Your rights stop where the rights of others begin

I agree with the Civil Court's ruling that the People's Alliance for Democracy must allow free passage of traffic and lower the volume of its loudspeakers during school hours.

 In a democracy, which PAD claims to promote, each person's rights stop where the next person's rights begin.

Thus, the PAD may do whatever it wishes - so long as, for example, the teachers' and students' right to attend class are not hindered. I reject the PAD's claim that unblocking the site would let its opponents attack the demonstrators. The PAD should work with the police to ensure a buffer zone - or, better yet, move to a site that's safe yet has good media access.

PAD leader Suriyasai says that because the Constitution's Article 58 guarantees freedom of public gathering, the PAD is legally allowed to use loudspeakers to keep order - even if those speakers cause disturbance.

The PAD should move to, say, the National Stadium, Impact Arena, or Bitec, paying market rates and posting a bank guarantee to cover any possible damage. Such venues are easily covered by the media, have toilets so protestors don't have to use the streets, and students won't be forced to hear crude language that rivals PM Samak's.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

-----------------------------------

Libel suits used to gag political opponents

Under Thai law, defamation is considered both a tort and a crime. Former prime minister Thaksin has been quick to bring defamation lawsuits as an instrument to silence his critics. He sued Sondhi Limthongkul, his most ardent critic, numerous times. Now Thaksin is successful in obtaining an injunction from Bangkok Civil Court to gag Sondhi from attacking him in public.

This injunction is definitely unconstitutional and must be lifted. If Thaksin thinks Sondhi continues to defame him, Thaksin is welcome to bring a new action against Sondhi. If Sondhi oversteps the boundary, he does so at his peril.

Thaksin should not be allowed to stop his critics from their most fundamental right and freedom of expression. By any standard Thaksin is a very public figure and no court should insulate him from criticism or public dissemination of information about him and his activities. To enforce this injunction would make Thaksin inviolable and untouchable. It will have a chilling effect on public discourse everywhere. The injunction should not survive an appellate review.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

-----------------------------------

Temple demarcation lacks common sense

Re: "No right to claim temple", News, July 2.

I am glad with the clarification made by the Foreign Ministry's director of the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department. I do wish that certain academics and others would refrain from inciting people to claim ownership of the temple. It is like flogging a dead horse. However, this turn of events was the fault of the Foreign Ministry via its minister, in not protecting our rights, by signing the joint communiqué on June 18.

Twice in the past, the Cambodian applications to the World Heritage Committee were met with protests from our government and deferred for Thai participation. We have always maintained that a joint application is necessary since almost the whole mountain and the natural approach to the temple are on the Thai side.

However, on June 18, the foreign minister succeeded in reducing our geographical strength to zilch by consorting with the deputy prime minister of Cambodia, with Unesco's officer as a witness, in issuing a joint communiqué supporting Cambodia's solo application.

Our foreign minister's signing authority has now been questioned and held by many as beyond his power. The Administrative Court has initially concurred and issued an injunction to the ministry not to validate this communiqué.

Without following the line of argument on historical demarcation, using one's common sense, the mountain, inclusive of the temple, should have either exclusively belonged to Cambodia or to Thailand. It is somewhat illogical for one country to be the owner of a building atop a mountain while the remaining area of the mountain belongs to another country.

Therefore, a required joint application with Thailand is the least demand and should have been accepted by Cambodia for the two countries' mutual benefit.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok