Swiss man given a 10 yr jail term for defacing the poster of Thailand's king

[HUSNAA]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/swiss-jailed-for-disrespect-to-king/2007/03/29/1174761668792.html



A Swiss man who sprayed graffiti across posters of Thailand's revered monarch on the king's birthday has been jailed for 10 years under the country's strict lese majeste laws.

Oliver Rudolf Jufer, 57, pleaded guilty to five counts of insulting the monarchy and faced up to 75 years in prison.


"This is a serious crime, and he was sentenced to four years for each of five counts, for a total of 20 years," Judge Phitsanu Tanbukalee said. However, the court halved the term because he had pleaded guilty.

It marks the first time in 10 years that the Thais have jailed a foreigner for showing disrespect to King Bhumibhol Adulyadej.

"We respect the Thai justice system," the Swiss embassy told Associated Press. "However, we consider the implementation of the Thai penal code regarding lese majeste cases a tough one."

Bhumibhol is revered in Thailand and no criticism is tolerated. One reason given for last year's military coup was the need to defend the monarchy.


Jufer was caught by closed circuit cameras on December 5, spraying black paint across five posters of the king in Chiang Mai, in the north. It has been reported he had tried to buy alcohol and been refused because of the special holiday. He was drunk at the time, his lawyer told the court.

Hmm............ and when muslims react to the insults on prophet Mohammed SAW, they are labeled violent criminal fundamentalists fanatics etc. I am not in support of killing anyone mind you, but let's face it, the whole incident of the cartoons blew out of proportion when no action was taken by the Denmark to redress the issue. Apologies were sought from the editors over the debacle  but the Danes became stiff  necked and arrogant  and talked of  freedom of speech etc. If the Danes had apologized in the first place, the whole incident would have remained in Denmark and no one outside of the country would have been any the wiser for it, because the muslims in Denmark didnt take any action of notifying for a boycott until they realized that there would be no positive response from the Danish govt or the editors of the newspaper that started the chain of events.
Then there was the pope who should have known better but also exercised his right to free speech by defaming Islam and the prophet and muslims were condemned for reacting.


Now I want to know why  there is  a resounding silence from the advocates of  human rights and the western world over the sentencing of this man to a wait for it - 'lenient' jail term of ten yrs for spraying posters of the Thailand's king. He was given a 76 year prison sentence which the judge on 'compasssionate grounds' reduced to 10.  Isnt it this man's right to deface and insult anyone he likes, since it is  part 'freedom of expression'? 

What this man did is analogous to what the danes did with the cartoons and what the pope did with his little speech, because this king is considered semi divine.
Their (danish editors' and pope's) actions were much worse and more more reprehensible because the actions were deliberate, calculated to incite  done in  broad daylight, in full view of the world, with the pope and editors in full possession of their faculties.

This man was said to be drunk when he defaced the kings's  poster; he was caught on closed circuit tv, which implied the furtive nature of his deed. He wasnt out to deliberately provoke, but was probably venting his frustrations for being refused  more alcohol. 


We dont consider the prophet Mohammed (SAW) as divine or even semi, but his status is so insurmountable in the eyes of muslims that any slur on him, evokes the same sentmental reaction and passion that led to imprisoning this man and basically passing a 'death in life' sentence on him, after all, we've all heard of the notorious 'Bangkok Hilton' that infamous resort reserved for the criminally minded.

[alkanawi]

Three issues immediately leapt to my mind when i read the above piece

"We respect the Thai justice system," the Swiss embassy told Associated Press. "However, we consider the implementation of the Thai penal code regarding lese majeste cases a tough one."

The response by the swiss govt,even when they disagree with the sentence,was measured and respectful.They recognise the right of someone to hold something/someone with the utmost respect and did not try to justify the man's behaviour under the cover of freedom of expression.

Bhumibhol is revered in Thailand and no criticism is tolerated.

Where are the champions of freedom of expression?

One reason given for last year's military coup was the need to defend the monarchy.

i was actually perplexed about the "resounding silence",to use Husnaa's words,following that coup.You can imagine what would follow if it was some poor African country.

Fortuitously i happen to watch a news report about the above incident and the reporter was taking an impromptu poll on how the populace feel towards their king. The response was total. From teenagers to octogenarians,they revere their king and feel the man should go to jail.

Though i personally symphasize with the man 

[alkanawi]

I think it wouldn't be out of place here if i reproduce an article published after the unfortunate incidence concerning the Dutch film director,Theo van Gogh.While some people tend to find it difficult to examine an issue within the wider,diverse, and often complex matrix it is placed in,others would have no problem understanding that issues are not always as cut and dried as they seem to be.I find this article interesting,balanced,even refreshing,from the shrill and hysterical response which is the norm:

"Theo van Gogh crossed the lines of common decency           
Shocked and horrified are the Netherlands by the brutal murder of filmmaker and columnist Theo van Gogh. The fact that a man was killed for his opinions rocks any idea of justice, and fills the Dutch with fear. Has it become dangerous to speak one's mind? Has the free word died with Van Gogh? I don't believe so. It takes a lot more than this tragedy for people to hold their tongue.

In fact, it is quite the contrary, too much is being said and written. In the name of freedom of speech Dutch politicians, writers as well as the man in the street have lost all sense of common decency. And undermine the attempts of the Dutch and of ethnic minorities to come to a certain understanding.

Freedom of speech is not only a right, but a responsibility

A visit to the condolence register, launched by van Gogh's nearest, adds a great deal to the original sorrow. Even though the initiators tried to clean it up, quite a few comments posted by the public are almost or downright racist. Muslims are said to stone their wives, mutilate their daughters and spit on "our way of life" and should "all be kicked out" because: "enough is enough, we are no longer taking it." Not very pleasant for the average Muslim, who was equally shocked by the murder. Many came to the wake on Dam square in Amsterdam, or organised their own demonstration like in The Hague. Islamic organisations were quick to disassociate them from the murder. "Characters such as this man are not at all representative for the Moroccan community" said Driss Boujoufi of UMMON, the organisation of Moroccan mosques in the Netherlands.

His words seem to fall upon deaf ears. The Islam has killed Theo van Gogh and its believers are collectively held responsible. It is partly the emotion of the tragedy that provokes these words, but not entirely. Since the rise and fall of populist politician Pim Fortuyn (murdered two years ago by a native Dutch, also for political reasons), any insulting remark about Islam, the Muslims and the multicultural society is not only accepted, but perceived as an admirable attempt to finally shake off the legendary Dutch tolerance. "Enough is enough..."

Theo van Gogh was a great example of this approach of freedom of speech. His habit of systematically calling Muslims goat-fuckers and the famous line: "What is that smell of caramel? Today they are burning the diabetic Jews" are among the more innocent of his remarks. His recent film "Submission" where allegedly violent Koran verses regarding women were projected on a woman's almost naked body, shocked both moderate and conservative Muslims.

Of course this does not justify his murder. The freedom of speech is a valuable asset that needs to be protected. There are many countries in which people give their lives for the right to express themselves, countries where newspapers are being closed and journalists imprisoned. Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution states clearly that no one needs permission to make their thoughts or feelings known to the world by means of the printed press. Taken into regard every one's legal responsibility. That last phrase limits the freedom of speech. Slander, defamation and insult are forbidden by the Dutch Criminal Code, as are discriminating remarks about for example Homosexuals and ethnic minorities.

Regularly, people are tried for slander, defamation or insult. Recent cases are for instance those of the Rotterdam imam El Moumni and the leader of the Christian reformist party Leen van Dijke, who were tried for their respective expressions about homosexuals. In these and other cases, parties concerned sought the legal limits of freedom of speech. The limits of common decency alas, were never looked at.

Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. This goes double for people who are as much in the public eye as Theo van Gogh was, and whose words have a wider reach than the immediate circle of friends and relatives. Before Fortuyn - to use him as a time reference, but not as the one and only cause of the phenomenon - there were certain things one did not say. This was a simple question of respect, a sense of basic politeness. This seems to be all gone. The current atmosphere of hostility makes ethnic minorities in the Netherlands feel unwelcome and excluded, and undermines the many attempts made by native Dutch people and ethnic minorities to come to a certain understanding. It is in this climate that extremism flourishes. People, journalists and politicians especially, should be more aware of that."

Christine de Vos
Paris (France)

Culled from Newropeans Magazine/Friday, 19 November 2004

[NewEte]

How does any of this justify the senseless slaughter of people? That is ultimately the question. The people accused of defaming the prophets and religions do so by expression usually in an article or verbally. The response of the aggrieved people is always brutal massacre of several people. Where is the balance? If somebody berates you or what you hold dear, can you not respond intellectually? The slanderer may not have the right to slander anyone, but the do the fanatical killers have the right to take a life?

More importantly, is the Prophet more defamed than Christ? We have seen time and time again as people have portrayed Jesus in so many foul ways. Recently some other group even suggested he was sexual relations with his female disciples, while others have suggested he may have had homosexual relations, etc. How come the christians do not go bunkers over these insults? This is the amazing thing isn't it? I think they understand that religion is supposed to be a tolerant, and this is why they ignore those seeking to stir something. I find that a huge contrast to those who say their religion is about peace, yet when provoked, they go insane. So what separates them from 'unbelievers'? Shouldn't believers of the faith of peace live above all provocation and set an example?

Was Mahatma Ghandi not provoked and disparaged all his life by opponents and foes? Did he react violently? One of the most jovial men on the planet, The Dalia Lama, gets his own fair share of jibs, but he laughs it off no matter what the ridicule is. This is what endears many people worldwide to this man.

It is not pleasant or proper to insult the Prophet of Islam. That is not a nice thing. Thailand has a law in its constitution where it is a criminal offense to deface the King. That is the law in Thailand, and the swiss man broke the law. When you guys try to make comparisons, it has to make sense. Chances are the Swiss guy knew the law regarding the monarchy, but he wanted to do mischief. What you do not find here are hundreds of Thai taking to the streets in protest and burning the swiss embassy and killing all non Thais they set eye on. Nobody was massacred, no business or buildings were destroy, life was not turned upside down, no rioting, no breach of peace. This defaulter was simply arrested, tried, and found guilty. Do you all see the difference? This incident did not escalate beyond what it was, a felony.

The other question is, are there laws in places like Nigeria where it is criminal to defame a religious icon? If there is, why is the law not allowed to run its cause when violated? Why do fanatics take the law into their own hands and cause mayhem? Why can't reactionary Muslims be as civil as these Thai people that have been gallantly portrayed here as law abiding and EMOTIONALLY STABLE?????

[dan kauye]

More importantly, is the Prophet more defamed than Christ? We have seen time and time again as people have portrayed Jesus in so many foul ways. Recently some other group even suggested he was sexual relations with his female disciples, while others have suggested he may have had homosexual relations, etc. How come the christians do not go bunkers over these insults?

Jesus's portrayal over the course of history has been defaming,alright.But who are those defamers? Simcha Jacobovici ,James Cameron,Dan Brown,ALL of them are Christians or atleast have affiliations with Christianity.You'll NEVER find a Muslim person defaming Jesus,verbally or written.I'd like to believe that you do not think that it's,in any way,the duty of the Muslims to defend Jesus.Maybe Jesus as a prophet,but definately  not as God.And there is an enourmous degree of disparity of religious reverence between the Christians and the Muslims.Islam prescribes that appropriate action(s),if and when neccesary,be taken,in line with Islamic injunctions,should ANYONE try to distort the position of the religion in question.In essence,it's nobody's problem but the Christians' ,that they defame thier God ,or stand by & watch if someone else does.