Judicial Review Cases, UU Porno

Mar 3rd, 2009, in IM Posts, by

Educating the public about the pornography bill and legal challenges against UU Porno at the Constitutional Court.

Socialization

On 30th October 2008 the controversial pornography bill (UU Pornografi, text in Indonesian and English translation) was passed by the parliament.

On 9th December 2008 president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) signed it into law, after having examined it and found that it guaranteed freedom of expression and protected traditional customs, according to spokesman Andi Mallarangeng. [1]

Information minister Muhammad Nuh said the government would begin a program of "socialization", i.e. educating the public about the law, particularly in areas where opposition to it was centred, they being in non-Muslim majority provinces like Bali, North Sulawesi, Papua, NTT, and in tourism oriented Yogyakarta. [2]

Conservative backers of the law such as the Regent of Karanganyar, Priantono Jarot Nugroho, asked the government to get busy with the socialization program, to prevent the current moral degradation in the country from worsening. [3]

Muhammad Nuh stated that the law clearly protected traditional rites and forms of dress (Article 3), as well as personal privacy. Koteka (penis sheath) wearing Papuans and Sundanese jaipong dancers had nothing to fear, because these things were part of indigenous culture. He welcomed any judicial challenges to the law. [4]

Judicial Review

The Governor of Bali, I Made Mangku Pastika, said in late December 2008 that he would support any effort to challenge the law at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, and that local government agencies would be put to work to help prepare any legal challenge. [5]

Cirylus Bau Engo of the Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) parliament said people in NTT did not want the law applied in the province and that the way out of the problem was appealing against it at the Constitutional Court. [6]

Andrikus Mofu of the Persekutuan Gereja-gereja in West Papua, a church organisation, told DPR chairman Agung Laksono in November that the PGG would sponsor a class action against the law. [7]

However as of writing the only case against the Pornography bill to have come before the Mahkamah Konstitusi, briefly, emanates from North Sulawesi/Manado, where a dozen or so church and Minahasa cultural groups attempted to bring a case on February 22nd in Jakarta, specifically against Article 1, on the (loose) definition of pornography, Article 4, on the production and distribution of pornographic materials, and Article 10, on the banning of public performances thought pornographic. [8]

However the justices decided that the legal standing of the challenge was not clear and declined to hear the case. Justice Maria Farida Indriati said

You all come from Minahasa groups but in your plea you talk about Papuan and Betawi people, who are you actually representing?

Justice Akil Mochtar advised them to bring the case as individual citizens of Indonesia, not as representatives of social organisations, and to clear up the basic errors in the submission, and then try again at a later date. [9]


187 Comments on “Judicial Review Cases, UU Porno”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

  1. avatar Marlo says:
    March 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with applying this law as soon as possible…

    There are a lot of Western tourists walking the streets of Bali who really shouldn’t be wearing such skimpy clothes.

    Nothing to do with morality… I’m just saying… after you hit size 18, you really shouldn’t be wearing halter tops and a thong…

  2. avatar ET says:
    March 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    The Balinese people already have their own way in dealing with this idiotic law. Just come and have a look at the hundreds of art shops – especially in the village of Mawang where modern painting is concentrated – and you will see that since its passing the law isn’t only ignored but simply taunted.

    Acung jempol, Bali.

  3. avatar Lairedion says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 12:09 am

    Nothing to do with morality… I’m just saying… after you hit size 18, you really shouldn’t be wearing halter tops and a thong…

    Agree, an all-covering chardor should be compulsory for anybody over size 18… nothing to do with morality, everything to do with stupidity.

  4. avatar lucid says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. I think government = morality!
    Because every body have different standard of morality, why should I confused with million kind of moralities?

  5. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 9:43 am

    I think government = morality

    No government will ever tell me what to think and say on moral questions.

    because every body have different standard of morality, why should I confused with million kind of moralities

    My advice would be to stop worrying about everyone else’s morality. Do what you think is right and, as for others – “live and let live”. It’s called freedom.

  6. avatar schmerly says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am

    @ Marlo..

    There are a lot of Western tourists walking the streets of Bali who really shouldn’t be wearing such skimpy clothes.

    Nothing to do with morality… I’m just saying… after you hit size 18, you really shouldn’t be wearing halter tops and a thong…

    I agree it doesn’t look good seeing a Hippo in a bikini, I worked in Rio De Janeiro a couple of years ago, and some of the sights you see waddling down the beach over there are a bit grim, but I still don’t agree about introducing archaic laws to stop people wearing what they choose.
    It’s getting to the point that you cant do this, you cant do that, what’s happened to Indonesia’s so called democracy? all I can see is the Islamification of Indonesia, with religion interfering in every aspect peoples everyday lives.

  7. avatar DoOs_101 says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    No government will ever tell me what to think and say on moral questions.

    My advice would be to stop worrying about everyone else’s morality. Do what you think is right and, as for others – “live and let live”. It’s called freedom.

    Please go ahead and run naked in the streets, I would love to see that happen.

    P.S. You’re not a very intelligent liberal.

    If I may correct you, if everyone does what “they think is right”, we will have 1 billion rights and wrongs in a society. This situation is illustrated in the historical period of the late 18th and 19th century, during the pre-industrial era, which marked a social chaos. That is why during the post industrial era, economists around the world have disregarded the notion of Lassez Faire (a liberal point of view of what the society should become).

    To summarize my statement, we do not want a society that one thinks killing is good and the other thinks killing is bad.

    There must be a precarious balance between conformity and freedom. At best, there should be conformity in general knowledge, whilst freedom of thought can reign in other complexities in this world.

    Question; Do you wear an underwear or not? What will happen if your friend knows that you don’t wear an underwear because you think its the right way of living?

    Answer it.

  8. avatar Rama Treiz says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    I do hope the government gets rid of the anti porno law. It’s just silly the government seems to want to hammer down on just about every little thing, while ignoring important issues like corruption and stuff. As long as the anti porno law is still around bhinneka tunggal ika is doomed to die. :(

  9. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    @ Doosra

    Question; Do you wear an underwear or not? What will happen if your friend knows that you don’t wear an underwear because you think its the right way of living?

    Answer it.

    I believe that you have a perfect right to ask that question, but no right to demand an answer from me. Your ‘rights’ end just beyond the tip of your nose.

    P.S. You’re not a very intelligent liberal.

    Maybe not, but I recognise a straw argument when I see one, and the fallacy of the excluded middle(otherwise known as a false dichotomy). Both of which you are employing. From what I said to lucid above, you have rushed to judgement about a whole range of things.

    Which illustrates my point.

  10. avatar DoOs_101 says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 8:13 am

    You have not answered my question and did not make any restatement. Hence I conclude that you are avoiding this argument and so forth you’re admitting you’ve lost.

    To strengthen my point, perhaps you should look at your childhood history. When was it that your parents did not tell you what to do? Or did you learn things by yourself without their aid?

    A clash between individuals in a society will result in conflict of perception and thus one must follow or come to an agreement in order to secure a relationship. This is the case in every society, not just Indonesia.

    The same case applies to the abortion issue in America, conflict arises when one side thinks it should be legalized while another thinks it should not. In the end it will come to a conclusion where only one side will win, and the other has to follow.

    That is the reality my friend, your freedom is making you delusional.

    I hope this correction of an inferior believe shall make everyone understand that the government has the right to impose certain values and principles on the aggregate culture of Indonesia.

  11. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am

    @ Doosra

    Hence I conclude that you are avoiding this argument and so forth you’re admitting you’ve lost.

    I’m afraid that’s another logical error to add to your collection.

    Maybe I can explain what a straw argument is:

    Me (to lucid): Stop worrying about other people’s morality. Do what you think is right. Live and let live.

    You: If you think that, then you don’t believe in the government making laws to stop killing.

    See what you did there? Ascribing to me something I didn’t actually say. You just assumed (wrongly) that I am some form of anarchist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    And here is the classic excluded middle or false dichotomy (also commonly used by right wing media networks and religious bigots):

    Me (paraphrased): I think that the government shouldn’t make laws that relate to personal morality.

    You (but phrased more eloquently): You don’t seem able to understand the social contract between the government and the governed.

    Just because I oppose the making of laws on personal morality, doesn’t mean I run down the street naked, refuse to wear underpants or disobey the law. If we are lucky enough to live in a country with a democratic process, I accept the right of the government to make appropriate laws. Where there is no democracy, it is our right and our duty to oppose unfair laws (see Gandhi, Mahatma, King, Martin Luther et. al.).

  12. avatar lucid says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 10:38 am

    @Burung Koel
    1. Stop worrying about other people’s morality. Do what you think is right. Live and let live.
    :I did! thanks

    2. I think that the government shouldn’t make laws that relate to personal morality,
    :I’m never take it as Personal morality matter. It is about Indonesian matters.

  13. avatar Mbak Sri says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    @Doos 101

    Please go ahead and run naked in the streets, I would love to see that happen.

    ini apa sih?! why running naked suddenly in the picture. Nobody’s running naked in the street even without this law, unless u’re a loony. This statement does nothing but makes me question your own morality.
    And why taking it out of context to killing? Its a pornography law for god’s sake, its about governing how a woman dress. Do u think this so called conformity would do anything to improve the situation of our nation? conformity in general knowledge, my ass. tell me, if indonesia succeeded in covering up all their women, will it then be able to totally eliminate violence against women?? Sexual or otherwise?? After covering all the women up then what, I ask u?

    You, my friend, are narrowminded judgemental person who claimed to be intelligent just cuz ure using lotsa fancy words. Doesnt do it for me when you wobble here and there when stating ur rationale.

    Question; Do you wear an underwear or not? What will happen if your friend knows that you don’t wear an underwear because you think its the right way of living?

    Answer it.

    I’ll answer it for ya. ( who thinks this ridiculous question anyway, if not one who is morally doubtful) why do u wanna know comes 1st in mind. And if my friend saw me not wearing underwear, they would sneer at me at the most, calling me names and tell me off that im being inappropriate. Thats cool, they can say what they want becuz it is within their right. Thats fine. I, in return, can choose to change my dress or carry on with the consequences of losing my friends. Its my bloody choice whatever im gonna do.
    It will NOT be fine, when they “think” you’re dressing sexily (while you already wearing a scarf but juuust a lil tight around the tushy) and then call the police on me! thats not juts NOT fine, its down right idiotic.

    perhaps you should look at your childhood history. When was it that your parents did not tell you what to do? Or did you learn things by yourself without their aid?

    I hope this correction of an inferior believe shall make everyone understand that the government has the right to impose certain values and principles on the aggregate culture of Indonesia.

    And oh, rather uppity, rnt we. And that is it, morality is parenting job, just like anything else your parents taught you. Not government job. We, indonesian people are not children. Why treat us like one. This law is one trigger away from turning into ideology of hate.

  14. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 5th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    @ Mbak Sri

    Word.

  15. avatar Rob says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 12:19 am

    Some shameless self-promotion that I hope Patung allows to stand – here.

  16. avatar DoOs_101 says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 7:02 am

    You both are entirely mistaken.

    If you cannot draw a correlation between the concept of “what a woman should wear” and “whether we should wear an underwear or not”, then you are off the argument. Norms, its what they call it, is the expectations of behavior in a society. You are expected to wear an underwear? That is true. You are expected not to wear bikinnis in the streets? That is largely debated, but will become true.

    And there is no logical error in my argument, you guys don’t have a material or statement to present therefore you would encounter me with a weak position. Instead you attacked my way of thinking, the way I type (lu pikir gua sok pinter?), and my individual morality. That is an unfair argument my friend. If you really disagree with my opinions then please state why, but do not state fallacies in “me”. I appreciate Mbak Sri, and let me make it clear.

    It does sounds weird if you wear something erotic and your friends called the police. However, that is not going to happen, since as a matter of fact, none of us do wear erotic clothings expect prostitutes! In Indonesia, you go to the beach, you’ll be amazed how many of us don’t wear bikinnis or things considered more open. On contrary to my question, well do not make it a stupid question. It is rhetoric, ofcourse, people around you would expect you to wear an underwear! Now lets connect both points, if people expect you not do dress erotic, such those like prostitutes, then it would be the same wouldn’t it?

    You might be worrying, “I’m going to wear a very sexy cocktail or gown dress to a part! What do I do?” Well… relax… do you obviously think someone is going to bring that to the court? The answer is no. UU Pornografy focuses largely against real Pornografy, so don’t mix up things.

    Second of thought, I may have included some extreme examples such as the right to kill, or running naked in the streets. I apologize, but that was just to illustrate my point that the socialization process in Indonesia needs to occur.

    In short summary, the government is doing the right thing to socialize the UU Pornografy.

  17. avatar Rob says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 7:43 am

    It does sounds weird if you wear something erotic and your friends called the police. However, that is not going to happen, since as a matter of fact, none of us do wear erotic clothings expect prostitutes!

    @DoOs_101…

    I guess this depends on your definition of erotic clothing. However, if your suggestion is that any woman in a short skirt or tight jeans and a singlet top is a prostitute, then I would suggest you need to get out into the real world a little more often or watch a little more Indonesian gossip TV.

    On the Pornography Law, there has been much written, and perhaps you need to read a little more widely in order to understand the objections to the basic premise of some of the provisions. The law is not all bad and not all of the provisions are objectionable. However, there are legitimate concerns and these deserve to be aired.

  18. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 8:02 am

    @ Doosra

    Instead you attacked my way of thinking, the way I type (lu pikir gua sok pinter?), and my individual morality.

    I would have thought if we are engaging in debate, then it is perfectly legitimate to “attack your way of thinking”, i.e. the methods that you use, especially when you are misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misconstruing my own statements. I have focused on your arguments, and presentation of those arguments, alone.

    NB: I personally have not said anything about your typing nor your personal morality – to suggest otherwise is to create another straw man.

    Warning – non-PC language ahead, and nothing to do with anyone here at IM:

    As someone once pointed out in relation to message board and blogs like this: “Debating on the internet is like entering the Paralympics. Even if you win or get a gold medal, you’re still a retard.”

  19. avatar doos_101 says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    I guess this depends on your definition of erotic clothing. However, if your suggestion is that any woman in a short skirt or tight jeans and a singlet top is a prostitute, then I would suggest you need to get out into the real world a little more often or watch a little more Indonesian gossip TV.

    On the Pornography Law, there has been much written, and perhaps you need to read a little more widely in order to understand the objections to the basic premise of some of the provisions. The law is not all bad and not all of the provisions are objectionable. However, there are legitimate concerns and these deserve to be aired.

    I agree with what you’ve said. The pornography law is written objectively and is not all bad. However there are some areas of writting that are vague and therefore contradictive. My point to Burung Koel, was that you cannot use the premise of liberalism, as a reason to oppose this law. Burung Koel was saying that freedom is his ability not to be told by the government what to do. My concern is that he is delusional, has ignored the facts that in his daily lives we have some freedom in certain aspects, but at the same point we are told what to do. That is why I brought up the questions, “do you wear an underwear”, or “how did u get raised by your parents”. Sincerely, we are told, but we also have the freedom to choose. So in this sense, using freedom as means to object UU Pornography is irrational.

    Debate in the internet is not at all “retarded”. I wish I could talk to you face-to-face in order to have a more lively conversation. However, I don’t know you. In fact, in my debate club, we used to practice by first writting our opinions then in the advance level, writting our opinions in our head, but in 5 minutes of short time!

    To get back to you point, there will always be some contradictions in law, and please let the democratic process run through it. People are free to attest against it in the court.

    To Mbak Sri, please don’t treat UU Pornography like a Bible.

  20. avatar Mbak Sri says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    @Doos,

    the way I type (lu pikir gua sok pinter?), and my individual morality.

    Ya, I did think you were sok pinter, and needed some slap down. I thot it was obvious. You had the guts to call someone not very intelligent, and then rambled on calling their opinion inferior, and that they are delusional. Now it doesnt take a genius to figure out who started what. I was merely telling you off on it. If u had the bravado to enter discussion with a suggestion that you are superior to ones u debated, the least u can do is come up with valid rationale.

    And there is no logical error in my argument, you guys don’t have a material or statement to present therefore you would encounter me with a weak position.

    here we go again. Now kid, now u’re just bein stubborn. There were numbers of errors in your so called logical argument. Want me to name em? fine. Running naked in the streets. who does this ever. false logic. That question of yours “do u wear underwear or not” What does that have to do with anything. False logic. And the fact that u demanded an answer to a fellow male (assuming B.Koel is male), that is even weirder. Your attempt to link your argument to killing in society. I cant even begin to describe how far reaching that one is. False logic.
    At least B koel presented argument without assumption, and you called that weak. You are reaching now kid.

    Now, aside from your feeble attempt to prove your opinion, I do have to give it to u, and admit my wrong understanding of UU pornography itself. I did my research just now and found I was few months behind. The govt did revise the UU, and no longer included porno aksi in them and therefore the argument of governing how women dress is no longer valid. Ok then, my mistake, and I will admit that.
    However, the fact that it was there at the 1st place is beaming out a very unsettling signal. Therefore, I stand corrected on this particular opinion of mine that “This law is one trigger away from turning into ideology of hate”.

    So, due to this newfound understanding, I will then concur to Rob’s words below:

    The law is not all bad and not all of the provisions are objectionable. However, there are legitimate concerns and these deserve to be aired.

    @B. Koel

    NB: I personally have not said anything about your typing nor your personal morality -

    no u didnt. I did. :) Doos is just making a generalization.

  21. avatar DoOs_101 says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    And so did you get my point yet Mrs. Mbak Sri? :D And how did you figured out I’m still a kid?

    Anyways it appears that you still have a problem with my examples and thought of it as a logical error. Please read this…

    Burung Koel was saying that freedom is his ability not to be told by the government what to do. My concern is that he is delusional, has ignored the facts that in his daily lives we have some freedom in certain aspects, but at the same point we are told what to do. That is why I brought up the questions, “do you wear an underwear”, or “how did u get raised by your parents”. Sincerely, we are told, but we also have the freedom to choose. So in this sense, using freedom as means to object UU Pornography is irrational.

    If you still don’t get the connection, I think there is a problem, but I’m pretty sure you’re just offended by me. If you think calling someone unintelligent is bad then my apologies, even though I didn’t use the S word. However, I proved my point that he did used an irrational reasoning based on assumptions without clear justifications, against UU Pornography bill. Please read the following.

    I think government = morality

    No government will ever tell me what to think and say on moral questions.

    because every body have different standard of morality, why should I confused with million kind of moralities

    My advice would be to stop worrying about everyone else’s morality. Do what you think is right and, as for others – “live and let live”. It’s called freedom.

    So after going through this discussion, you can clearly see how that statement of his was unintelligent and very liberal.

  22. avatar Burung Koel says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Hi Doosra, Hi Mbak Sri

    So after going through this discussion, you can clearly see how that statement of his was unintelligent and very liberal.

    As it relates to personal morality and behaviour, I would classify it as “libertarian”, which is somewhat different from “liberal”. You might want to check a dictionary. There are right and left wing libertarians, and probably some in the middle, too.

    I don’t believe that any government can legislate how people think, and to enter the realms of restricting their personal choices is dangerous indeed. My advice to lucid concerned ignoring other people who might assume to have a claim on moral certainty, and then telling him/her how to behave, or how to think.

    And the fact that u demanded an answer to a fellow male (assuming B.Koel is male), that is even weirder.

    I thought that was weird, too. Participation in these discussions is entirely voluntary, as far as I know. As for my gender – even I wonder sometimes. ;-)

  23. avatar ET says:
    March 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    So after going through this discussion, you can clearly see how that statement of his was unintelligent and very liberal.

    I fail to see the connection between unintelligent and very liberal. Or do you mean being liberal is unintelligent?
    I wonder where you have been educated.

  24. avatar doos_101 says:
    March 7th, 2009 at 4:21 am

    I fail to see the connection between unintelligent and very liberal. Or do you mean being liberal is unintelligent?
    I wonder where you have been educated.

    For your information, where have YOU been educated?

    So after going through this discussion, you can clearly see how that statement of his was unintelligent and very liberal.

    That sentence does not connect unintelligent and liberal. The word “and” is an additional, meaning unintelligent + liberal.

    As it relates to personal morality and behaviour, I would classify it as “libertarian”, which is somewhat different from “liberal”. You might want to check a dictionary. There are right and left wing libertarians, and probably some in the middle, too.

    I don’t believe that any government can legislate how people think, and to enter the realms of restricting their personal choices is dangerous indeed. My advice to lucid concerned ignoring other people who might assume to have a claim on moral certainty, and then telling him/her how to behave, or how to think.

    You are escaping the discussion here. The point that I’m trying to make is that you cannot use the premise of liberalism; freedom of choice as reasoning to oppose UU Pornography. And the arguments I mentioned previously clearly differentiate your realm of freedom with the reality. If the society thinks it is wrong to dress in bikinis, then it is wrong. The UU Pornography was passed entirely through a democratic process, so it is not an opression by the government to govern the way you think, but rather it is the majority of the people in our society that thinks that way; the majority of the people would agree with me and the UU Pornography. It is unlikely true in this blog however, as Patung would agree to me also that in his blog consisted of mainly liberals.

    You all can push me further along, “slap ‘me’ down” if you can, but you got to atleast do better than this… :D

  25. avatar diego says:
    March 7th, 2009 at 4:40 am

    The 20 million rupees question: can Borat film his second movie, wearing his mankini, walking down the street of jakarta, without getting into troubles with the authority?

  26. avatar Mbak Sri says:
    March 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    @ doos

    Honestly, Im getting bored.

    but here’s the thing. democratic process u mentioned above is the flaw of democracy as it refers to majoritarianism which implies that govt reflects on majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Altho in this case, I still am not convinced that majority of people shares the same view when it comes to Porn laws, even more so if it includes the law in governing how women dress ( you brought up the bikini, doos).

    This is particularly dangerous, and for sure does not support concept of freedom of choice which also in some cases lead to violation of human rights. It undermines the idea of democracy that focus on the empowerment of the people. the whole people. It is absolutely possible that (in the future) it can criminalize certain minority that has different view to majority. This is otherwise known as tyranny.

    maybe Indonesia does not have the capacity or isnt ready for the concept of freedom of choice. It does not reach its realm of understanding nor it considers it important.

    how did you figured out I’m still a kid?

    you’re in debate club. So, what are u, 15? Saddened me that promising young Indonesian person like you allow yourself to be so literal in your view.

  27. avatar ET says:
    March 7th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    The UU Pornography was passed entirely through a democratic process, so it is not an opression by the government to govern the way you think, but rather it is the majority of the people in our society that thinks that way

    Whether the UU Pornography was passed through a democratic process, legally or not, is now for the Constitutional Court to find out. One of the reasons a Constitution exists is to protect minorities against the possible tyranny of a contingent majority.

  28. avatar doos_101 says:
    March 8th, 2009 at 4:48 am

    Honestly, Im getting bored.

    but here’s the thing. democratic process u mentioned above is the flaw of democracy as it refers to majoritarianism which implies that govt reflects on majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Altho in this case, I still am not convinced that majority of people shares the same view when it comes to Porn laws, even more so if it includes the law in governing how women dress ( you brought up the bikini, doos).

    This is particularly dangerous, and for sure does not support concept of freedom of choice which also in some cases lead to violation of human rights. It undermines the idea of democracy that focus on the empowerment of the people. the whole people. It is absolutely possible that (in the future) it can criminalize certain minority that has different view to majority. This is otherwise known as tyranny.

    maybe Indonesia does not have the capacity or isnt ready for the concept of freedom of choice. It does not reach its realm of understanding nor it considers it important.

    You are lacking critical content in your argument.

    The majority of the people, agreed to UU Pornography, because the majority of the people are Muslims. Moreover, this “majority” is represented by the no. seats in the parliament that voted YES on the passing of the bill. This is a democratic process that cannot be denied. Yes constitution also protects the minority, they in the system have their right to oppose, object the passing of the bill. However, it will require a strongman, with a strong voice, and a strong opinion to win their case. A squacking of “freedom of choice” will never ever reach that ideal strong opinion as it will become a laughter to the society instead.

    Do not think just because I’m small, I’m inferior to the adult. Do you honestly think the No.1 Democracy in the world, USA, shares the same value as you do? Do you honestly think the minority there is even valued compared to Indonesia? They may soon pass federal rights on gay marriage, or child abortion, what will happen to the minority who’re against it. Squeal and cry “My Freedom” will they? Nothing will happen, no body cares about your freedom, even those who yell their own freedom lady.

    You my lady, don’t have the capacity to understand what “freedom of choice” stands in the real world. The society is compromised of individuals who freedom itself will conflict one anothers freedom.

    It saddened me for your pardon, that a young kid has to correct an adult LADY!

    Sorry, but your opinion is inferior now.

    Whether the UU Pornography was passed through a democratic process, legally or not, is now for the Constitutional Court to find out. One of the reasons a Constitution exists is to protect minorities against the possible tyranny of a contingent majority.

    We can still find that balance in Indonesia, we’re doing a good job at maintaining unity and diversity. The UU Pornography is merely a tyranny of governing what male or female should wear in the society. Let alone that a case concerning a girl wearing a mini skirt will unlikely happen and could very well earn its way into “Commedy Central” or the popular show “democrazy”. Neither will Balinese beaches be tormented by this “tyranny” you talk of. The people who wrote and decide the UU Pornography would have taken into consideration, the importance of Bali as a tourism asset. It takes a lunatic to strip off a giant asset of the country by simply making a ridicilous law.

    @ mbak sri, bored? I’ll make a tyranny out of your boredome untill you’re convinced that you’re wrong, or simply bail out. Yeah now you get what I’m doing.

  29. avatar ET says:
    March 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Yes constitution also protects the minority, they in the system have their right to oppose, object the passing of the bill. However, it will require a strongman, with a strong voice, and a strong opinion to win their case.

    So a democratic constitution requires a strong man to make it effective? That’s a new kind of democracy to me. I thought constitutions were there to protect us against strong men.
    Btw, whom do you call a strong man? Stalin, Hitler, Mohammed, Pol Pot, Suharto?

  30. avatar Mbak Sri says:
    March 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    well well whaddya know… tantrum :)
    Alright kid, if u hadnt let your tantrum over powering ur judgement, you’ll see that majoritaniasm Im talking abt was to refer to your opinion on, lemme quote it:

    If the society thinks it is wrong to dress in bikinis, then it is wrong. The UU Pornography was passed entirely through a democratic process, so it is not an opression by the government to govern the way you think, but rather it is the majority of the people in our society that thinks that way; the majority of the people would agree with me and the UU Pornography

    Lets apply this to different situation, shall we?
    Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Nazi party then continued to rule and began the project to eliminate all opposition and launched an ambitious program of elimination of the Jews.

    Tomatos, tomaytos, eh?

    What baffled me with u kid, is that you actually agreed with us :) when you said:

    The UU Pornography is merely a tyranny of governing what male or female should wear in the society.

    and continued to say :

    Let alone that a case concerning a girl wearing a mini skirt will unlikely happen and could very well earn its way into “Commedy Central” or the popular show “democrazy”. Neither will Balinese beaches be tormented by this “tyranny” you talk of. The people who wrote and decide the UU Pornography would have taken into consideration, the importance of Bali as a tourism asset.

    which seems to contradict the argument from so called “majority” moslem who are hellbent in arguing that Bali and papua is the major factor in moral decline in Indonesia based on their culture of nudity. Whats gonna happen with this, it is to be discovered. But if we proceed with your view of majority rule, then we can predict whats gonna happen there, eh?

    Now kid, here’s your candy and calm down. I get your point in the process of democracy in passing the law. I think we all are. We dont necessarily agree to that, simply because we believe there’s a major danger attached to that. Thats what we’re debating here. Just because majority of ppl think that way, doesnt make it right. But I guess, you need to go thru more life experiences to come to that thinking.

    Now about gay marriages.
    Gay population in US is approximately less than 2% out of the total population. So what you said below:

    Do you honestly think the minority there is even valued compared to Indonesia? They may soon pass federal rights on gay marriage, or child abortion, what will happen to the minority who’re against it.

    isnt entirely correct. Same sex couples are minority. So you kinda rebutt yourself there. And whaddya kknow, the same sex marriages is passed based on fundamental constitutional right. If this isnt a blatant example of equal protection for minority as well as majority which to that extent protect their freedom to choose, i dunno what is.

    @ mbak sri, bored? I’ll make a tyranny out of your boredome untill you’re convinced that you’re wrong, or simply bail out. Yeah now you get what I’m doing.

    You are a lil sectarian in the making, arent ya :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »



Your view on “Judicial Review Cases, UU Porno” :


RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-14
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact