Offence by Another Name: Suppressing

Anti-Royal Protest in Britain

by Binoy Kampmark / September 22nd, 2022

The right to protest, fragile and meekly protected by the judiciary in Britain’s common law tradition, did not really hold much force till European law confirmed it.  In the UK, condemning other countries for suppressing rights to protest is standard fare.  So it was with some discomforting surprise – at least to a number of talking heads – that people were arrested for protesting against the monarchy after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.

Such surprise is misplaced.  In the UK, protestors can be marched away before the operation of vast, and vague discretionary powers wielded by the police.  An old, ancient favourite is the breaching of the peace, something many a blue-clad officer is bound to see in any gathering of human beings.

In addition to that general power available to the police, the Public Order Act 1986 UK also covers public order offences.  Section 5 enumerates instances where a person is guilty of such offences: where “they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or disorderly behaviour” or display “any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening or abusive.”

An additional, emotive ingredient is also added to the legislation.  Such conduct should take place “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.” During times of government declared mourning, the abuse of such wording is nigh boundless, despite the imprecise defence of “reasonable accuse” available to the accused party.

It is precisely in such wording that suppression of protest can take place with relative ease.  The conditions of grieving were so utterly total in the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death as to be sinisterly oppressive.  The slightest show of disagreement with the grievers was treated as abnormal and offensive.  It was, as Jonathan Freedland wrote, “our collective moment of madness, a week when somehow we lost our grip.”

The police can count upon another weapon in their already vast armoury of quelling protest.  The latest Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022 is yet another tool, adding “noise-related” provisions.  It grants police powers to limit public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests “where it is reasonably believed that the noise they generated may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation carried on in the vicinity or have a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest.”

The public nuisance element in the legislation is also troubling.  Police powers are granted to enable arrest and charging of individuals responsible for knowingly or recklessly doing something that risks or causes serious harm to the public.  This also covers obstructions to the public “in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large”.  The legislation defines serious harm as death, personal injury or disease; loss of, or damage to, property, or; serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or loss of amenity.”

While the degree of mourning for the Queen’s passing has lacked the intense and grotesque mawkishness shown at Diana’s death, those wishing to sport a different view have also been singled out for their dissent.  There are a good number who see little merit in the monarchy continuing and have expressed disagreement with the new occupant.  One anti-Royal protestor, holding the sign “Not My King” in a peaceful and dignified manner, was removed by police in an incident that caused a flutter of concern.

A protestor in Edinburgh was also arrested for holding up the somewhat spicier “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” placard in front of St. Giles Cathedral.  According to a police spokeswoman, the arrest was made “in connection with a breach of the peace”.  Conservative commentator Brendan O’Neill saw it rather differently, calling it “an alarming, almost medieval act of censorship” and “an intolerable assault on freedom of speech.”

Despite initiating a number of arrests the Metropolitan Police insist, as they tend to, that, “The public absolutely have a right to protest and we have been making this clear to all officers involved in the extraordinary operation currently taking place.”

For those believers in Britannic exceptionalism, this was disturbing.   It troubled University of East Anglia academic David Mead, who found it difficult to identify “what criminal offences protesters might have committed by shouting ‘not my king’ or ‘abolish the monarchy’ as the royal procession of the casket made its way along the streets”.

Mead poses a few questions.  Was there threatening or abusive language likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress within the meaning of the Public Order Act?  Seemingly not.  Were the chants or placards in question threatening or abusive?  Again, the case did not stack up.  Even the public nuisance charge would fail to stick.

Perhaps the only ground left was that unclear power of taking proportionate action to prevent breaches of the peace.  Even in an absence of violence, the police might still decide that violence to a person or property might imminently arise.  Best step in before it’s too late.

This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, showing, yet again, that the Sceptred Isle can hardly be counted as an impregnable bastion of free speech and public dissent.  “If people are not allowed to quietly, if offensively, protest against the proclamation of a king,” reflects O’Neill, “then clearly our country is not as free as we thought.”

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Queen Elizabeth II and 70 Years of UK Wars, Atrocities

Colonialism, neo-colonialism, wars, mass mortality & genocide

by Gideon Polya / September 21st, 2022

Queen Elizabeth II has died, and there is immense public affection for the Queen for her dignified but warm conduct in 70 years of dedicated service as a constitutional  monarch. That affection is most marked among her pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Subjects, as well as among some other British Commonwealth loyalists. However resolutely ignored is the Royal heading of British imperialism, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, war and genocide for centuries up to the present.

The English have invaded 193 of the world’s present-day countries over the last 1,000 years, as compared to Australia 85, France 82, the US 72 (52 after WW2), Germany 39, Japan 30, Russia 25, Canada 25, Apartheid Israel 13, China 2, North Korea arguably zero, Iran zero and indeed most Developing Countries, zero. These invasions, from the Normans invading England in  1066 to the UK-backed US devastation of the Muslim world in the 21st century, have often involved genocide that is defined by Article 2  of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

The most horrendously super-deadly, English-complicit  events (deaths in brackets) include the 16th-19th century onwards Amerindian Genocide in North and South America  (90 million deaths)  the 17th-19th century North American Indian Genocide (up to 18 million deaths), the  15th-19th century African Holocaust of the trans-Atlantic slave trade (6 million deaths), the 19th century Chinese Holocaust (20-100 million deaths), WW1 (1914-1918; 40 million deaths), the 1918-1920 Influenza epidemic (50-100 million deaths), WW2 (1939-1945, 90 million deaths) and the 2-century Indian Holocaust (1,800 million Indian deaths from violence and imposed deprivation under the British) that commenced with the 1769-1770 Great Bengal Famine (10 million deaths) and concluded just prior to Indian Independence with the British-imposed and Australia complicit but “forgotten” 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine; 6-7 million deaths).

While the 2-century British-imposed Indian Holocaust (1757-1947) was quantitatively the worst man-made atrocity in human history (1,800 million Indian deaths from violence and imposed deprivation), from a qualitative perspective the 1788 onwards Australian Aboriginal Genocide and Ethnocide was the worst such atrocity in human history. Of 350-700 Indigenous Australian languages and dialects in 1788 only 120 survive today, and of these all but 25 are endangered.

Queen Elizabeth II was Queen for 70 years,  from 1952-2022, and during that time the UK was regularly involved in wars that were horrendously deadly for the Indigenous people that the UK and its allies were attacking.

There are presently 15 countries having the Queen as head of state (UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Of these 15 countries only the 4 White Anglosphere countries (the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) have been involved in invading other countries during the Queen’s reign (1952-2022).

Summary list of the last 70 years of egregious UK violence and prior impositions: (1) Afghanistan (1838-2021); (2) Argentina (1806-1982); (3) Bahrain (1861-1971); (4) China (18th century onwards); (5) Cyprus (1878-1960); (6) Egypt (1882-1956); (7) Indonesia (1963-1965); (8) Iran (1914 onwards); (9) Iraq (1914 onwards); (10) Jordan (1918-1958); (11) Kenya (1884-1960); (12) Kiribati (1892 -1979); (13) Korean War (1950-1953); (14) Kuwait (1897-1961); (15) Libya (1943-2012); (16) Malaysia (1786-1960); (17) Mauritius (including the Chagos Archipelago, and Diego Garcia) (1810-onwards); (18) Nigeria (16th century – 1970); (19) Oman, 18th century-1971); Palestine (1917 onwards; Queen Elizabeth II never visited Apartheid Israel/Palestine); (21) Qatar (1868-1971); (22) Sierra Leone (16th century – 2000); (23) Somalia (1870- onwards); (24) South Africa (1795-1994) (25) Sri Lanka (Ceylon) (1798-1972); (26) Sudan (1881-1958); (27) Syria (1916 onwards); (28) Uganda (1890-1962) (29) United Arab Emirates (1892 – 1971); (30) Yemen (1839- onwards); and (31) Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) (1889-1980).

The worst circa 1952-2022 atrocities included (dates and deaths from violence and imposed deprivation in brackets):  the Afghan Holocaust (2001-2021; 6 million) Iraqi Holocaust (1990-2011; 6 million);  Indonesia (1965; 1 million); Kenyan Genocide (1952-1960; 1.1 million); Korean War (1950-1953; 5 million); Libyan Genocide (2011-2012; 0.1 million); Malayan Emergency (1950-1960; 1.0 million);  Nigeria’s Biafran Genocide (1967-1970; 3 million); ongoing UK-backed Palestinian Genocide (1916 onwards; 2.2 million); Sierra Leone civil war (1991-2001; 1.1 million); Somali Genocide (1990s onwards; 2 million); Sri Lanka’s Tamil Genocide (1971-2009; 0.1 million); Sudan civil war (1955-2005; 12 million); Syrian Genocide (2012 onwards; 0.5 million); Yemeni Genocide (2012 onwards; 0.4 million); Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) (1965-1980; violent deaths 25,000 with excess mortality from deprivation of 0.7 million); UK complicit, “US-imposed  post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide” in 20 invaded countries (see my book of the same name): 32 million deaths from violence, 5 million, and imposed deprivation, 27 million.  

How many people died avoidably from imposed deprivation in countries variously occupied or otherwise impacted by the Queen-ruled UK in the post-WW2 era?

Whether a child is killed violently (by bombs, bullets, and bashing) or non-violently through avoidable deaths from imposed deadly deprivation (from war, colonialism, neo-colonialism and hegemony), the death is just as final and the perpetrators  just as guilty. Avoidable deaths (excess deaths, deaths that should not have happened)  can be readily estimated from UN Population Division demographic data that have been made available and continually revised since 1950.

The summary data provided below are of 1950-2005  excess mortality/ 2005 population (both in millions, m) and expressed as a percentage (%); this ratio is given for the UK (as a major Occupier), for each country occupied, and as a total for all the countries subject to UK occupation. The asterisk (*) below indicates a major occupation by more than one country in the post-WW2 era.

UK [4.411m/59.598m = 7.4%] – Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Bahamas [0.007m/0.321m = 2.3%], Bahrain [0.054m/0.754m = 7.2%], Bangladesh* [51.196m/152.593m = 33.6%], Barbados [0.015m/0.272m = 5.5%], Belize [0.014m/0.266m = 5.3%], Bhutan [0.908m/2.392m = 38.0%], Botswana [0.443m/1.801m = 24.6%], Brunei [0.020m/0.374m = 5.3%], Cameroon* [6.669m/16.564m = 40.3%], Cyprus [0.054m/0.813m = 6.6%]; Egypt* [19.818m/74.878m = 26.5%], Eritrea* [1.757m/4.456m = 39.4%], Ethiopia [36.133m/74.189m = 48.7%], Fiji [0.054m/0.854m = 6.3%], Gambia [0.606m/1.499m = 47.6%], Ghana [6.089m/21.833m = 27.9%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guyana [0.086m/0.768m = 11.2%], Hong Kong [0.125m/7.182m = 1.7%], India [351.900m/1096.917m = 32.1%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Israel [0.095m/6.685 = 1.4%], Jamaica [0.245m/2.701m =9.1%], Jordan* [0.630m/5.750m = 11.0%], Kenya [10.015m/32.849m = 30.5%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Kuwait* [0.089m/2.671m = 3.3%], Lesotho [0.951m/1.797m =52.9%], Libya [0.785m/5.768m =13.6%], Malawi [6.976m/12.572m = 55.5%], Malaysia [2.344m/25.325m = 9.3%], Maldives [0.015m/0.338m = 4.4%], Malta [0.019m/0.397m = 4.8%], Myanmar [20.174m/50.696 = 39.8%], Nepal [10.650m/26.289m = 40.5%], Nigeria [49.737m/130.236m =38.2%], Occupied Palestinian Territories [0.677m/3.815m = 17.7%], Oman [0.359m/3.020m =11.9%], Pakistan [49.700m/161.151m = 30.8%], Qatar [0.029m/0.628m = 4.6%], Saint Lucia [0.012m/0.152m = 7.9%], Saint Vincent & Grenadines [0.018m/0.121m =14.9%], Sierra Leone [4.548m/5.340m = 85.2%], Singapore [0.113m/4.372m = 2.6%], Solomon Islands* [0.050m/0.504m = 48.5%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m =51.8%], Sri Lanka [0.951m/19.366m = 4.9%], Sudan [13.471m/35.040m = 38.4%], Swaziland [0.471m/1.087m = 43.3%], Tanzania [14.682m/38.365m =38.3%], Tonga [0.020m/0.106m = 18.9%], Trinidad & Tobago [0.052m/1.311m = 4.0%], Uganda [11.121m/27.623m = 40.3%], United Arab Emirates [0.087m/3.106m =2.8%], Vanuatu [0.037m/0.222m = 16.7%], Yemen [6.798m/21.480m = 31.6%], Zambia [5.463m/11.043m = 49.5%], Zimbabwe [4.653m/12.963m =35.9%], total = 727.448m/2247.711m = 32.4%.

The avoidable mortality (excess mortality) from deprivation for the whole world totalled 1.3 billion for the period 1950-2005, but that associated with countries variously occupied  by the UK in the post-WW2 era totalled 727 million or 56% of that in the whole world. The excess mortality for the whole world during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2022) totalled about 1.5 billion (including 1 billion under-5 deaths) with about 50% in countries variously occupied by the UK. Thus about half of this post-1950 Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust of 1,500 million people (including 1,000 million under-5 year old children) during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II can be attributed to British colonialism and neo-colonialism.

History ignored yields history repeated. Presently 7.4 million people die avoidably from deprivation each year (5.3 million being under-5 infants) on Spaceship Earth with endlessly greedy First World One Percenters in charge of the flight deck. However it is predicted that in the absence of requisite action a worsening Climate Genocide  may kill 10 billion people this century en route to a sustainable human population of only 1 billion by 2100 (see Gideon Polya, “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions”).¹

1. Please disseminate this to everyone you can. Silence is complicity. All people are created equal, and we must all adhere to the fundamental imperatives of Humanity, namely Kindness and Truth. For details and documentation see Gideon Polya, “Queen Elizabeth II & 70 years of UK colonialism, neo-colonialism, wars, mass mortality & genocide,” Countercurrents, 18 September 2022. []Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia over 4 decades. He has published the following huge books Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950, Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History, US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide (2020), and Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions (2020). Read other articles by Gideon.

ABOLISH LESE MAJESTE

Estranged son of Thai King Vajiralongkorn says discussion of the monarchy should be allowed

New York-based Vacharaesorn Vivacharawongse signals he rejects Thailand’s harsh lese majeste laws, which ban criticism of the royal family


Ron Lopez in Manila, and agencies

Thu 21 Sep 2023 

Vacharaesorn Vivacharawongse, the second-eldest son of Thai King Maha Vajiralongkorn, said in a Facebook post open discussions of his country’s lese majeste laws should be allowed. Photograph: Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP/Getty Images

An estranged son of Thailand’s king who has spent almost all his adult life away from his homeland has unexpectedly gone public with his belief that open discussions about the country’s monarchy should be allowed, in a rejection of a harsh royal anti-defamation law.

Vacharaesorn Vivacharawongse, one of the king’s five sons, posted his opinion on Facebook after attending a photo exhibition in New York about people who have been charged under the law, Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code.

The so-called lese majeste law makes insulting the monarch, his immediate family and the regent punishable by up to 15 years in prison per offence.


Thailand king’s estranged son makes surprise return after 27 years

“I love and cherish the monarchy, but I believe it is better to know than not knowing. Every person has their own opinion based on their own experiences. Not listening to them doesn’t make their viewpoints or opinions disappear,” wrote Vacharaesorn, who works at a law firm in New York. “It’s another story whether you agree or disagree with them. Talk to each other with reason.”

Thailand has one of the harshest lese majeste laws in the world, under which people, including children, can be charged for posting, sharing, or liking social media posts that are deemed offensive to the monarchy. In 2015, a man was arrested under the law for posting a satirical online remark about Tongdaeng, a street dog rescued by the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The law is highly controversial, not only because of its tough penalties but also because anyone, not just the royal family, can file complaints about alleged violations with police. Critics say it is often used to quash political dissent and point to many arrests of pro-democracy protesters by the government of former prime minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, who led a military coup in 2014 and remained the country’s leader until last month.

Supporters of the law say the monarchy is the bedrock of Thai identity and should be untouchable.

Vacharaesorn is one of four sons that King Maha Vajiralongkorn had with his second wife, Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, a former actor. In 1996 the then-crown prince divorced Sujarinee, who moved abroad with her children. Their youngest daughter was taken back by the royal family and given the title Princess Sirivannavari Nariratana, but the four sons remain estranged and do not have any formal royal titles.

King Vajiralongkorn has married four times and has seven children, but has not named an official heir.


Woman jailed for record 43 years for insulting Thai monarchy

Vacharaesorn, 42, who had long been out of the public eye, drew major attention in August when he made a brief surprise return to Thailand, where he visited a charity organisation and several Buddhist temples to participate in prayers and offerings. Before departing, he told reporters that he wished Thailand would be “a country full of hope” and that Thai people would “respect one another, listen to one another, no matter who we are.”

His statement about the anti-defamation law was posted after photos circulated online of him attending the exhibition, named Faces Of Victims Of 112, at Columbia University on Monday.

At least 257 people have been charged with lese majeste in 278 cases since November 2020, including at least 20 minors, according to the group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. Prayuth’s government launched the crackdown as it faced street protests by student-led groups seeking greater democracy, including reforms of the monarchy.

International human rights organizations and UN experts have called on Thailand to repeal the law, which they say is being used to stifle free speech.

Thousands of pro-democracy activists have staged protests against the law in recent years, with 253 protesters charged under the law, including 20 children under 18, according to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

Associated Press contributed to this report

Petition to strip royal loopholes from Scottish laws becomes Holyrood's most popular

Steph Brawn
Mon, 16 January 2023

A PETITION demanding the Scottish Government abolish royal exceptions and adaptations to legislation has become the most popular on Holyrood's website.

The petition launched by Our Republic has amassed over 6000 signatures in just over a week – nearly twice as many as any other submitted in the past year.

It calls for all details of instances where the monarchy has lobbied for changes in Scottish law to be made public, for them to be reversed, and for any future communications between the monarchy and government to be “fully transparent” to prevent any such alterations to Scottish laws being implemented in the future.

Our Republic convenor Tristan Gray said it is important for people to realise the monarchy are not simply “neutral figureheads”.

READ MORE: BBC Scotland radio host calls Nicola Sturgeon 'our leader'

He said: "We wanted to draw attention to the secretive ways in which the royal family have been interfering with our laws to their own benefit.

“While many people think of the royals as simply neutral figureheads and tourist attractions, the reality is that, behind the scenes, they are anything but.

"News stories this week, from the clear strategy of anonymous briefing to shape media reporting to revelations Charles yet again interfered with environmental regulations in 2019, show how much of an immediate concern these ongoing royal manipulations should be.

“The first step towards changing this is to lift the shroud of secrecy."

READ MORE: An SNP shift to the left could boost independence campaign

A constitutional mechanism called Crown Consent sees the monarch given an opportunity to look over prospective laws that could affect his or her property and public powers. It is not the same as Royal Assent, which is given to bills to make them acts of Parliament.

Gray added: “We're calling on the Scottish Government to ensure all future communication between the Crown and the Government are public and transparent, publish all past correspondence, abolish past exemptions implemented on the monarchy's behalf, and work to prevent such alterations to our laws in the future."

The popularity of the petition has come amid a rocky time for the royals after the publication of Prince Harry's autobiography Spare, which made claims about how the family has sought to shape media reporting and "plant" stories.

The National: Prince Harry's autobiography Spare included revelations about how the family can shape media reporting

Prince Harry's autobiography Spare included revelations about how the family can shape media reporting (Image: Archant)

Reports said that the late Queen was given advance sight of Holyrood bills – allowing her to secretly lobby for changes – on at least 67 occasions. These included bills dealing with property taxation, protections from tenants, and planning laws.

It emerged at the weekend the UK Government asked King Charles for permission to pass its post-Brexit Environment Act because laws requiring landowners to enhance conservation could affect his business interests.

In letters sent in October 2019, then environment minister Rebecca Pow informed Charles: “This bill contains measures on conservation covenants which affect the interests of the crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.

READ MORE: UK's richest one per cent has more wealth than bottom 70 per cent

“Part 7 (conservation covenants) of the bill applies to crown land as it applies to any other land.”

Letters then show that the prince’s private secretary, Clive Alderton, gave his consent for the law.

Gray said that he feels republicanism is growing in Scotland and now is the right time to talk about the future of the monarchy.

He said: "We have members from parties across the political spectrum and republicanism is growing in Scotland. A recent poll showed that only 45% of Scots still support the monarchy.

“We think the time is right to have a proper conversation about the future of the royal family in Scotland, and the vital importance of the concept that all of us should be equal under the law."

The petition can be signed here and will continue to collect signatures until February 2. It will then be considered by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Campus-based Thai protest movement extends reach to streets

By JERRY HARMER August 16, 2020

1 of 16
Pro-democracy activities display a LGBT flag during a protest at Democracy Monument in Bangkok, Thailand, Sunday, Aug, 16, 2020. Protesters have stepped up pressure on the government demanding to dissolve the parliament, hold new elections, amend the constitution and end intimidation of the government's opponents. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)

BANGKOK (AP) — Anti-government protesters gathered in large numbers in Thailand’s capital on Sunday for a rally that suggested their movement’s strength may extend beyond the college campuses where it had blossomed.

Thousands of people assembled at Bangkok’s Democracy Monument, a traditional venue for political activities, where they heard speeches, watched skits and listened to music. Hundreds of police were also present, as well as a small contingent of royalists opposed to the protesters. There was no reliable estimate of the crowd size, though it appeared to be one of the biggest demonstrations in several years.

The rally ended after almost eight hours with about two dozen students who are facing arrest joining together on stage to repeat their demands and renew their commitment to the cause of democracy. They issued a call for the government to take action by next month or face another major protest rally.

The student-led movement had already declared three core demands: holding new elections, amending the constitution and ending the intimidation of critics of the government.

At the finale of Sunday’s rally, they spelled out three more points, which were also written on banners behind them: no coup d’etat, no national unity government and upholding Thailand as a democracy with the king as head of state under the constitution.

The reference to a national unity government was apparently a warning to all political parties against making a backroom deal instead of holding elections, and the reference to the king seemed to be meant as reassurance that they did not want to abolish the monarchy.

“It is clear that students from several generations are the driving force of change in Thai society,” said Narin Isariyasith, a 20-year-old student at Thammasat University.

“We have done this in the past, but Thailand still has no full democracy,” he said. “Dictatorship keeps coming back. And I think it is our duty to end this vicious cycle.”

As the army chief in 2014, current Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha led a coup ousting an elected government. He then served as prime minister in the military regime that succeeded it, and returned as premier after a general election last year. Laws guiding the 2019 election were widely seen as so heavily rigged in Prayuth’s favor that victory was all but guaranteed.

Protest leaders triggered controversy last week when they expanded their original agenda, publicly criticizing Thailand’s constitutional monarchy and issuing a 10-point manifesto calling for its reform.

Their action was virtually unprecedented, as the monarchy is considered sacrosanct in Thailand, and any criticism is normally kept private. A lese majeste law calls for a prison sentence of three to 15 years for anyone found guilty of defaming the royal institution.

The sensitivity of the issue was illustrated by the failure of most mainstream Thai media to report in any detail on the students’ manifesto about the monarchy. The issue was barely and only obliquely touched upon at Sunday’s rally.

Police have arrested several protest leaders and charged them with sedition for statements made at a small rally in July. They were released on bail and vowed to attend Sunday’s rally, in what appeared to be defiance of the terms of their release.

The activists who took the stage at the rally’s finale afterward walked to a nearby police station in what was believed to have been a bid to turn themselves in, but then quickly left unhindered, saying they had only sought to see copies of their arrest warrants. They were still waiting nearby after midnight as their lawyers discussed their legal standing with police.

Many young people at Sunday’s protest were undeterred.

A 10th grade student from Satriwithaya School, an elite secondary school for girls, said it was not the first protest she had attended. The 14-year-old, who gave her name only as Pang, was with friends at a table selling books and other items to raise funds for the protest movement.

“I came to this protest today because I want to express my standpoint in opposing the dictatorship, asking for equal rights and having a better future,” she said.

It has been unclear how the escalation of the activists’ demands to include the monarchy has affected the popularity of the movement, since it could alienate some followers or make them fearful that the authorities will crack down heavily on them.

The government may also be faced with a dilemma, since it is committed to defending the royal institution but likely wary of acting with too heavy a hand that might tilt public support to the protesters.

Prime Minister Prayuth’s government has done well in coping with the health aspects of the coronavirus, but its management of the economy had been lackluster even before COVID-19 battered it.

Royalists have responded to the student movement by defending the monarchy in online statements and petitions, and in person with a small presence adjacent to Sunday’s rally. They declared earlier that they were there to observe and bear witness to any insults to the monarchy.

___

Associated Press writers Busaba Sivasomboon contributed to this report.

THE KING AND JUNTA RULE
Thai Election Winner Seeks to Strip Senate of Voting Power

Patpicha Tanakasempipat
Fri, July 14, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- Thailand’s Move Forward, the party that won the most seats in the May general election, is trying to strip some of the Senate’s powers after the military-appointed upper house of parliament blocked pro-democracy leader Pita Limjaroenrat’s bid to become prime minister.

Move Forward submitted a bill Friday to abolish an article in the 2017 military-backed constitution, which gives the unelected Senate the power to select the prime minister alongside the elected lower house.

This isn’t the first time that someone is trying to challenge the Senate’s voting right. Six attempts have been made in vain since 2020 by political parties and civil society groups to curb the power of the Senate, because such a proposal ironically needs support from at least a third of the 250-member upper house to pass.

Move Forward’s submission came a day after its leader Pita, the sole nominee of the eight-party coalition that has staked a claim to form Thailand’s next government, was thwarted in his bid for premiership by senators, the majority of whom rejected Pita outright or abstained from voting. In doing so, they undermined the result of the May 14 election where voters had overwhelmingly supported pro-democracy parties.

“We don’t know how many times the prime minister selection will be held until it concludes. So, we can do this hand in hand,” Chaithawat Tulathon, secretary-general of Move Forward Party, told reporters at the parliament house. “Since the Senate didn’t want to vote anyway, we’re only looking for a solution for everybody.”

Among the 250-member Senate, as many as 159 members abstained from voting and 34 voted against Pita outright on Thursday. Only 13 backed the popular mandate. But Chaithawat said the party will seek support from more senators for Pita at the next round of prime minister selection next week.

Many members cited Move Forward’s platform to amend Thailand’s lese majeste law, which prohibits criticism of the king or other royals, as a reason for withholding support. Pita has vowed to not back down on the proposal, raising further tension with the pro-military royalist establishment.

The bill was accepted by house speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, who confirmed at the briefing that the second vote to select the prime minister will be held by the joint National Assembly on July 19, at 9:30 a.m. in Bangkok.

“I’ll process this as soon as possible as this is an urgent matter,” Wan said.

 Bloomberg Businessweek

Thailand's Move Forward seeks to curb Senate powers after loss in PM vote


Thailand's parliament votes for a new prime minister

Updated Fri, July 14, 2023 
By Chayut Setboonsarng and Panarat Thepgumpanat

BANGKOK (Reuters) -Thailand's Move Forward party filed a motion in parliament on Friday seeking to curb the power of the military-appointed Senate, a day after the body thwarted its party leader's bid to become prime minister.

The role of the 249-member Senate in deciding a prime minister along with the elected lower house - a system designed by the royalist military after a 2014 coup - is seen as a constitutional safeguard to protect the interests of the generals and the conservative establishment.

Move Forward won the most seats in an election in May but despite being unopposed and having the backing of his eight-party alliance, its leader Pita Limjaroenrat lost the crucial vote on the premiership on Thursday, after the Senate and parties of the outgoing, army-backed government closed ranks to deny him the top job.

Only 13 senators backed 42-year-old Pita, with the rest voting against him or abstaining, which his party said indicated some were acting under duress.

Party secretary general Chaithawat Tulathon filed a motion on Friday to amend part of the constitution, saying "This is a solution that all sides will feel comfortable with".

"There are forces from the old power to pressure the Senate - from the old power to some capitalists who do not want to see a Move Forward government," he said in an earlier television interview, adding it could take about one month to pass.

Pita, a liberal from the private sector, has won huge youth support for his plan to shake up politics and bring reforms to sectors and institutions long considered untouchable.

That includes the monarchy, more specifically, a law that prohibits insulting it, by far Move Forward's most contentious policy and a big obstacle in its attempts to persuade legislators to back Pita.

MAJOR BLOW

Pita vowed on Thursday not to abandon those policies or give up his fight for the premiership. He can run again if nominated in the next vote for the post, which takes place on July 19, the House speaker confirmed.

The defeat on Thursday followed a major blow for Pita on the eve of the vote, when the election commission recommended he be disqualified over a shareholding issue, followed hours later by the Constitutional Court announcing it had taken on a complaint over his party's plan to amend the royal insult law.

The political tension this week had been widely expected.

Thailand has been locked for two decades in a power struggle between reform-minded parties that win elections and a nexus of old money and the military establishment determined to stifle them.

Pro-democracy groups have called for protests. Activist group the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration took aim at the senators and those who abstained in the vote, calling them spineless and "toxic to the will of people".

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political science professor at Chulalongkorn University, called the constitution a straitjacket on democracy, and said systematic attempts to stop Move Forward would see a public backlash.

"These old guard institutions, they need to maintain power because they have a lot to lose," he said.

"The kind of change that Move Forward demands would unwind Thailand's monarchy-centred system and then it would unlock institutional reforms... this would unleash a lot of the competitiveness of Thailand, Thailand's potential."

(Additional reporting by Napat Wesshasarter and Juarawee KittisilpaWriting by Martin PettyEditing by Frances Kerry)

Ambitious liberal fails in first bid to become Thailand's next leader

Thailand's parliament votes for a new prime minister

Thu, July 13, 2023
By Devjyot Ghoshal and Panu Wongcha-um

BANGKOK (Reuters) - In the 60 days since a stunning election victory, the leader of Thailand's Move Forward party forged and managed a coalition, cajoled the royalist military establishment and rallied his troops with a single goal - to become prime minister.

On Thursday, 42-year-old Pita Limjaroenrat failed in his initial bid to win the premiership after he was unable to secure enough votes in a joint sitting of Thailand's 750-member parliament. Another vote is expected to be held next week, which Pita can contest if nominated again.

The setback came despite Move Forward's victory in the May general election, where it emerged the single largest party after running a slick, social-media powered campaign that promised progressive, transparent government to Thai voters.-

But Pita and Move Forward's agenda - particularly a once-unthinkable proposal to amend Thailand's "lese majeste" law - also pit them against the country's powerful conservative establishment, which controls the 250-member appointed senate.

"Give Thailand the opportunity to have a majority government according to the will of the people," he said in a video message on Tuesday, reiterating a call to elected and unelected lawmakers to support him in the bicameral vote.

"I can be a prime minister who runs a country that embraces everybody's diverse dreams," he said.

Yet, by Wednesday afternoon - less than a day before the vote - Pita's quest for power was hit by a double-whammy.

First, Thailand's election commission recommended the Constitutional Court disqualify Pita as a lawmaker because of his ownership of shares in a media company in violation of electoral rules.

Second, the Constitutional Court said it had accepted a complaint against Pita and his party over plans to amend the lese majeste law, Article 112 of the criminal code that punishes insulting the monarchy with up to 15 years in prison.

The actions were a throwback to 2020, when a court ordered the predecessor party of Move Forward dissolved and some of its leaders banned from politics for a decade for violations of election rules.

It was into that breach that Pita - then a first-term lawmaker from a politically influential family with experience working in the technology sector - stepped, becoming the leader of the newly-formed Move Forward.

The position foisted the Harvard University graduate on to the centre stage of Thai politics, which was roiled by a youth-led reformist movement that saw thousands take to the streets, sometimes leading to violent clashes in the heart of Bangkok.

The young protesters took on the military-backed rulers head on, calling for deep-seated reforms, a new constitution and questioning the monarchy's long-held influence on politics and society.

Some of those protesters - and some of those demands - were part of Move Forward's electoral juggernaut, including a call to amend the lese majeste law.

'ABLE TO COMPROMISE'

In a country where many consider the monarch semi-divine, analysts doubted whether a Pita-led Move Forward would be able to push aside a raft of conservative and pro-establishment parties that had dominated domestic politics for over a decade.

At the hustings, Pita drew large, adoring crowds - many of them young voters. The party's trademark orange logo and sharp messaging flooded social media. Late in the campaign, the first-time prime ministerial candidate saw a surge in popularity.

"Vote for Move Forward to change this country together," Pita said in a slick campaign video, taking off a pair of sunglasses and winking.

To millions of Thais weary of an almost decade-long military-backed rule, Pita offered an raft of changes, including increase in minimum wages, dismantling of business monopolies, streamlining of the armed forces and legalising same-sex marriage.

When the numbers rolled in late on May 14, Move Forward not only trounced the ruling coalition but also bettered the populist Pheu Thai Party - the opposition outfit backed by self-exiled tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra, a former prime minister.

The outcome pushed Pita to switch gears from candidate to coalition builder, as a group of seven parties - including the Pheu Thai - coalesced around Move Forward to win power.

"Pita is a democratic representative who can elevate Thailand on the global stage in a dignified way," said Kannawee Suebsang, a member of parliament from the Fair Party, which is part of Pita's eight party-coalition.

"He is a strong leader with charisma but is also able to compromise."

(Reporting by Devjyot Ghoshal and Panu Wongcha-um; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Thailand’s PM Race Can Take a Whole New Turn, Here’s How









Philip J. Heijmans and Patpicha Tanakasempipat
Thu, July 13, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- After failing to win over Thai conservatives in his first attempt to become prime minister, things are looking increasingly difficult for pro-democracy leader Pita Limjaroenrat to secure a victory even if he were to try again.

The parties outside of Pita’s Move Forward-led coalition and the majority of military-appointed senators are opposed to his key campaign promise of amending the so-called lese majeste law that punishes anyone for defaming or insulting the king or other royals.- 

Also, the Harvard-educated politician risks disqualification as a lawmaker after the poll body found him in breach of election rules — saying he held shares in a defunct media company while running for public office. While he may still go for a second chance at premiership when parliament meets next on July 19, analysts expect support for Pita to wear thin within his alliance should he lose again; although there’s no limit on the number of re-votes he can seek.

“I think they will run him again,” said Kevin Hewison, emeritus professor of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Another attempt by Pita will probably harden the stance of conservatives and only weaken support for the pro-democracy alliance, according to Hewison.

The longer it takes for Thailand to form a new government, the more investors will lose confidence in the $500 billion economy whose expansion has been lagging emerging-market peers in Southeast Asia through the pandemic and after. Political wrangling between pro-democracy and conservative groups have also hurt the country’s stocks, bonds and currency markets.

Here are some other scenarios that could play out:

Pita Supports Pheu Thai

Pita could step aside and instead support his coalition partner Pheu Thai, which finished second-place in the May 14 general election and is linked to exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

Isra Sunthornvut, a former member of parliament for the Democrat Party, said he wouldn’t be surprised if next week Pita throws his support behind Pheu Thai to lead the government “for the sake of the country and democracy.”

The only challenge to this scenario is that Pheu Thai may find it difficult to muster support from the conservatives while still being an ally of Move Forward, which has refused to back down on its push to amend the royal insult law.

Pro-Democracy Group Splits

That could leave Pheu Thai inclined to consider breaking away from Move Forward’s coalition and try forming a government led by one of its three candidates for the post, including real estate magnate Srettha Thavisin and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of Thaksin.

Thaksin, who has been considering returning home, had previously said Pheu Thai would not support any attempt to reform the lese majeste law. That makes it easier for Pheu Thai to win enough support from the 250-member military-appointed Senate, helping put a new government sooner than later.

The private sector wants the new government to be in place as soon as possible, so our economy can continue to grow as expected, Thai Chamber of Commerce Chairman Sanan Angubolkul said Friday.

Military-Backed Minority Government

A third scenario involves the Senate supporting a minority government led either by Bhumjaithai’s Anutin Charnvirakul or one of the military-backed parties. That outcome, however, risks sparking protests by supporters of pro-democracy groups.

Since the Senate’s ability to vote for the prime minister expires next year, any minority government is at risk of falling in a no-confidence vote. To guard against that, it’s possible that the establishment may petition the courts to disband Move Forward as what happened in the past to their predecessor, using the push to amend the royal insult law as a pretext, and even annul the election result.

“But that might take some time,” Hewison said referring to the process of disbanding Move Forward and annulling the result. “That said, going to an election quickly is unlikely to produce a different result. But conservatives in Thailand are a balmy lot.”

However, any move to ban the nation’s popular politicians may lead to massive demonstrations. And this time the risks are even higher for the royalist establishment, as protesters have recently been much bolder in directly targeting the monarchy than in previous years.

Such a turn of events could end up hurting tourism, the only economic engine that’s firing on full cylinders and supporting Thailand’s growth amid a downturn in global demand for goods.

--With assistance from Suttinee Yuvejwattana, Cecilia Yap and Anuchit Nguyen.

Thailand's Election Commission says a reformist candidate for prime minister may have broken the law



 Leader of Move Forward Party Pita Limjaroenrat arrives before the signing of a memorandum of understanding on attempt to form a coalition government between Move Forward Party and other parties during a news conference in Bangkok, Thailand on May 22, 2023. 

Thailand's state Election Commission announced Wednesday, July 12, it has concluded there is evidence that the top candidate to become the country's next prime minister, Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat, has violated election law, and has referred his case to the Constitutional Court for a ruling. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit, File)

JINTAMAS SAKSORNCHAI and GRANT PECK
Updated Wed, July 12, 2023 

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand’s Election Commission said Wednesday there is evidence that the top candidate to become the next prime minister — a reformist with strong backing among progressive young voters — violated election law and referred his case to the Constitutional Court.

The commission’s decision included a request that the court order Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat to be suspended as a member of Parliament until the panel issues a ruling.

The alleged violation involves undeclared ownership of media company shares, which are banned for lawmakers. Separately, the court also said it would review a complaint that Pita and his party may have violated the law by proposing to amend Thailand's strict legal provision against defaming the monarchy. Thai media said the court would not make any ruling on Wednesday and that it might need some to consider the issues.

Pita can still be nominated on Thursday when Parliament meets to vote for a new prime minister. But the commission's move raises new doubts about whether he can muster enough votes to get the post, already a struggle because of Thailand's deep political divisions.


The Move Forward Party, with a progressive reformist platform, swept to a surprise first-place finish in May’s general election, capturing 151 seats in the 500-member House of Representatives and the most popular votes. Move Forward has assembled an eight-party, 311-seat coalition with which it had planned to take power.

But Pita's path to power is difficult because he must win 376 votes in a joint session of the House and the conservative, 250-seat, non-elected Senate. The Senate largely represents Thailand's traditional ruling establishment, which suspects Move Forward's proposals for minor reforms of the monarchy endanger the royal institution, which they consider to be the center of Thais' national identity.

Pita's party responded to the Election Commission's decision by questioning its fairness and even its legality. It said its decision was unnecessarily hurried and violated its own procedures by failing to call Pita to give a statement.

The commission had earlier said it acted correctly but Move Forward alleges its members may have engaged in malfeasance, or carrying out duties in a wrongful manner, a crime punishable by 10 years imprisonment and a fine.

The election law complaint against Pita, lodged by a member of a rival party, alleges he ran for office in 2019 while failing to declare his shares in a media company.

The case the commission referred to the court accuses Pita of running for office with awareness that he was ineligible, a criminal violation punishable by maximum imprisonment of three years and/or a fine of up to 60,000 baht ($1,720). The party faces a fine of up to 100,000 baht ($2,865).

Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, the government’s top legal advisor, has been quoted as saying that a ruling against Pita could be grounds for nullifying the May election results and holding a new election.

There have been fears since the election that Thailand’s conservative ruling establishment would use what its political opponents consider to be dirty tricks to hold on to power. For a decade-and-a-half, it has repeatedly used the courts and supposedly independent state agencies such as the Election Commission to issue controversial rulings to cripple or sink political opponents.

The dissolution in 2019 of the Future Forward party, a forerunner of Move Forward, triggered vigorous street protests by pro-democracy activists that trailed off only when the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

Hours after the Election Commission announced its referral of the shareholding case, the Constitutional Court said it had has accepted a separate petition against Move Forward and Pita concerning their campaign promise to amend Thailand's harsh lese majeste law,.

The law, also known as Article 112, mandates a three to 15 year prison term for defaming the king, his immediate family, or the regent. Critics of the law say it is abused for political purposes, and Move Forward wants changes to rein in such abuses, which it claims actually do damage to the monarchy's reputation.

Royalists soundly reject all efforts to amend the law, and courts have sometimes treated such proposals themselves as tantamount to violating the law. The military and the courts consider themselves stalwart defenders of the monarchy, and the Senate members overwhelmingly share their viewpoint.

If the court agrees that the accused's actions constitute trying to overthrow the constitutional monarchy — a separate provision from Article 112 — they will not be subject to punishment but can be ordered to cease all activities related to their proposed amendment, subject to prosecution if they continue.

Analysis-Thailand's monarchy looms over battle for prime minister
 

Vajiralongkorn, King of Thailand

Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat thanks voters ahead 

of the vote for a new prime minister on July 13, in Bangkok


Mon, July 10, 2023 

By Panu Wongcha-um and Panarat Thepgumpanat

BANGKOK (Reuters) - The role of the monarchy in Thailand is at the core of a looming deadlock that could tip Southeast Asia's second-largest economy into crisis, with reformers once again vying to dislodge the grip on power of the royalist military establishment.

Despite a stunning victory with its allies in a May 14 election over pro-military parties, the progressive Move Forward party led by Pita Limjaroenrat faces an uncertain path to government.

The main reason is that part of Move Forward's political platform is the once-unthinkable proposal to amend Thailand's "lese majeste" law, Article 112 of the criminal code that punishes insulting the monarchy with up to 15 years in prison.


In a country where reverence for the monarch has for decades been promoted as central to national identity, the idea is so radical that minority parties and many members of the appointed Senate have vowed to block Pita from becoming prime minister.

"The proposed amendment is disrespectful and is offensive to the monarchy," Senator Seri Suwanpanon told Reuters.

The military has for decades invoked its duty to defend the monarchy to justify intervention in politics, and used the lese majeste law to stifle dissent, critics say.

In parliament, a giant portrait of King Maha Vajiralongkorn hangs over the chamber where on Thursday members will vote for a prime minister.

But the battle over who gets the job could lead to weeks or even months of deadlock thanks to the votes of a 250-seat Senate, appointed by a junta, that could block the election-winning progressive alliance from securing its choice in a combined vote of both chambers.

The system was set out in a constitution drafted after a 2014 coup led by then-army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha, the prime minister whose party lost badly in the May election.

Much depends on whether Move Forward's main ally, second-place winner Pheu Thai, sticks with it or seeks other coalition partners if Pita's bid looks doomed.

King Vajiralongkorn, 70, who has no role in choosing a government, has remained silent on the lese majeste issue since the election. The Royal Palace did not respond to a request for comment.

SWEEPING CHANGE

Move Forward's proposed amendment reflects cultural changes that have in a few years swept Thailand, where the monarch has for decades been held up as almost semi-divine.

On the surface, much remains the same. The king's portrait hangs on city streets and buildings. The nightly Royal News airs the royal family's good deeds.

But subtle changes are evident. In cinemas, many no longer stand for the royal anthem before every film. Satirical memes spring up on social media before the government orders them removed.

The biggest change, however, is political. In the last election in 2019, no party would have dared suggest amending the lese majeste law.

But Move Forward not only dared, it won the most seats in May though the amendment was only one plank of a progressive platform.

The shift emerged with student-led demonstrations in 2020 that began as protests against military rule but evolved into criticism of what the protesters called a military-palace power nexus, and finally into criticism of the king.

Politicians did not lead the protests but Move Forward called for reform of the lese majeste law when activists began to be charged under it.

About 250 of the 1,900 prosecutions linked to the 2020 protests were under Article 112, according to the group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

The prosecution of so many under the law pushed the issue into mainstream discourse, analysts say.

"We can now see the real fault line in politics is the role of the monarchy in Thailand's political order," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political analyst at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

NUMBERS GAME

With many senators expected to vote against Pita for prime minister, Move Forward's 312-seat alliance of eight parties in the 500-seat lower House of Representatives may not be enough to secure him the premiership.

To get to the 376 votes he needs, Move Forward and main partner Pheu Thai need to convince 64 lawmakers from the Senate, or from other parties in the lower house.

If Pita falls short, other scenarios come into play.

Pheu Thai, which has 141 seats to Move Forward's 151, could nominate its prime ministerial candidate with the eight-party alliance intact.

Loyal to self-exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted in a 2006 coup, Pheu Thai has been more careful in its messaging on lese majeste, so one of its prime ministerial candidates could win enough votes.

Another possibility is that Pheu Thai seeks other partners in the lower house for a coalition without Move Forward. Pheu Thai, however, is vowing to stick with Move Forward.

Titipol Phakdeewanich, dean of the faculty of political science at Ubon Ratchathani University, said using the law to crush dissent had backfired.

"By over-using Article 112, the conservatives dragged the royal institution deeper into politics," he said.

Move Forward says amending the law will prevent its misuse and benefit the monarchy. It wants the penalty reduced to at most a year in prison, and only the Royal Household Bureau to be able to file a complaint instead of anyone.

"Some senators misunderstood ... accusing Move Forward of wanting to topple the monarchy," party executive committee member Amarat Chokepamitkul told Reuters.

"We want to amend it to maintain good relations between the monarchy and the people."

(Reporting by Panu Wongcha-um and Panarat Thepgumpanat; Editing by Kay Johnson, Robert Birsel)

ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!

Indigenous Canadians make a painful plea on eve of British royal visit

IF THE POPE CAN APOLOGIZE SO CAN QEII


Mon, May 16, 2022

(Reuters) - As Britain's Prince Charles and his wife Camilla prepare to visit Canada this week, some members of the indigenous community are calling on the British royal family to formally acknowledge the harm colonization did to First Nations people.

The royal couple will arrive in St. Johns, Newfoundland on Tuesday on a three-day trip that will include stops in Ottawa and the Northwest Territories and focus on the issues of reconciliation with indigenous peoples and climate change.

The impact of colonization, the residential school system and the loss of lands is what the crown represents, Mary Teegee, the executive director of child and family services at Carrier Sekani Family Services in the province of British Columbia, told Reuters.

"They also have to understand that they are not the leaders in our nation," Teegee said, adding that recognition of the harms of colonization are needed rather than just a "trite" apology.

Although Canada ceased being a colony of Britain in 1867, it remained a member of the British Empire, with a British-appointed governor-general acting on behalf of the monarch.

And it was under the guise of the crown and Canada's federal government that some 150,000 indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and enrolled in a Christian-run network of residential schools between 1831 and 1996.

That policy, described by some as a form of cultural genocide, and survivors' accounts of harsh, paramilitary-like conditions have been under the microscope since the discovery in 2021 of the remains of more than 200 children buried in unmarked areas on the grounds of one such school in B.C.

CBC News on Monday quoted Cassidy Caron, the president of the Métis National Council, an indigenous group, as saying Queen Elizabeth should apologize to the residential school survivors.

Caron said she plans to deliver that message when she meets Charles, the heir to the British throne, and Camilla during their visit, which is part of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations marking the queen's seven decades on the throne.

'DISTANT ALIEN THING'

Jess Housty, a community organizer for the Heiltsuk Nation in B.C., said that while she doesn't care about the visit, it's hard to ignore the colonial past and the "bad relations that have happened for centuries."

The monarchy is "this distant alien thing that feels really irrelevant in my life and work," Housty said.

An opinion poll https://angusreid.org/canada-constitutional-monarchy-queen-elizabeth released by the Angus Reid research group in April shows support among Canadians to abolish the country's constitutional monarchy rising, with about 51% saying it should disappear in coming generations, up from 45% in January 2020.

While acknowledging there were a lot of people in her community who didn't actively support the monarchy, Housty conceded that many had been excited when Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate visited her area in 2016.

That excitement is on display once again this week, said St. John's Mayor Danny Breen, who told Reuters that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is looking forward to the arrival of Charles and Camilla.

"People have respect for the queen and have respect for the family," Breen said.

(Reporting by Jenna Zucker; Editing by Denny Thomas and Paul Simao)

Anti-monarchists see an opportunity to prove their point in the coronation events.

Supporters of an elected head of state for Britain see the coronation as an opportunity to highlight the absurdity of having a royal family in the 21st century.

Anti-monarchy protesters gathered for a demonstration before the coronation in London on Saturday morning.

Credit...Pool photo by WPA


By Emma Bubola

NEW YORK TIMES
May 6, 2023

While some Britons prepared for King Charles III’s coronation by buying royal paraphernalia or cooking for street parties, a 21-year-old student in the northern city of Leeds instead ordered 50 beach balls bearing the words “No more royals.”

The plan is to throw them around at a protest at Trafalgar Square in central London on Saturday organized by Republic, a group representing Britain’s anti-monarchist movement, which its members say is being energized by the coronation.

“The coronation does a lot of good for the movement just by being itself,” the student, Imogen McBeath, said in an interview. “Absolutely ridiculous.”

During the events surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year, the British republican movement laid low, wary of appearing insensitive at a time of mourning. But with attention again turned to the royal family, the anti-monarchists of Republic, whose thousands of members range from their teens to their 90s, have embraced a new strategy.

They said they expected at least 1,000 people to turn up for Saturday’s protest, wearing yellow, holding banners and chanting, “Not my king.” Several anti-coronation parties are also planned around the country, with members eager to use the crowning of King Charles as evidence of the absurdity of having a monarchy in this day and age.

“They will put a glittery golden crown on his head in a Christian church,” said Matt Turnbull, a 35-year-old Republic member who lives in London and planned to attend the protest, in an interview. “Look at it, and just accept that something about this feels weird in 2023.”

Mr. Turnbull said that he expected the coronation to make his stomach turn, but that it also felt good that he would not be alone in having such a feeling. “The worse it makes me feel to watch it,” he said, “the more quickly we will move to abolish it.”

That Charles appears to be less popular than Elizabeth, his mother, is also rising the hopes of anti-monarchists. Although 58 percent of respondents in a recent poll by YouGov commissioned by the BBC said they still preferred a monarch to an elected head of state, the figures also suggested that a change may be underway, with only 32 percent of people aged 18 to 22 backing the idea.

Riz Possnett, 19, a University of Oxford student who uses they/them pronouns, said that the monarchy and its colonial legacy were an outdated symbol for modern, multicultural Britain.

“The British identity can come from better places than an unelected king,” they said. “The coronation reminds how weird and archaic our system is.”

They and Mx. McBeath, who also uses they/them pronouns, said they had once shown their disdain for the monarchy by sneaking into the King’s Bed in Windsor Castle, a building that can be visited as a tourist attraction, making out there and reading Prince Harry’s autobiography in protest.

They said the coronation would be a key moment to highlight the idea that the only reason Charles will have a dedicated party and public holiday is that he was born into the right family — especially as many people in Britain are struggling to afford food and electricity.

“I think the pomp and ceremony of that all, the king wearing a crown, will feel like a slap in the face to people struggling,” said Mx. Possnett.

After the organizers of the coronation invited millions of Britons to pledge an oath of homage to the monarch and his descendants — a suggestion that drew swift criticism from many quarters — a friend of Mx. McBeath’s wrote an alternative pledge. “Pledging allegiance to someone and all their children is not a democracy,” said Mx. McBeath.

The alternative pledge swears allegiance “to the living Earth and its People; not any nation state or Monarch. I will uphold the values of Democracy, Solidarity, Justice, Peace and Love.”

Mx. McBeath said they planned to attend the protest at Trafalgar Square on Saturday to listen to speeches, sing and chant.

“My goal is to have more fun than all the monarchists around,” they said.

RUDE AWAKENING

Giant penis mowed on to lawn where Bridgerton filmed before King Charles’s Coronation party

The lawn will host a garden party on Saturday.



King Charles III on a walkabout outside Buckingham Palace, London, to meet wellwishers ahead of the coronation on Saturday. Photo: PA — © PA


Níall Feiritear Yesterday

Tricksters have mown a giant penis into a famous 'perfect lawn' on one of Britain's most exclusive streets - just days before a coronation party.

Residents of the exclusive Royal Crescent in Bath were stunned to wake up to the large image on the grass outside their homes this week.

The Royal Crescent is hosting a Georgian-themed Grand Coronation Party at the weekend.

A flyer for the party says says: "Celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Georgian era.

"Decorate your own regal crown, watch demonstrations on royal fashion and visit the Georgian Cook cooking up delicious recipes in the kitchen."

The Royal Crescent will be familiar to Netflix viewers as the location of the smash-hit Regency era drama Bridgerton.

Tweet

Meanwhile a People Before Profit TD has said that RTÉ's planned broadcast of King Charles’ coronation this weekend is “quite inappropriate”.

Paul Murphy said the state broadcaster should rethink their coverage of the event, which he believes is simply an “attempt to launder the reputation of the monarchy.”

“People are going to be asked on Saturday, through their TV screens, to swear allegiance to Charles, a man who nobody has cast a single vote for, a man who was titular head of the parachute regiment responsible for Bloody Sunday, a man who received suitcases full of cash from the Qatari prime minister.

“The idea that RTÉ - a public service broadcaster in a republic, which was colonised by the British empire - should be showing this as some major item, as opposed to featuring it for a couple of minutes in a news piece, seems to me to be quite inappropriate.”

RTÉ will televise the event from 10am on Saturday and while Murphy explained that he wasn’t trying to police public service broadcasting, he believes the coronation has no place on Irish television screens.

Another tweet

“The British monarchy is not some benign tourist attraction. It is built on racism, on slavery, on empire,” he said.

“They're going to spend something like £250m, they're going to give an additional £400m to do a full renovation of the palaces for Charles and Camilla.

“This isn’t some kind of neutral thing. Even the idea that the history of racism for the monarchy is something in the distant past... Camilla’s crown is being refurbished with £60m of Star of Africa diamonds. They were taken from South Africa in 1907.

“There’s going to be 6,000 British troops (and) 60 fighter jets. It’s going to be a display of obscene militarism and imperialism.

“Let’s see if people want to watch it. Even in Britain 70pc of the public say they don't care very much, or they don't care at all, about the coronation.

“In Ireland, I suspect the numbers who care are going to be substantially less,” Mr Murphy said.