I think you can even insult Churchill now in the U.K. and get away with it.
This was not always the case - during WWII a woman who said “Hitler was a good ruler; a better man than Mr. Churchill” was sentenced to five years in prison.
Actually, no. Well, at least not in Canada when the ‘defamation’ is against an identifiable group.
More specifically, even if the statement you make is factually true, its veracity is irrelevant and you are still breaking the law if the statement
More about ‘truth is no defense’ in Canada can be found in this Wikipedia article on the Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy and in this article about the Supreme Court ruling alluded to above. (in both, simply search for the phrase ‘truth is no defense’ or just ‘truth’)
Agreed. I’ve always seen Bhumibol as an example of how a responsible modern day monarch ought to behave. He seems to have generally acted in ways that he felt was best for the well-being of his country, and is a partial reason that Thailand hasn’t descended into utter chaos with the large number of coups that have taken place. Whether his son can, or will, continue in such way is a big question mark, of course. And the current unrest seems more troubling than past upheavals.
Yes. As another example of his sincerity, I caught a TV show in the 1990’s where he had summoned many Provincial Governors and outlined a plan to protect the Metropolis from flooding and erosion by running bypass canals through the neighboring provinces. It seemed odd that the King himself was lecturing rather than a Professor of Environmental Science or such, but knowing Thailand, a Professor’s lecture would have had no effect at all. Unfortunately even the King’s lecture led nowhere; the civilian government is based largely on graft and of course no Governor wants flood waters diverted to his province.
The King credits his mother, born a commoner and with her own impressive resume, for his qualities. I do hope whoever it was that criticized the Thai royal family earlier in the thread comes back and explains what we’re missing.
It it just the lèse-majesté laws? 
I recently explained that these laws are political devices. For example, one pro-Royalist was accused of lèse-majesté for criticising a judge even though the only connection with the King was that, like all judges, his appointment was rubber-stamped by the Constituional Monarch.
Uh, that Wiki page indicates the Section 13 was repealed two years ago.
Yeah but it was a great read.
I am obviously mixed up but thought that there were still contentious parts of the act still in effect. For example, this article talks about the Supreme Court upholding it in 2014.
More specifically, though, and what I was getting at, is that I thought that in the various Provincial Human Rights Tribunals (or whatever they’re called), truth is still no defence.
Maybe Northern Piper can set me straight.
Note that until 2013, libel law in the UK was an embarrassment among free nations, and frequently used to silence legitimate criticism (see the Simon Singh case). They passed the Defamation Act in 2013, which fixed many of the serious defects in prior law.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the royals specifically, but it meant that people could be brought to court for things which should have been ordinary free speech.
That is certainly the only legally permissible point of view. I dare not give my own opinion on the matter for fear of arrest and lengthy imprisonment.
That was under a wartime measure (Defence Regulation 39Ba) about saying things “likely to cause alarm and despondency”. Churchill was not universally popular, especially with the Left.
Today, we have strong laws about Incitement to racial or religious hatred, but saying that you disagree with something is not the same as trying to start a riot in support of your views.
That was Elsie Orrin, and her offence wasn’t “insulting Churchill”, but “making statements likely to cause alarm and despondency” during a time of war. It’s not like it was just a casual remark she happened to let slip; she was haranguing soldiers in a pub for fighting against the Nazis.
Elsie was a life-long fascist and supporter of Oswald Moseley, and had already been arrested for selling British Union of Fascists newspapers and shouting anti-semitic slogans outside a Jewish-owned grocery store.
Insulting Churchill is something that you could probably get away with, for the most part. Being a Nazi sympathiser? Not so much, perhaps.
Right. And if the monarch had been on the ball over the years, there would never have been a military coup in the first place. I don’t care how many awards his wife gets or how many people blindly say “He’s wonderful”. The simple fact is that Thailand having a monarchy really hasn’t worked out all that well for them. The man is not capable of keeping the country from falling into disorder.
Hi Monty. I find it very hard to reconcile your two posts. Do you have anything at all but empty rhetoric and the Lèse-majesté law? Did you even read my comment on that law?
Constitutional Monarchs are sometimes thought of as just decorations. There is a socialist perception that their huge wealth is undeserved, but it was acquired in due course. Do those who want to confiscate the wealth of royals, also want to confiscate the wealth of the Walton family (larger than the wealth of Windsors and Thai royals together)?
If you compare the political history of Thailand over the past half-century with that of its neighbors (Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Phillipines) it’s hard to avoid concluding “one of these things is not like the others.”
I strongly believe that the Monarchy has provided much stability for Thailand. You might differ from this conclusion, but still your “Thailand is the country in the most need of getting rid of royalty” is utterly devoid of any merit.
So If I like the King, I’m “blind”? And you’re incapable of comparing Thailand’s history with its neighbors?? Do I need cites that Burma, Cambodia, etc. have suffered far worse tragedies than anything in Thailand???
It is true – and I have a hunch this is the ONLY tidbit of knowledge backing up your assertions – that the military removing civilian governments is not the American way. However it sounds like you are unaware what contemptible kleptocracies these civilian gvernments have been.
Where I live the move away from corruption now that the kleptocrats are deposed is palpable. Recently a joint army-police task force conducted a search for weapons and fugitives in the estates of our regional crime overlord – a search that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago when he and his cronies ruled the country.
Fight ignorance. One inch forward, 2.5 centimeters back.
Wow, sept. You added a lot of malarkey and pretended that’s what I said and/or feel. Since this is in GQ and not the Pit, let’s just say I’m not going to respond again to you in this thread.
OK. I’ve started another thread.
What is the Queen insults ME? I’m not a British subject, but let’s say I am. Can I slap her with a white glove?
She has a right. You sre wearing white past Labor Day.
British subject status is very uncommon these days. The bulk of the small number of people who are British subjects will be elderly and of Irish background.
Can I be a British adjective?
The accepted practice is to start by dumping out her tea. If her behaviors don’t change you can then send a lengthy break up letter and renounce your citizenship.