Indonesia's porn bill degrades women

This is what happens when we elect idiots into the Lower House. Out of the many parties in the Lower House, only PDI-P and PDS have the will to reject such a discriminative legislation into approval.

The fact remains that a couple of those legislators are having some illicit one-night stands with prostitutes in some of Jakarta's five-star hotels (with or without knowledge of the mass media), hence they want to cover up their wrongdoings by passing this "holy bill."

We Indonesians always commemorate 21 April as Kartini Day, the day when Raden Ajeng Kartini, the main emancipator of women during the heydays of Indonesian awakening era, was born.

Ah, what a hypocritical nation Indonesia has turned into!

We claim to protect women when now we have regulations that decide what a "morally decent" woman could wear and could not wear.

We claim to emancipate women by imposing a curfew for women to disallow them from walking the streets alone (as is evident today in Tangerang city, Banten).

That does not manifest the so-called "Indonesian emancipation for women", does it?

Whether a woman in the beach wants to wear hijab (Islamic headscarf), a bikini, or a cleavage-showing skimpy T-shirt, it is her full right to do so, just like the way men have the right to show his muscle abdomens by not wearing any shirt at all.

A picture of a nudity may or may not incite sexual arousal, because just as the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, sexual arousal is in itself also in the eye of the beholder.

One clean-minded guy may see the Miss Universe in nude as uninviting, while another guy may see a lady fully clothed in red dress as sexually arousing.

Pornography is one subjective thing, really.

Now let us have a look at some of the contentious articles in the porn bill itself...

Article 1: Definition

Pornography is drawings, sketches, illustrations, photographs, texts, voices, sound, moving pictures, animations, cartoons, poetry, conversations, gestures, or other forms of communicative messages through various kinds of media; and/or performances in front of the public, which may incite obscenity, sexual exploitation and/or violate moral ethics in the community.

Commentary by Toshi on Article 1

Ah, so "pornography" is a loosely-defined word!

Now let us highlight one part here:

"which may incite obscenity..."

What may incite obscenity? Does saying the phrase "F*** You" considered obscene, since the F-word is originally meant as "copulating"?

Does a picture of a girl fully clothed in school uniforms with her hands and legs tied for an S&M bondage could be considered obscene, or is the definition of "obscene" limited to those who wear bikini (or nothing at all)?

The definition above is open to all kinds of interpretation and could always be subjected to debate.

Articles 20-23: Public Participation

The public can play a role in preventing the production, distribution and use of pornography...by...(d) supervising people on the danger of pornography.

Commentary by Toshi on Articles 20-23

Goodie!

The part of these articles that we should take into consideration is:

"The public can play a role..."

Now those F***ing Pathetic Idiots or some other blinded fanatical groups in Indonesia have one more cause to pursue: "supervising" women on the danger of pornography... perhaps by butchering women who wear bikini?

Who knows?

Articles 8, 34, 36: Criminalisation of victims

The articles threatens up to 10 years in prison or Rp 5 billion in fines for violators of the law.

Commentary by Toshi on Articles 8, 34, and 36

Hmm... Who are the violators here, really?

Are they the ones who incite the sexual arousal (who are women), or are they the ones who gets sexual stimulation (who are men), ay?

Such a "holy country" Indonesia has turned into... The politicians in the Lower House (who are mostly men) now have the full right to patronise women on what they should or should not wear..

Thank goodness, Indonesia has turned into a safe haven for women!

Gilang B  – (6 November 2008 at 19:42)  

uhm... I think what you wrote here is a very critical issue. What I found here is that your initial argument was "Indonesia's Porn Bill Degrades Women" but I can't see anything here that can back it up. This case doesn't have any relationship at all with women degradation. It doesn't degradate women, but it protects women. Don't you know that there are several "models" that were trapped into the pornography world because of, for example, hidden cameras? It is a kind of crime to women and this is what degrades women.

"Play a role" -> anarchy? No! Don't just read one line to make a conclusion!

Pasal 21
Masyarakat dapat berperan serta dalam melakukan pencegahan terhadap pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi.

Pasal 22
(1) Peran serta masyarakat sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 21 dapat dilakukan dengan cara:

a.melaporkan pelanggaran Undang-Undang ini;

b.melakukan gugatan perwakilan ke pengadilan;

c.melakukan sosialisasi peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur tentang pornografi; dan

d.melakukan pembinaan kepada masyarakat terhadap bahaya dan dampak pornografi.

(2) Ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf a dan huruf b dilaksanakan secara bertanggung jawab dan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan.

Does it mention that those F***ing Pathetic Idiots can do anarchy? No!

And BTW I agree that Front Pembela Islam are idiots, but please watch what you write, since Islam are not Idiots except them.

I also believe that you have to re-read the whole UU Pornografi. It doesn't mention anything about how women should dress. They can wear bikinis on the beach. (lol)

And about Criminalisation of victims, it is absolutely clear enough. Not only the men that can be violator as written in the article 8, 34, and 36, you should read the article 30 and 37 which mention that women can also be the violator.

I suggest that you read this http://wujudkanuupornografi.blogspot.com/2008/10/10-kekeliruan-dalam-wacana-anti-ruu_08.html

quote:
6. RUU ini akan mengatur cara berpakaian.
Sebagian pengeritik menakut-nakuti masyarakat bahwa bila RUU ini disahkan, perempuan tak boleh lagi mengenakan rok mini atau celana pendek di luar rumah. Ini peringatan yang menyesatkan. Tak satupun ada pasal dalam RUU ini yang berbicara soal cara berpakaian masyarakat dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.

Gilang B  – (6 November 2008 at 19:58)  

~ketinggalan :P


I am not stating that i agree or disagree with this porn bill, but i just stated a few important flaws that people usually make when reviewing this porn bill.

toshi  – (7 November 2008 at 08:36)  

@gilang:

soo... are u for or against the bill? please do state your stand, so that we could start a healthy debate on this (in case you're not on my side)

:)

Regarding the initial of I as Idiots, of course I do mean to refer to those FPI thugs only... and anyways, the spoof of FPI as F***ing Pathetic Idiots has been a quite popular phrase in the Indonesian blogosphere for quite a while.

Don't you know that there are several "models" that were trapped into the pornography world because of, for example, hidden cameras? It is a kind of crime to women and this is what degrades women.

Are you telling that voyeurism could only be tackled by passing a Porn Bill? If yes, then it doesn't in anyway show that this Bill protects women. Voyeurism is per se already a breach of someone else's privacy, we don't need to pass a new law to regulate people on putting hidden cameras, do we?

Does it mention that those F***ing Pathetic Idiots can do anarchy? No!

I didn't mention that FPI could do anarchy, did I?

What I'm trying to say is that, various kinds of groups in this country could always manage to use the bill and distort the use in order to serve their own interests. The bill might have got an "innocent" motive in itself, but who knows, perhaps those idiots try to look for hidden meanings by distorting it for their own use..

Regarding what women should wear... Hmm my bad, I just reread the bill and found no article to support my claim. You're right on this one ;)

But again, just like any other laws that has been passed in Indonesia, I personally think that this particular bill will be put on the dusty shelf after a couple of months... Eventually, we will lose the essence of having the porn bill itself, whether we like it or not!

Hahaha

Gilang B  – (7 November 2008 at 10:01)  

I am still reviewing this bill, and I also think that it is still flawed. But like what a debate should be, there has to be two sides and I'm gonna be opposing you :D


Btw I'm too lazy to write essays. Expect my reply in about 10 hours :D

Rob Baiton  – (7 November 2008 at 19:02)  

Toshi...

My two Rupiahs on this thing (you know that I have an opinion of two on this Bill).

Don't mistake the PDI-P's actions as being against the bill. The walkout by the PDI-P was about politicking in the lead up to the next election and suring up their base in Bali and other places.

The definition of porn is problematic. It is too wide to be effectively implemented and too wide that it will give law enforcement the scope to declare just about anything pornographic.

The exceptions for cultural and ethnic and customary rituals exists but is not explicit enough to defeat the internal inconsistency of the general definition of porn.

There is a definite need for a tightening of porn provisions. My view is this would be better done by amending the Criminal Code.

The bill criminalizes certain behaviours that do not need legislating such as what women or for that matter men wear. I would be interested in what you think degrades women in terms of the provisions in the recently passed bill.

Are you suggesting that the degrading comes from other people deciding how a woman should dress? Remember that the parliament includes women as well and there are women who voted for the passage of this bill.

The clean-minded guy and the naked Miss Universe was interesting as I have never met a clean-minded man that would not have taken a second look at a naked Miss Universe.

On the community's role in preventing the spread of pornography. You need to read the Elucidations to the paragraphs (20-22) as they provide for a very restrictive interpretation as to what this role can be.

Your piece was an interesting read though!

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Shush by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP