions, such as that which occurred in the former Yugoslavia. 10,000 US troops could sort out all of Zimbabwe, Sudan and the Congo and be home in time for tea, yet America has squandered them on some oil and realpolitik-driven frolic through the world’s most dangerous region.
I don’t think that’s quite right. Under the Australian constitution, the Commonwealth can make laws about anything (within a head of power) – whether territorially connected to Australia or not. In fact, recent jurisprudence suggests that, so long as the thing in question is entirely outside of Australia, the Commonwealth has the power to legislate howsoever it wants in respect of it under the external affairs power. The High Court tosses around the notion of a ‘nexus’ with Australia, but even that is a fairly slender requirement – Polyukovich etc., see also XYZ v Commonwealth [2006] HCA 25.
What limits us is enforceability – but there would be no constitutional reason why the Australian government couldn’t pass a law saying “no Australian shall pay sales tax in Paris” or something along those lines. But the French probably wouldn’t be too keen on Australian police showing up in Paris to arrest people who violated it.
“Sooning” is explained in our FAQs – so called because the practice was devised by Jason Soon. I wasn’t quite sure how it was achieved until SL demonstrated.
Paul, I’m glad you put that bit in about the external affairs power. I was half way through writing something and then I realised that my constitutional law is about 15 years old, so I’d better do some research before I said anything. You’ve saved me the effort!
Update: More on Harry at LP
And Paul has another post on a Thai legal academic who is to be charged with lese majeste after questioning the law.
…that western cultures are generally superior to the alternatives and that — shock, horror — multiculturalism is one of the larger scams to be foisted on the citizenry.
.
Yeah I don’t agree with that.
I think in some ways Western culture is superior and in some ways it isn’t. Of course ‘Western culture’ means quite a lot of different things. We end to conflate it with modern civilization which started in the West. But that’s a little like calling farming Sumerian culture.
We could stand to learn a few things.
That said we do. Umberto Eco, discussing the cultural relativism jive mad an interesting point about anthropologists. Who invented them?
But there’s a (Eurocentric) joke that comes to mind:
What’s the difference between Heaven and Hell?
In Heaven the English run the government, the French make the food, the Italians are the lovers and the Swiss run the trains.
.
In Hell the English make the food, the French run the government, the Italians run the trains and the Swiss are the lovers.
One thing I’ll say for Asians is that when it’s obvious you’ve got a better idea they tend to acquire it smartly. And as fast as they can without fucking up their country.
Yeah, just look at the asia-wide adoption of civil liberties and democracy…