The Thai activist, Sutharee Wannasiri, knew the poultry firm had violated labor legal guidelines. She went on Twitter in 2017 to share a video containing an interview with an worker who mentioned he needed to work day and night time with no time without work.
The poultry firm hit again, suing Ms. Sutharee for defamation and libel. Although a courtroom discovered her not responsible in 2020, the corporate wasn’t finished.
Whereas the case was nonetheless pending, her colleague at their human rights group spoke up for Ms. Sutharee on Twitter and Fb. She, too, ended up being sued for defamation and libel. Now the colleague, Puttanee Kangkun, is dealing with a most of 42 years in jail as she awaits a verdict.
The circumstances exemplify what usually occurs in Thailand when firms and authorities officers are sad with public criticism. A prison defamation cost follows through which critics are accused of spreading falsehoods, and defendants discover themselves mired in prolonged authorized battles and dealing with the specter of a jail sentence.
Highly effective figures who know they will use the courts to intimidate, harass and punish critics have taken benefit of what the United Nations Working Group on Enterprise and Human Rights has known as “judicial harassment” in Thailand.
Although the poultry firm, Thammakaset, has been discovered responsible of labor abuses, it has continued to take its critics to courtroom: first, individuals who talked concerning the labor abuses, and later those that complained concerning the measures the corporate was taking to silence these folks.
Since 2016, Thammakaset has filed 39 lawsuits, largely prison defamation circumstances, towards 23 people: migrant employees, human rights defenders and journalists. It has misplaced all besides one, which was later overturned on enchantment.
Three are nonetheless pending.
Along with Ms. Puttanee, Thammakaset can be suing Angkhana Neelapaijit, a former Nationwide Human Rights Commissioner in Thailand, and Thanaporn Saleephol, a press officer for the European Union in Thailand.
All three ladies took to social media to criticize Thammakaset’s lawsuits. All three are accused of defamation and libel; they’re being tried collectively.
Many countries in Southeast Asia have prison defamation legal guidelines, however Thailand stands out. Residents “are simply far more aggressive” in utilizing the legislation to “drag folks into judicial processes which might be sluggish and costly,” in keeping with Phil Robertson, the deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division.
Along with the prison defamation legislation, there may be the Laptop Crimes Act, which makes it against the law to add “false” info that may “trigger injury to the general public.” One other legislation, defending the Thai monarchy from criticism, permits odd Thais to file complaints for violations.
A U.Okay.-based rights watchdog, ARTICLE 19, cited statistics offered by Thailand’s judicial authorities exhibiting that public prosecutors and personal events have filed greater than 25,000 prison defamation circumstances since 2015.
“The enterprise and political elites see this as very efficient as a result of the courts are risk-averse; they settle for nearly any case that’s, on its face, nonsensical,” Mr. Robertson mentioned.
Confronted with calls to handle the rampant misuse of the courts, the Thai authorities amended its Prison Process Code in 2018 to make it simpler to dismiss circumstances towards defendants who can argue they’re performing within the public curiosity. However legal professionals say little has modified.
Sor Rattanamanee Polkla, the lawyer representing Ms. Puttanee, Ms. Angkhana and Ms. Thanaporn, mentioned she filed a petition to get the circumstances thrown out underneath this provision, however the courtroom denied her request.
Thammakaset’s grievance towards the three ladies facilities on the 2018 video shared by Ms. Sutharee, which was made by Fortify Rights. Ms. Puttanee works for the group; Ms. Sutharee and Ms. Thanaporn each used to.
Of their Twitter and Fb posts, Ms. Puttanee, Ms. Angkhana and Ms. Thanaporn expressed solidarity with the activists who had been persecuted by Thammakaset. Their posts linked to a Fortify Rights information launch and a joint assertion with different human rights organizations that in the end linked to the video.
Thammakaset has cited the video, which incorporates an interview with a employee describing working lengthy hours and having his passport withheld, in its grievance.
In 2016, the Thai authorities dominated that Thammakaset had did not pay minimal and time beyond regulation wages or to supply satisfactory depart to employees. In 2019, the Supreme Court docket upheld a decrease courtroom’s order for the corporate to pay roughly $50,000 to a gaggle of 14 workers who had filed the labor grievance.
Throughout a listening to for the three ladies in March, Chanchai Pheamphon, the proprietor of Thammakaset, instructed the decide that he had already “paid his dues” to the employees, but the web criticism continued to harm his enterprise and his status.
He mentioned his youngsters had requested him whether or not the household’s cash had come “from human trafficking, from promoting slaves.”
“How ought to a father really feel when his youngsters asks him this?” Mr. Chanchai mentioned, his voice rising. “I’ve to make use of my rights to battle. However utilizing my rights is seen as threatening, utilizing the legislation to silence them.”
Mr. Chanchai instructed the courtroom that nobody needed to do enterprise with him anymore. However in March, two rights teams printed an investigation exhibiting that after Thammakaset canceled its poultry farm certifications in 2016, a brand new poultry firm known as Srabua was established by a person who shared the identical handle as Mr. Chanchai.
Mr. Chanchai denied any information of Srabua.
Requested by a New York Instances reporter if he deliberate to file extra lawsuits towards critics of the corporate, Mr. Chanchai mentioned, “You’re a reporter for a giant information company. If somebody says you’re a drug vendor, will you battle again?”
Decriminalizing defamation circumstances might have saved Thai taxpayers $3.45 million over 2016 to 2018, in keeping with the Thai Human Rights Attorneys Affiliation. Defendants in civil fits may anticipate to pay massive sums of cash out of pocket.
In the course of the March listening to, Ms. Puttanee, 52, introduced a backpack filled with garments to courtroom. Commuting from her dwelling to the courtroom takes two hours every means, so every time she attends a listening to, she books a lodge at her personal expense.
She mentioned she expects the case to final 4 years if Thammakaset decides to deliver its argument all the way in which to the Supreme Court docket. Nonetheless, Ms. Puttanee counts herself fortunate: She is in a neighborhood that has rallied round her, and her lawyer works professional bono.
“However I nonetheless deal with this as intimidation,” she mentioned.
In the course of the listening to, Mr. Chanchai detailed how Ms. Puttanee’s Twitter posts had defamed his firm. His account took 5 hours; Ms. Puttanee nodded off throughout his testimony.
Ms. Angkhana, the previous human rights commissioner, is well-known in Thailand due to her husband, Somchai Neelapaijit, a human rights lawyer who vanished in 2004 and whose destiny stays unknown.
She mentioned the present lawsuit has taken a toll on her psychological well being.
“It’s repeated trauma when any individual assaults you, once you didn’t do something incorrect,” mentioned Ms. Angkhana, 67. “That is the actual goal of the corporate — to make you are feeling powerless.”
Ms. Thanaporn, 29, mentioned there was irony in changing into a sufferer of the very course of she was denouncing, just by sharing help for her fellow activists on-line.
“The truth that I might be sued for this speaks for itself,” she mentioned.
