Tiger Temple Puts Thai Laws on Defamation, Not Wildlife Protection, In Spotlight
- By Gregory Smyth
- Published 03/8/2010
- Legal
- Unrated
Tiger Temple, in the Kanchanaburi province, was originally set up as a rescue center, creating a home for tigers or tiger cubs that were rescued from poachers. It has evolved into a tourist attraction, and according to the Temple's own records, has bred around 10 tiger cubs from the original group of rescued animals. They are now suing conservationists over an article published in April 2009 in the Thai Post. Three conservationists have been charged with defamation under Thai law. Today we examine the implications of the case as seen by Thai law consulting experts.
The conservationists
The conservationists at the center of this Thai law debacle are Edwin Wiek, of the Wildlife Friends of Thailand, Sawan Sangbunlang, of the Thai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Dr Surpon Duangke of the Wildlife Fund Thailand. The article was published in April 2009, and Dr Duangke's organization closed in July 2009.
The allegations
The unproven allegations made against Tiger Temple include the following:
.Tiger mistreatment: Tigers at the Temple are said to be beaten with sticks (this has been photographed), kept at bay with sharp metal poles and shovels, and kept away from visitors without regard to their own safety. One allegation made by several visitors to the temple as well as the conservationists is that tigers are drugged for photo opportunities
with visitors.
.Illegal breeding: Under Thai law, breeding centers must be registered as such. By the temple's own records, there have been ten cubs born at the facility from the original group of animals. The conservationists are claiming there have been many more.
.Illegal trading of tigers: Trading in endangered species is against both Thai law and international law, and the conservationists claim that a tiger farm in Laos has been paying for cubs born at the facility.
The defamation case
Many of these allegations were actually tabled in a report created by undercover investigations by British organization Care for the Wild International (CWI). There were no charges brought against CWI for their 2008 report, however when the same facts were repeated several months later in the Thai Post, Tiger Temple decided to take action in conjunction with their Thai law firm.
Under Thai law, in defamation cases the person or group making the defamatory statement has the burden of proof; they must be the ones to prove that the allegations are true, rather than the prosecuting body being forced to prove they are untrue. It is for this reason that Thailand lawyers recommend a high level of prudency in publishing.
Evidentiary standards in a court of law are often much higher than that required for a member of the public to believe something is true. Thai law consulting firms recommend having a lawyer go over any potentially controversial statements.
The conservationists
The conservationists at the center of this Thai law debacle are Edwin Wiek, of the Wildlife Friends of Thailand, Sawan Sangbunlang, of the Thai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Dr Surpon Duangke of the Wildlife Fund Thailand. The article was published in April 2009, and Dr Duangke's organization closed in July 2009.
The allegations
The unproven allegations made against Tiger Temple include the following:
.Tiger mistreatment: Tigers at the Temple are said to be beaten with sticks (this has been photographed), kept at bay with sharp metal poles and shovels, and kept away from visitors without regard to their own safety. One allegation made by several visitors to the temple as well as the conservationists is that tigers are drugged for photo opportunities
.Illegal breeding: Under Thai law, breeding centers must be registered as such. By the temple's own records, there have been ten cubs born at the facility from the original group of animals. The conservationists are claiming there have been many more.
.Illegal trading of tigers: Trading in endangered species is against both Thai law and international law, and the conservationists claim that a tiger farm in Laos has been paying for cubs born at the facility.
The defamation case
Many of these allegations were actually tabled in a report created by undercover investigations by British organization Care for the Wild International (CWI). There were no charges brought against CWI for their 2008 report, however when the same facts were repeated several months later in the Thai Post, Tiger Temple decided to take action in conjunction with their Thai law firm.
Under Thai law, in defamation cases the person or group making the defamatory statement has the burden of proof; they must be the ones to prove that the allegations are true, rather than the prosecuting body being forced to prove they are untrue. It is for this reason that Thailand lawyers recommend a high level of prudency in publishing.
Evidentiary standards in a court of law are often much higher than that required for a member of the public to believe something is true. Thai law consulting firms recommend having a lawyer go over any potentially controversial statements.
Gregory Smyth
BSA Law has focused on providing reliable thai Law consulting and services to the business community in Thailand for nearly 30 years.Click to find out more about Law firm in Thailand.
View all articles by Gregory Smyth