Thai activist, Sutharee Wannasiri, knew the poultry company had violated labor laws. She took to Twitter in 2017 to share a video featuring an interview with an employee who said he had to work day and night with no days off.
The poultry company responded, suing Ms. Sutharee for libel and libel. Although a court declared her innocent in 2020, the company is far from complete.
While the case is still pending, her colleagues at their human rights organization have spoken out for Ms Sutharee on Twitter and Facebook. She was also sued for libel and libel. Now, his colleague, Puttanee Kangkun, is facing a maximum sentence of 42 years in prison pending a verdict.
These cases are testament to what often happens in Thailand when companies and government officials are unhappy with public criticism. A criminal defamation charge ensued, in which critics were accused of spreading disinformation, and defendants found themselves mired in protracted legal battles and facing threats. sentenced to prison.
Powerful figures know they can use the courts to intimidate, harass and punish critics who take advantage of what the United Nations Business and Human Rights Working Group calls “harassment”. justice” in Thailand.
Although the poultry company, Thammakaset, has been found guilty of labor abuse, it continues to bring its critics to court: first those who talk about labor abuses, and then those who talk about labor abuses. complain about the measures the company is taking to silence those people. everybody.
Since 2016, Thammakaset has filed 39 lawsuits, mostly criminal defamation cases, against 23 individuals: migrant workers, human rights defenders and journalists. It lost all but one, which was later rescinded on appeal.
Three are still pending.
In addition to Ms. Puttanee, Thammakaset is also suing Angkhana Neelapaijit, former National Commissioner for Human Rights in Thailand, and Thanaporn Saleephol, European Union press officer in Thailand.
All three women took to social media to criticize Thammakaset’s lawsuits. All three were charged with defamation and defamation; they are being tried together.
Many countries in Southeast Asia have criminal defamation laws, but Thailand stands out. According to Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch, citizens are “much more aggressive” in using the law to “draw people into slow and costly adjudication processes”.‘S Asia division.
In addition to the criminal defamation law, there is also the Computer Crimes Act that makes it a crime to upload “false” information that could “damage the public.” Another law, which protects the Thai monarchy from criticism, allows ordinary Thai people to file complaints about violations.
A UK-based rights watchdog, ARTICLE 19Citing statistics provided by Thailand’s judicial authorities, prosecutors and private parties have filed more than 25,000 criminal defamation cases since 2015.
“Business and political elites see this as very effective because the courts are risk averse; Mr. Robertson said.
Faced with calls to tackle rampant court abuse, the Thai government revised the Criminal Procedure Code in 2018 to help dismiss cases against potential defendants. It becomes easier to argue that they are acting in the public interest. But lawyers say little has changed.
Sor Rattanamanee Polkla, the lawyer representing Ms. Puttanee, Ms. Angkhana and Ms. Thanaporn, said she had filed a request to dismiss the cases under this provision, but the court had denied her request.
Thammakaset’s complaint against three women centered on a 2018 video shared by Ms Sutharee, made by strengthen rights. Ms. Puttanee works for the organization; Ms. Sutharee and Ms. Thanaporn have both been.
In their Twitter and Facebook posts, Ms. Puttanee, Ms. Angkhana and Ms. Thanaporn expressed solidarity with activists persecuted by Thammakaset. Their posts were linked to a Fortify Rights press release and a joint statement with other human rights organizations that were eventually linked to the video.
Thammakaset cited video, including an interview with a worker who described working long hours and having his passport withheld, in the complaint.
In 2016, Thai authorities ruled that Thammakaset did not pay minimum wages and overtime or did not give workers adequate leave. In 2019, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order ordering the company to pay about $50,000 to a group of 14 employees who filed a labor complaint.
During a hearing for three women in March, Chanchai Pheamphon, Thammakaset’s owner, told the judge he had “paid the right price” for the worker, but online criticism continued damage his business and reputation.
He said his children asked him if the family’s money came from “trafficking in people, selling slaves”.
“How should a father feel when his children ask him this?” Mr. Chanchai raised his voice. “I have to use my right to fight. But using my rights is considered threatening, using the law to silence them.”
Mr. Chanchai told the court that no one wanted to do business with him anymore. But in March, two human rights groups published an investigation that found that after Thammakaset canceled its poultry farm certification in 2016, a new poultry company called Srabua was set up by a the man has the same address as Mr. Chanchai.
Mr. Chanchai denied any information about Srabua.
Asked by a reporter for the New York Times if he planned to file further lawsuits against critics of the company, Mr Chanchai said: “You are a reporter for a major news agency. If someone said you were a drug dealer, would you fight back?”
According to the Thai Human Rights Bar Association, legalizing defamation cases could save Thai taxpayers $3.45 million between 2016 and 2018. Defendants in civil lawsuits may also have to pay large sums of money yourself.
During the hearing in March, Ms. Puttanee, 52, brought a backpack stuffed with clothes to court. Commuting from home to court takes two hours each way, so each time she attends a hearing, she pays for her own hotel.
She said she expects the case to last four years if Thammakaset decides to take her argument to the Supreme Court. However, Ms. Puttanee considers herself lucky: She is in a community that has rallied around her and her attorney working professionally.
“But I still see this as a threat,” she said.
During the hearing, Mr Chanchai detailed how Ms Puttanee’s Twitter posts defamed his company. His account took five hours; Ms. Puttanee nodded in his testimony.
Angkhana, a former human rights commissioner, is well known in Thailand for her husband, Somchai Neelapaijit, a human rights lawyer who disappeared in 2004 and whose fate is still unknown.
She said the current lawsuit has taken a toll on her mental health.
Angkhana, 67, said: ‘It’s a repetitive trauma when someone attacks you, when you’ve done nothing wrong. “This is the real purpose of the company – to make you feel helpless.”
Thanaporn, 29, said it was ironic to fall victim to the very process she is denouncing, simply by sharing her support for activists online.
“The fact that I could be sued for this speaks for itself,” she said.
