iLaw to file petition challenging EC announcement on Article 61

The petition, led by iLaw director Jon Ungpakorn, will be lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court asking for a revocation of the EC’s announcement on regulations controlling the expression of opinions regarding the upcoming plebiscite. 

The petitioners said the announcement is unlawful, and it contains content that violates democratic principles and international obligations that Thailand has agreed to. Most importantly, they claim, it affects the essence of freedom of expression under a democratic regime.

According to the text of Article 61, it prohibits the spread of “false”, “rude”, “inciting” or “intimidating” messages related to the referendum.

The EC’s announcement provides guidelines on permissible activity |by campaigns for the referendum |on the draft charter, including a |ban on people displaying shirts, badges, pins, ribbons, flags or |signs that might influence voters. The ban also extends to distributing the same items in ways that could be construed as attempts to incite violence. 

In early May, the group filed a separate petition against the article, but the Constitutional Court recently ruled it is constitutional, judging that it did not infringe on freedom of expression as alleged. 

The full verdict was published on the court’s website on Monday, reading that freedom of expression is protected under the Referendum Law’s Article 7, but for the referendum to be carried out peacefully and fairly, Article 61 sets additional regulations.

 

‘Clear but unspecific wording’

The verdict also said the article’s second clause clearly targets people who “instigate trouble in order to cause disorder in the voting.

“Clear but unspecific wording is used when the law cannot specify future incidents,” the verdict read. “When an incident occurs, it will be acknowledged and understood whether it falls into what the law stipulates.” 

The court also ruled that the controversial stipulation was not overly broad or vague, adding that if authorities interpret the wording in an unacceptable or overly broad sense, people who are affected could file complaints with the court.

Jon expressed his disappointment with the verdict yesterday, saying the court had adopted the junta’s excuse to limit freedom of expression ostensibly to maintain peace and order. 

“There is no proof that freedom of expression prompts unrest or violence,” he said. “In my opinion, the draft charter, which will be decided in the poll, has an impact on the future of everybody in the country. So, people should be able to receive information from different points of view, so they have enough information before casting their ballots, no matter how they decide to vote.”