Aug 20 incident in Siem Reap against Venerable Sovath and Chikreng villagers

In front of the Siem Reap provincial court, the villagers explained that Ven. Sovath did not break any law
Ven. Sovath (far right) explained that the cops shot his villagers
Balloons carrying messages calling for the release of Chikreng detainees
Villagers leaving the court
Siem Reap cops stopping the NGO's van carrying Ven. Sovath
A hochimonk can be seen illegally entering a private van in an attempt to physically remove Ven. Sovath
Elderly women villagers got on their knees to beg the hochimonks not to take away Ven. Sovath
Meanwhile the crowd of villagers kept on growing bigger and bigger
The villagers started to surround the van carrying Ven. Sovath to provide a shield protecting him against the cops and the hochimonks
The villagers provided an escort to the van as it crossed the city of Siem Reap
Providing their protection to Ven. Sovath is serious business for Chikreng villagers
Ven. Sovath walked the last 100-m through Siem Reap with his villagers
The villagers' convoy followed the van carrying Ven. Sovath out of town

Click here to read the RFA report

On August 20, 200 people – including two communities and one union - gathered in front of the court waiting to hear two verdicts against Chi Kreng (CK) representative. Villagers held helium balloons holding messages calling for the release of Chi Kreng detainees and justice for Chi Kreng. Despite being threatened with defrocking, violence and arrest, Venerable Sovath insisted he go to the court to be with his community. Irish filmmaker and Canadian HRD (me) accompanied him by driving him to the court for safety.

Forty (40) monks and monk police showed up at the court to take Venerable Sovath. More than 20 police and military police were on scene, majority in civilian clothes. Villagers once again surrounded Venerable Sovath to protect him. Some villagers prayed and begged to monks/monk police to leave Venerable Sovath alone. Others tried negotiating with them, while a handful talked to the media.

After the verdicts were released (see Verdicts below) Venerable Sovath, the Irish filmmaker and I returned to the car and drove back into the city. Shortly after the van was in the city, we were stopped by traffic police. NGO workers who were following our van stopped and negotiated with police. After 5 minutes we were released only to be stopped a few minutes later by provincial police who forced our van to relocate to in front of a pagoda and escorted our van there.

Villagers heard about the problem and directed their trucks to the scene. Villagers arrived at the same time as the monks/monk police. One of the head monk police actually got into the vehicle and tried pulling Venerable Sovath out. My team and I then closed all the doors as the van was private property, and the villagers surrounded the van. The elder women sat on the road in front of the monks and prayed them to leave Venerable alone, some women lost complete emotional control and were screaming and wailing in desperation. Some monks and police were visibly moved by this display. Other police were intimidating villagers and NGO monitors by taking pictures of faces. One LC team member was threatened twice by police regarding her use of cameras at the scene.

The road started clogging with people stopping to check what was going on. Siem Reap is a tourist town so it was quite embarrassing for all authorities. After two hours like this, one policeman started yelling at me to move my van. Six Chi Kreng villagers and one NGO jumped in the van, and the other 200 villagers remained around the van. Together they walked the van through the town to where their trucks were waiting. The walk took an hour and blocked traffic that whole time. It was an amazing display of people power though I was too stressed to enjoy it. Once the crowed reached their trucks, the trucks escorted us outside of Siem Reap. We drove an hour with one truck filled with villagers in front of our van, two trucks behind, followed by two NGO cars, and one free-media car. After one hour, only one NGO remained behind our van to ensure no one was following us. After two hours, we carried on driving back to Phnom Penh on our own and and arrived safely.

On August 21, four Khmer newspapers and one English newspaper printed the story. One of the Siem Reaps main (pro-government) TV stations broadcast the incident and monk media conference held afterwards.

Please find attached photos from the incident on August 20th.

Please find below details of the verdicts and Buddhist Laws regarding defrocking of a monk.

Hope you are all well.

In Solidarity,
Lee
---------------

VERDICTS

Two Chi Kreng verdicts from Siem Reap court on August 20, 2010:

1. Nine (9) CK representatives were convicted of three (3) years for ‘Organised Crime’ under Article 36/UNTAC, resulting in 17 months prison sentence and 19 months suspended prison sentence. Original charge was ‘Attempted Murder of Police Officers’. (Detainees have already served 17 months pre-trial)
2. Three (3) CK reps (one in absentia) were convicted of a) three (3) years for ‘Illegal Confinement’ Article 35/UNTAC, resulting in three (3) years suspended sentence, and b) ‘Defamation’ Article 63/UNTAC, resulting in $120 fine.
3. As most of these CK reps are facing additional charges/convictions, it is unclear if any CK reps will be released from CK prison. Also, prosecutor can appeal these verdicts.

-------------

DEFROCKING

According to Buddhist doctrine, discipline of monks is the internal affair of the Buddhist community of monks (Sangha) and Buddhist officials, and not the government. It is inappropriate for government authorities or police to facilitate the process of defrocking.

The decision to force a monk to defrock is not a secular affair. The decision is taken by the community of monks (the Sangha) and Buddhist officials, and not governmental officials.

Four Offenses

Upon entering the monkhood and donning the saffron or burgundy robes, Theravada Buddhist monks pledge to follow Buddhist precepts and discipline. Infraction of these rules is very serious, and can result in a monk being warned or put on probation. The more extreme step of forcibly defrocking a monk, dismissing him from the monkhood, and expelling him from the monastery is taken only for monks who have committed any of the four offenses (bap) that “defeat” a monk and require that he leave the monkhood: 1) engaging in sexual relations, 2) stealing, 3) killing, or 4) falsely claiming to possess superhuman powers.

Process

The Buddhist monastic code calls for such decisions to be made through a process called adhikarana-samatha, or the settlement of issues by a community of peers, which is analogous to due process and fair trial rights provided by secular justice systems. This means that prior to the decision to defrock, the accused monk may be allowed to answer questions, offer clarification, or defend himself. The most extreme disciplinary measure is defrocking; other measures include admitting a breach of discipline, pledging not to repeat the act, or placement under probation.

Defrocking as a human rights abuse:

When conducted by government officials backed up by police, rather than a religious organization, defrocking can constitute interference or limitation of the right to practice religion and religious belief. It can also be tantamount to a punishment imposed without any due process, and when conducted violently or in a particularly humiliating way, constitutes inhumane or degrading treatment.