• 
• 

Since this so-called violence came from both sides - the police and the protesters - it is unfair to issue statements condemning only the officials. It would be better if the National Human Rights Commission and other like-minded organisations condemned all parties involved in the bloodbath. It is not a question of who used it first, or who exercised more restraint. Anybody using violence needs to be rebuked.

In accordance with the 1998 United Nations declaration, "human rights and fundamental freedom should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner, without prejudice to the implementation of each of those rights and freedoms".

However, most human-rights activists in Thailand tend to promote just the rights of people suppressed by authorities and fail to follow the principle of taking a non-partisan stand when facing political division and confrontation. They usually end up protecting their chosen side and ignore the rights of the opponent.

When put in the context of the current crisis, human-right activists seem to ignore the fact that People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters violated the rights of parliamentarians and officials as well as media representatives by blocking the gates of the Parliament.

Of course, the freedom of assembly is a right guaranteed by the constitution, it should not be used to violate the law and hinder the basic rights of other people.

Protesting outside the Parliament to express disagreement is acceptable, but trying to derail the delivery of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's policies is going beyond the limit.

The human-rights activists who came out to condemn the police chose to turn a blind eye on the fact that many protesters and PAD security guards were armed with sticks, guns and even bombs. The said weapons were used to injure at least a dozen anti-riot police officers and a protester even tried to kill a police captain by driving a pickup truck over him. In a normal situation, these acts would be called criminal.

Many statements issued by human-right activists after the crackdown na?vely said they wanted to morally back PAD's war against the government, which is widely believed to be the proxy of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. They failed to realise that giving moral support to any one party in a conflict is not really the job of a human-rights defender.

It is understandable though why Thai rights defenders find it difficult to remain unbiased. This is because most of them are former political activists who tend to believe that standing against authority is the correct thing, and that protecting people standing against authority is the same as protecting their rights.

However, the current crisis is far too complicated. The PAD protest is not a demonstration in accordance with basic human rights, but has taken the form of a war being waged by conservative elite and reactionary urban middle-classes against politicians elected by the rural poor.

Through its demonstration, the PAD has managed to mislead human-rights defenders into believing that ordinary citizens are exercising their freedom of assembly.

It would be ideal if the PAD tried to achieve its goal through peaceful means. Unfortunately, its core leaders like Sondhi Limthongkul are calling on their warriors to accept the consequences of violence.

Of course, everyone's right needs to be protected, but once violence comes in, this protection becomes very limited.