Thread: Finnwatch reveals labour abuses among Thai suppliers to Europe

^in the thai criminal liable case, telling the truth is not a defence in its self, you need to persuade a thai judge that there was a public interest in the disclosure too. not something that is as cut and dry as evidence based truth.

Its best to think of the thia libel laws as lm for common people who happen to be able to afford lawyers.

Thank god for people like Andy Hall who expose truth; Country is as rotten as it gets.

Originally Posted by Hypatia

Thank god for people like Andy Hall who expose truth; Country is as rotten as it gets.

In my book anyone who ever they are who exposes wrong doing to either man or animal even when the Country in question is not his own deserves praise , just a shame that some Thai's who have "meddled " in the rich and powerful peoples "business affairs" here have often paid for it with their lives , nor do their loved ones they ever receive "Justice" ,many "long timers" here often laugh at the very mention of the word!

So is anyone saying that "The Guardian" should keep its nose out of other peoples "business" affairs cos the injustice that is being perpetrated is not in the UK?Sweatshops are still supplying high street brands | Madeleine Bunting | Global development | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

British human rights activist threatened with prison for exposing alleged labour abuses in Thai factory - Telegraph

British human rights activist threatened with prison for exposing alleged labour abuses in Thai factory

A prominent British human rights activist who has worked with Aung San Suu Kyi is facing two years in prison and a multi-million pound fine, after co-authoring a report that slammed a Thai company for its alleged use of Burmese child labour in one of its factories.


Andy Hall, right, has worked with the Burmese Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi Photo: Andrew Chant Pictures

By David Eimer, Bangkok

5:21PM GMT 28 Feb 2013

Andy Hall, who has worked with the Burmese Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, has been charged with broadcasting false statements under Thailand's Computer Crime Act, a charge that carries a maximum jail term of two years.

Mr Hall, from Lincolnshire, has also been charged with defaming and damaging the National Fruit Company by broadcasting false statements to public media. Defamation is a criminal offence in Thailand and if convicted, he faces a fine of up to £6.6 million. Last May, Mr Hall organised Ms Suu Kyi's visit to Mahachai, a fishing port south of Bangkok that is home to 250,000 of the estimated two million Burmese migrant workers in Thailand.

In his report for a Finnish organisation, Mr Hall alleged that a pineapple canning factory run by the National Fruit Company employed Burmese children as young as 14, failed to pay the Thai minimum wage, confiscated travel documents and forced people to work 20-hour days.

He said he believed the charges were politically motivated. "There have been official attempts to silence me, and this court case is the last stage of harassment," he said. "I think it's ridiculous to bring a court case against someone like me. It sends a very negative message to the outside world."

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...hreatened.html

see also :

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...mong-thai.html (Finnwatch reveals labour abuses among Thai suppliers to Europe)

Such a shame that some people look at the good work that people like Andy Hall at exposing these shady business practices as "poking their noses in" so sad, so sad!.

Legal actions against Finnwatch researcher are an attack against human rights defenders and freedom of expression
Mon, 01/04/2013

Thailand's authorities must immediately launch an investigation into the operations of Natural Fruit and its parent company NatGroup. Human rights issues must be tackled also in the ongoing free trade agreement negotiations between Thailand and the EU.

Natural Fruit, a maker of tinned pineapple and juice concentrate, has submitted two lawsuits in Thailand against Andy Hall, the migration expert who recently coordinated Finnwatch's field research in Thailand.

If found guilty, Mr Hall could face seven years in prison. Natural Fruit is also demanding seven million euros for damages.

The accusations relate to research commissioned by Finnwatch and conducted by Mr Hall in October-November 2012 and the communication of its results to the public.

The most alarming findings were based on interviews with Natural Fruit's employees. The workers, some of whom were undocumented migrants, reported poor working conditions, unlawfully low wages, confiscation of official documents, use of child labour and excessive overtime. Interviews were documented and can be verified.

Finnwatch communicated the findings to relevant Thai ministries in December 2012. Natural Fruit was also contacted repeatedly during the research process. The company did not respond in any way or display any interest to comment on our findings.

Despite strong evidence indicating serious wrongdoings, Natural Fruit or its parent company NatGroup have not been held accountable and are allowed to continue their operations.

Our understanding is that the lawsuits filed against Andy Hall are not only unfounded but also a part of a wider attempt to limit the activities of human rights defenders and the freedom of expression in Thailand.

In recent months alone, several situations have been reported in which the fundamental human and labour rights of workers in Thailand's key export industries, such as shrimp, tuna and pineapple processing, have been grossly violated. Thai authorities' responses have in many cases been inadequate and ineffective.

Thailand recently finalised lengthy negotiations on a partnership cooperation agreement with the European Union, its third largest trading partner. According to José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption are essential elements of the agreement. In March, the EU and Thailand launched negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement.

It is important that the EU, in the context of the ongoing negotiations as well as in its other interactions with Thailand, raises the above-mentioned human rights issues and uses all the means in its power to encourage Thailand to respect human rights and the freedom of expression.

Thailand must step up its efforts to protect human rights defenders and to ensure that organisations, researchers, activists and journalists promoting human rights may carry out their work free of harassment.

All legal actions against Andy Hall must be dropped, and Thailand's authorities must immediately launch an investigation into NatGroup's operations.

prachatai.com

How dare he talk negatively about Thailand. Thailand numba 1....off with his head!

Does he reside in Thailand?

Originally Posted by chitown

Does he reside in Thailand?

Originally Posted by post #4

Andy Hall is a prominent migrant and labour rights defender based in Thailand and Burma.

.....

The EU can obviously pressure Thailand to do something about blatant abuses


but will they?

The EU: Do as I say, not as I do....

Pristine and pure.
Benign and benevolent.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

The EU: Do as I say, not as I do....

Pristine and pure.
Benign and benevolent.

So I can take it that if you lived in blighty like me you would be voting for UKIP in the next GE then?

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

The EU: Do as I say, not as I do....

Pristine and pure.
Benign and benevolent.

So I can take it that if you lived in blighty like me you would be voting for UKIP in the next GE then?

The best move the English ever made.
Refuse to participate....

You're missing my point.
There are no standards for ethical and moral behaviour.
As, corruption and graft is apart of who we are [species].
It's in great supply everywhere.

Originally Posted by expattaffy

Whatever he thinks he should keep his nose out, it is not his country and it is none of his damn business. serves him right.

That what I say. If it's none of my business, I don't care.

I know it is bad, child labour and all that, but I was out washing cars and delivering newspapers at 11 years old. Nobody defended my rights.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Criminal defamation charges against a prominent labor activist violate his right to free speech and will have a chilling effect on investigations of alleged rights abuses by companies in Thailand.

humm, obvious don't know thailand very well otherwise they would have said "does have a chilling effect". If there is one is one learning point for western companies to learn from this, its the necessity to write in to their contracts with their suppliers some level of control over the actions the supplier can take when they whistle blown.

Just a thought!

Is Julian Whistleblower still living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London?

Well given that andy hall has been charged with criminal libel as a result of the natural fruit company registering a complaint with the police, just how is the fucked up thai sakdina court system involved? has the case even reached the court system yet? has a judge been appointed, has a court date even been scheduled.

As far as I am aware, criminal liable law is not in place as a result of the thai constitution, it is an ordinary law put in place by parliament and it is for parliament to repeal or amend. likewise the only organization able to implement laws to protect and aid whistlblowers, workers rights is parliament.
Would it not therefore be sensible to call upon the thai government to implement change.

A criminal defamation case, whether initially brought to the police or to the court, is not tried unless an officer of the court determines the case is worth trying.

Originally Posted by hazz

the natural fruit company registering a complaint with the police, just how is the fucked up thai sakdina court system involved? has the case even reached the court system yet? has a judge been appointed, has a court date even been scheduled.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Proceedings in the case, brought by a fruit processing company before the South Bangkok criminal court, are scheduled for April 11, 2013.

No mention of the police. Court seems to have accepted the case and a court date seems to have been set.

But of course this is a problem with the parliament of Thailand (especially now with all the Shinawatras running around), not with a corrupt justice system.

Well as far as I am aware, criminal complaints are initiated by doing down to a police station. though I am happy to be corrected if i am wrong. Now what you are saying is that the natural fruit company cannot have enough evidence to register a complain of criminal liable against andy hall and that they must be paying bribes to get the case registered.... ergo the courts are the problem not the criminal libel law itself.

Seems to me you are starting off with the answer and then inventing the evidence to back it up. i.e:

• that parliament and therefore the government must have nothing to do with this problem.
• therefore the law cannot be the root cause of the problem
• it must be because corrupt people within the court system who are allowing an invalid case to be registered

Again to the best of my knowledge to register a case of criminal libel in Thailand you have to show that Andy hall reported something that either damaged the reputation of natural fruit or caused them financial harm and that the alleged victim does not have to demonstrate that the accusations they are complaining about are false or that there is no public interest in the disclosure.
Now seems to me that its prity obvious that the report has damaged natural fruits reputation and I would also expect that they can demonstrate financial damage in the form of canceled orders.
On that basis I cannot see the grounds for an officer of the court could refuse to register the case. Perhaps you would like to explain these grounds.

Originally Posted by hazz

Now what you are saying is that the natural fruit company cannot have enough evidence to register a complain of criminal liable against andy hall and that they must be paying bribes to get the case registered.... ergo the courts are the problem not the criminal libel law itself.

Help me out here, hazz... where did I say this?

Originally Posted by hazz

On that basis I cannot see the grounds for an officer of the court could refuse to register the case. Perhaps you would like to explain these grounds.

Considering the requirements for a case to be entered into the courts, it's likely that an officer of the court would have to recognize that allowing this kind of action to procede would tend to hamper all kinds of human rights abuse investigations, that the report contains testimony from various sources, that the agency and individuals involved have a record of working in the sphere of human rights, and that reporting crimes is not equivalent to libel. Given all that, it would be apparent that the charge is simply an attempt to silence criticism and therefore not genuine.

Generally, a person who feels he has been defamed can bring criminal charges in one of two ways: 1. he may file a complaint with the police; or 2. he may file the criminal action directly with the criminal court.

However, charges of criminal defamationare barred unless they are initiated within three months from the date that the offence and the offender became known to the injured party. They may also be withdrawn by the aggrieved party at any time prior to final judgment.

If a complaint is submitted to the police, they will question the aggrieved party and summons the accused to appear for similar questioning. After completion of an investigation, the investigating officer will issue an opinion to the Public Prosecutor, making a recommendation for or against prosecution.

If the prosecutor ultimately decides to prosecute, the matter will go to trial and the aggrieved party can join prosecution as a co-plaintiff. At that stage it is likely the accused will be required to post bail.

A person also has the option of filing criminal charges directly with the court . In that event, the court will schedule preliminary hearings to determine whether the facts support trying the case. If the court agrees that there are reasonable grounds to proceed, it will schedule a trial just as though the Prosecutor were bringing the charges.

https://teakdoor.com/doing-things-leg...html#post28327 (Defamation and Thai law - Bangkok Post article)

Originally Posted by DJ Pat

Originally Posted by expattaffy

Whatever he thinks he should keep his nose out, it is not his country and it is none of his damn business. serves him right.

That what I say. If it's none of my business, I don't care.

I know it is bad, child labour and all that, but I was out washing cars and delivering newspapers at 11 years old. Nobody defended my rights.

What ? just for making an extra bit of pocket-money. I am very sure that you received
very fair renumeration for said jobs.
I also suspect that either you or your employer were breaking the law being aged 11 but i applaud your get up and go at such an early age.