Matthew

^ OK you're right, as a matter of fact.

zehner

Prominent historian Charnwit Kasetsiri related how the custom for movie-goers to rise when the Royal anthem is played in cinemas began in Thailand.

The practice started in cinemas in Britain in the 1910s during the reign of King George V. Pictures of him were shown on the screen and the ''God Save the King'' national anthem was played at the end of the movie.

It was aimed at creating a feeling of nationalism and strengthening allegiance to the British monarchy in the First World War period, he said.

In the early-1960s, many students refused to conform and the practice was eventually abandoned.

The practice was ''imported'' to Thailand by British-educated Thais and theatre owners, said the historian.

A picture of His Majesty was shown on the screen along with the Royal anthem at the end of a movie and all movie-goers were supposed to rise.
Around the 1970s, Thai theatres began to play the anthem before the movie and this practice has continued until the present day.

Bangkok Post : General news

__________________
Now, to pry into roots, to finger slime,
To stare, big-eyed Narcissus, into some spring
Is beneath all adult dignity. I rhyme
To see myself, to set the darkness echoing.

Nickyboy

Why would they refuse to conform?

tomcat

...because it's a silly inconvenience imposed by more-royalist-than-thou government officials?

__________________
Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd....

Nickyboy

Right, take him away for 're-education'

teacherfinder

My wife is different too! Can I have some free popcorn?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"We have a saying where I come from too senator...don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin!" - from The Outlaw Josey Wales

"If we weren't crazy, we'd all be insane!" - Jimmy Buffet

zehner

No Prosecution for Alleged Anti-“No Standing” Offender

Prachatai
21 September 2008
News

A case was filed by Mr. Chotisak On-soong and Ms. Chutima Penpak against Mr. Nawamin Wittayakulon charges concerning an act of violence not amounting to bodily or mental harm to the other person; insulting a person in his presence; mischief; an offence committed with the participation of five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any act; and quarrelling noisily in a public way or place. The case stems from the fact that Mr. Nawamin threw popcorn and paper at the two plaintiffs for their failure to stand up while the royal anthem was played in a theatre on 20 September 2007. Later Mr. Nawamin sued Mr. Chotisak On-soong and Ms. Chutima Penpak for lèse majesté under Section 112 of the Penal Code (“whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years”).

Revently (19 September 2008), the public prosecutor decided to drop all the above charges against Mr. Nawamin.

A statement issued by the public prosecutor mentions that the alleged offender had simply thrown a box of popcorn and a roll of paper at the plantiffs and a medical doctor found no injuries from this action. Thus, it is construed that the two plaintiffs suffered no mental or bodily harm. In addition, the alleged offender committed the act out of anger and excessive temperament and did not intend to harm the two plaintiffs. It is thus believed that he had no intent to commit the offence.

As for the offence of mischief, the property damaged held such little value since the two plaintiffs had bought it just for 119baht, and the property’s value was depreciated as a result of their consumption. During the incident, the alleged offender simply asked the two plaintiffs to pay due respect to His Majesty the King and the Queen and the Monarchy, an act which is a respectful tradition in Thai society; therefore, it was construed that the alleged offender had no intention to cause mischief.

As to the fact that the alleged offender threw paper toward the plaintiffs and shouted “get out” at them, and that other moviegoers jeered and shouted to demand the plaintiffs leave the theatre, this cannot be construed as any verbal or physical gesture or expression which showed that the alleged offender was making a threat to the plaintiffs to the point where they could reasonably fear injury to life, body and liberty. Likewise, it cannot be construed as an intention to use force while the two plaintiffs were told to leave the theatre. Thus, the offence of an act committed by five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any actcannot be established from the facts.

That the alleged offender said that “whatever nation, religion, monarchy (you belong to), why don’t you show love toward His Majesty? Are you Thai? See, even Westerners learn to stand up” is simply a word of warning and a reminder to the plaintiffs of the consequences of their action. It cannot be construed as libel or defamation, does not impair the reputation of another person or expose another person to hatred or contempt. And that the first plaintiff held up a mobile phone for communication and stood to obstruct the view of other moviegoers, and thus that the alleged offender said that “You have no manners. Such crazy shirts you wear. Get out of here” was simply a consequence since the act of the first plaintiff was viewed as contradicting good manners in viewing a film where the use of mobile phones or distracting other viewers’ attention is prohibited. Thus, the words uttered to the first plaintiff were made with the intention to bring such a violation of social etiquette to a halt. It cannot be construed as scolding, defaming or impairing the reputation of another, and as a result, the verbal action of the alleged offender cannot be used as a ground to establish defamation or insulting a person in the present case.

The exchange of words between the alleged offender and the plaintiffs stemmed from the intention of the former to demand that the latter stand up to show due respect to the royal anthem and cannot be construed as a quarrel. It happened that the alleged offender made most of the verbal expressions to demand action from the plaintiffs. Thus, the ground for the offence of quarrelling noisily in a public way or place cannot be established.

No Prosecution for Alleged Anti-?No Standing? Offender News www.prachatai.com/english

__________________
Now, to pry into roots, to finger slime,
To stare, big-eyed Narcissus, into some spring
Is beneath all adult dignity. I rhyme
To see myself, to set the darkness echoing.

stfranalum

^ A step-by-step self-help guide to creating "Your Own" rationalizations for herd behavior.