Night curfew ordered for thai youths

[SiamJai]

Dear Makiyo,

Reading your post, I cannot help my curiosity: I wonder how serious you would be in applying your principles to real life? That is, when (and if) you will have children, would you give your 12-year old daughter the same unlimited freedom that you say other's kids should have? Leaving whenever she wants, staying wherever she desires - going home is optional?

Quote[/b] ]We all should know, we were once of that age.

I object to this generalization. I know quite a few people (including myself) who didn't cause their parents, teachers or other authorities any problems at that age. Rebelliousness, IMO, is not natural at any age - it needs a certain environment to encourage and cultivate it.

These laws are the perfect tool to reduce this negative influence. It is well-known that most criminal activites occur during the nighttime, and the policymakers mention this also ("most crimes including gang rape, shootings and motorcycle races are committed after 10pm, after they have consumed alcoholic drinks.", see first post) It is also obvious that many illegal activities are concentrated at the "nighttime entertainment establishments".

The previously discussed zoning laws, combined with this curfew ensure that the young generation is not subjected to illegal behaviour that they most likely would be encouraged to follow. It doesn't elminate their exposure to peer pressure entirely, but it will reduce it.

Quote[/b] ]There are so many countries that do not exercise such a curfew, are their youths any worse?

Yes. Since it is almost Spring Break, you may have the opportunity to check out the behaviour of Spring Breakers in the US. Makes me sick to the stomach...

[Redbird_Lefty]

I think I know Makiyo's character well enough to know that she, as a (hypothetical) mother, wouldn't let her 12 year old daughter out till all hours of the night to do as the young girl pleases. That is an extreme mischaracterization of her point just so you can make yours. I took her point to be that the law should not autocratically dictate the activities of a minor where those activities are fully legal. That's all she was trying to say, from what I read. As a (hypothetical) mother, I'm guessing that Makiyo would not even allow her daughter out at all, but whether she does or not, the point is that the government is not going to raise her daughter for her.

If, say, 4% of the young people are not abiding by the law, is it fair to punish the other 96% with a curfew? Obviously, it sounds like something should be done about the illegal activities but should it be done at the expense of the 96% who are the good examples?

If the prevalence of illegal activities does occur at nighttime entertainment establishments, doesn't it make far more sense to strip the operating licenses of those establishments when they are caught allowing illegal activities to occur on their premises? A few well-placed extractions of licenses will send a clear message to all establishments that illegal activities will not be tolerated. Unless, of course, those establishments bribe enough people to render that strong option as meaningless. In which case, look authoritarian and crack down on the innocent 96%, as if that will solve the problem (politicians look good this way since they look like they are doing something, knowing full well that young people won't vote to hold those same politicians accountable).

Seeker, with your comments about Spring Breakers (how it makes you sick to your stomach) you seem way too puritanical and anti-fun. Don't get me wrong (i.e., don't make an extreme mischaracterization of my point), yes, absolutely, something should be done about crime, but not about someone simply having a good time, whether that occurs in Bangkok or Fort Lauderdale.

[SiamJai]

Thank you Redbird, but I'd rather wait for Makiyo to explain her point. She is intelligent enough to support her opinion - no need for uncalled "guardians"... :/

...especially with such a faulty reasoning like that. Makiyo said these international rules that guarantee unlimited freedom apply to anyone, regardless of age. So, by your logic, while guardians elected by the people cannot breach this constitution, guardians by chance (ie. parents) can? One would think the opposite is true, since there are numerous examples where states take children away from unfit parents.

Everyone can become a parent - it doesn't take much skill to procreate - but only special ones can be the leaders of over sixty million people. They make the decision not based on the well-being of just one segment of a population, but taking the health of the entire country into account.

Quote[/b] ]the government is not going to raise her daughter for her.

Talk about taking a point to the extreme just to prove one's own... We are discussing a simple curfew, for Pete's sake!

Quote[/b] ]If, say, 4% of the young people are not abiding by the law, is it fair to punish the other 96% with a curfew?

If you see this measure as punishment, then that's your problem. I see it as a preventive measure, to protect the remaining 96% from the influences that would make them join the 4%.
another extreme example for your pleasure: if someone drops babies from a cliff, it is better to catch them before they bounce back, no?

Quote[/b] ]doesn't it make far more sense to strip the operating licenses of those establishments when they are caught allowing illegal activities to occur on their premises?

I agree with you that revoking licenses of these establishments would also be a good idea. However, since the burden of proof is on the state, each and every one of these actions would require a lengthy and costly legal procedure. I'd imagine there are dozens of legal loopholes when proving that a bar actually allowed these illegal activities to occur. "oh, we didn't know it was happening" would be the first one that comes to mind...

Quote[/b] ]Seeker, with your comments about Spring Breakers (how it makes you sick to your stomach) you seem way too puritanical and anti-fun.

You think you know... but you have no idea. It is funny how you like to speculate about the characters of people you never actually met, Redbird. I don't say don't do it - on the contrary, please provide us with more amusement!

Yes, I disapprove Spring Breaker activities displayed in the media, but how that makes me anti-fun is beyond me. If that's your only idea of fun, you make a sorry excuse for a human being.

I am not sure what you mean by "puritanical" either. If you try to evoke the image of a grim-faced man dressed in black robe with holy scriptures in one hand, and a stick in the other, I am sorry to disappoint you.

I am a simple guy who just wants to do the right things in life while avoiding the bad things. Applying here, I am pleased to see actions that make sure that when people have "fun", they don't do it in a way harmful to others. Is that too much to ask for? ...

[Redbird_Lefty]

Seeker, based on my and vc45's debate with you a few months ago (re prostitution), I concluded that you are a slippery debater. I have debated many issues with many highly educated people over the years, but you are not one of the better ones. You misconstrue one's arguments into something you can then shoot down easily but which no longer addressed that person's original point. What's worse, you do that intentionally! Adding insult to injury, you then get emotional AND patronizing. Talk about a major red flag! Why debate with someone who poisons the well of what should be a good discussion?

Case in point -- I said that you SEEM way too puritanical. I stress the word 'seem' because I was making a judgment call. Yet, you treated my statement as me saying absolutely that you are puritanical. Hey, you're right, I never met you, but based on the things I've seen you post here re curfews and prostitution, you SEEM puritanical (and the fact that you want to "protect" the 96% by virtually confining them only supports that contention). And there were numerous other cases of miscontrued statements I endured during the prostitution debate last fall.

Seeker, to your credit, you are knowledgeable, but you are not a fair debater. IMHO.

[SiamJai]

You mention that ill-fated debate, but it seems that you are unaware of how that debate ended (on my part, anyway). It was a semantic problem eerily similar to this one that messed the whole thing up really badly. To spare you from reading it again: your buddy Vis took offense on one of my remarks, despite the word "would" indicating the conditional tense. When I tried to explain, he shook the gesture off as a feeble attempt to save face, and he chose to remain offended. So now, should I handle this the same way he did?

I won't. What I will rather do, is go over your statements carefully and reply to them in a meaningful way - a courtesy you did not give me in your last post. I had some points there for you about which I was interested to hear your opinion... instead, all I got was general ad hominem attacks. What a pity.

Quote[/b] ]You misconstrue one's arguments into something you can then shoot down easily but which no longer addressed that person's original point.

Did it occur to you that perhaps the original meaning was still there, but you just lost it? No one is omnipotent, after all. Or perhaps my statements were not clear enugh - that happens too. Why jumping the gun and thinking only the worst?

Quote[/b] ]you then get emotional AND patronizing.

Au contraire! I tend to control my emotions, and only let them go when and where I see fit. Besides, if I seem to be puritanical to you, how can I be seen emotional at the same time? Puritans are well-known for their strong control of emotions, you know.

Patronizing - that's the way adults treat children and immature people. Since my never-hidden opinion is that truly responsible mature grown-ups don't engage in a behaviour that is destructive to self and detrimental to society, some people will inevitably evoke a patronizing attitude from me. That's just the way it is. A mistake of character? Perhaps, but at least I am aware of it. Maybe we can have a little session discussing your shortcomings in such detail too, one day. You may be surprised!

Quote[/b] ]Why debate with someone who poisons the well of what should be a good discussion?

You forgot to say, "IMO", Redbird. Because that is your opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, the discussion got to a dead end when you steered it hopelessly off-topic with this last post of yours. You could have just sent me a PM (personal message) telling the same thing... but nooooo.

Thank you for messing this thread up - the others will appreciate it as well, I am sure.

Quote[/b] ]you want to "protect" the 96% by virtually confining them

There is an English proverb that escapes my mind right now... it was along the lines of unnoticing one's own mistakes, just to see it magnified when others do it.

[sarcasm]You misconstrued my statement, Redbird! Who said anything about confinement, virtual or real? You just word it this way to shoot it down easily, while losing the original meaning! [/sarcasm]
Seems familiar from somewhere? :/




At any rate... if next time, you have something personal to say, please do so via PM. I highly doubt anyone got any benefit from our little intermezzo here. I just hope you didn't ignite a flame war, and that the discussion can continue in a meaningful manner - with or without you.

[smiaw]

I think the discussion here is getting a bit too "hot" now .
Can you all please stop any further posting for 3 days --- just to cool thing down?

[Makiy0]

Boys, boys, what's happening. Please don't do this... Both of you are respected and important members of this forum. I think that both of you are extremely intelligent and I regard the both of you very highly. It saddens me deeply when I see the both of you engaging in verbal melee over a petty issue stemming from a misunderstanding.

Although I have not had a single wink of sleep more than 30 hours at the time of this post, due to me working overtime on my appellate brief and other legal research, I will try my best to respond to Seeker's questions for me and comment on Redbird's answer on my behalf.

Today during lunch break, which was 4 hours long, I had a debate on Human Rights and then applying it to the curfew Thailand is intending to impose with an Associate Professor specialising in Constitutional Law and 2 other very learned friends. All of us had largely differing opinions on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. First, we discussed it on a conceptual basis. Nowhere among the 30 articles is there any language to suggest that the these rights were only to be restricted to adults. I submit that some rights weigh more than others. For example, the right to go home is not as important as the right to liberty or the right to life.

To regard the Declaration in only its plain meaning is unfair and would be an evasion of some possible rebuttals on my part. A purposive consideration is also required. We shall look into the history of the declaration. When it was first enacted, some inalienable rights inherent to all men were in fact subject to the definition of men. Back when women and minorities had no/less rights, the reason was because the word "men" did not include women and minorities. Therefore, there is inference that the word men in today's reading of the Declaration could also be limited to mature adults. However, in my debate, although we failed to agree on many points such as the classifying of rights into negative and positive rights, we did find that this was not a defensible opinion.

In our day and age where equality is so important, children though lesser in stature are not restricted to lesser rights. So how do we reconcile the purposive and plain readings of the Declaration, my friend suggested that the rights of a child such as that of liberty are "safe kept" by the parents before the child comes of age. This also fits in line with the law of tort where the parents are deemed to have the highest standard of care owed to their offsprings. With this I shall now address Seeker's remarks:

Quote[/b] ]That is, when (and if) you will have children, would you give your 12-year old daughter the same unlimited freedom that you say other's kids should have? Leaving whenever she wants, staying wherever she desires - going home is optional?

That would be a resounding NO! The duty is on me to ensure the safety of my child. I will allow a slumber party at a friend's place, a mummy-daughter chill out session into the late night but not by herself. However, that is in line with my reasoning that the rights of liberty of my child is in my hands, not the hands of the state.

Quote[/b] ]These laws are the perfect tool to reduce this negative influence. It is well-known that most criminal activites occur during the nighttime, and the policymakers mention this also ("most crimes including gang rape, shootings and motorcycle races are committed after 10pm, after they have consumed alcoholic drinks.", see first post) It is also obvious that many illegal activities are concentrated at the "nighttime entertainment establishments".

There are many methods to combat these vices without resorting to the law. In Legal Theory: Jurisprudence, we learn that law such be the last resort to use to control the population. The reason why we can prosecute criminals and deprive them of liberty is because the moment they overstep their rights by infringing on the rights of others, they have forfeited their basic rights. Therefore, it is unethical to deprive the innocent majority of their right to liberty just to get to the unlawful minority. It would be similar to convicting a man of murder based only on his mens rea without any actus reus like the movie "Minority Report".

There is also the irony that the unlawful minority being unlawful would find ways and means to break the curfew (purchasing of fake IDs) without being caught which then defeats the purpose of the curfew. We are all aware of the intergrity of a large amount of the Thai police force, with them in charge of enforcing this law does not instill much confidence to the workability of the curfew.

Quote[/b] ]Since it is almost Spring Break, you may have the opportunity to check out the behaviour of Spring Breakers in the US. Makes me sick to the stomach...

I have no idea what the spring break is but if whatever they are doing does not infringe on others' rights nor contrary to law, then it's really quite alright. You are of course entitled to your opinion of the spring breakers and no one can say you are wrong.

Redbird

Quote[/b] ]as a (hypothetical) mother, wouldn't let her 12 year old daughter out till all hours of the night to do as the young girl pleases.

That is true.

Quote[/b] ]If, say, 4% of the young people are not abiding by the law, is it fair to punish the other 96% with a curfew?

Weighing the comparative detriments and benefits against the materiality of what they are protecting against, I would pass personal judgement that the curfew is unwarranted since they have not even tried out more justiciable methods of arresting the problems. Quarantine should be one of the last resorts. Some people rank liberty above life and I am one such person.

I will not comment on the latter exchanges between the two of you. I do however pray that both you gentlemenly and highly intelligent persons would find ground for reconciliation. At least in agreeing to disagree as was the case for my debate today.

[paul_au]

I think every one has the right to be free and not to be a victim of a crime, a curfew is wrong because it is against a Persians civil liberties to be free. But if you cannot go out of a night because there is a danger you might be a victim of crime, then you have you civil liberties indirectly taken off you any way. I think the introduction of a curfew is a failure of government policies over 30 years ago by not fixing things such as unemployment which has started a criminal culture.