Trousers off for Women

May 26th, 2010, in News, by

The wearing of trousers, jeans, or any tight clothing becomes illegal for women in West Aceh.

West Aceh (Aceh Barat) regency in the province of Aceh in trailblazing fashion has become the first administrative area to ban Muslim women from wearing any type of tight clothing, specifically jeans/pants/trousers.

Jilbab hot

While in other parts of Aceh, where Islamic sharia law is fitfully and gradually being introduced, women are only required to at least cover their head hair and not to flaunt their womanly shapes, West Aceh has seized the day in specifically banning jeans.

Sharia Raid

Roadblocks and patrols will be carried out, with the local government preparing 20,000 long flowing skirts to be distributed to women caught in violation of the law. Offenders will be required to change into the skirts on the spot, with their jeans being confiscated.

Offenders will also have their names taken down, and on their third offence will be taken into detention.

Under the new law, coming into force on 26th May 2010, shops and traders will also be forbidden from selling women’s jeans and trousers.

Regent Ramli Mansyur admits the regulation is controversial, but that it is a necessary part of the application of Islamic law.

As a leader I have to implement this law because in the hereafter I will be held responsible for my actions on Earth, and I will be held responsible by society.

He says, in a democratic spirit, that all elements of society support the new law, in majority terms. okezone

265 Comments on “Trousers off for Women”

  1. venna says:

    Sorry, Venna, but why should multi-culturalism be accepted as a ‘good thing?’

    Why not? I’ve seen many advantages by accepting multiculturalism. It’s not usually bad or illogical. America is the real example, in my opinion, on how to embrace differences and still has strong identity as a nation. Where else we can see Italians celebrate Colombus Days, doing food and heritage festivals, the Polish celebrate Polish Fest, and the Latinos celebrate Cinco de Mayo; while at the same time they’re proudly saying “I’m an American”? And where else I can get good service at hospitals, where the hospital asking about my cultural background just in case I need to do some ceremony or cultural things related with the baby-born event? Where else people with different languages can take driving test because the test is provided in some different languages too? Only in America, and so far I see it’s a good thing.


    The old adage of ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’ should be the watchword for people who want to settle in an existing nation-state.

    If the Anglo-Saxons is consistent with this adage, they should follow the Native-Indians way while they were in American land, they should follow the Aborigin ways while they were in Australia, and should follow the tradition of Africans once they arrived there and settled. But none of them did that, or majority not doing it.

  2. venna says:

    I just feel saddened when I see lovely Indonesian ladies shrouding themsleves in these garments.

    Don’t need to feel saddened, as long as they’re happy with their own choice. I feel more saddened when see some women who awkwardly wearing something just to satisfy men. I just receive a message from an Indonesian lady who sign up on a dating website that connects westerners with Asians. She said that she was asked to send pictures with more open and sexy cloth to make her “marketable”, and she asked me should she do that. I said: if you’re not comfortable and it’s not fit with your personality, don’t do that. Just be yourself, even it means people will see you as a primitive or less civilized.

  3. Ross says:

    Venna, please note i was referring to those ‘who want to settle in an existing nation-state.’ Neither America nor Australia matched that description when my forebears settled.
    Yeah, it’s great we can have a good curry in London, and as a boy I enjoyed the Golden Bamboo Chinese resto in Canada.
    But those were rightly regarded as foreign delights. We always knew we were the natives and it was our country. Nowadays people arrive and think their foreign cultures deserve parity of esteem, which they do IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

    If they want to learn English, pledge allegiance to Flag and Crown, be prepared to fight for their new homeland regardless of the enemy’s identity, then they will be made welcome by me and most other folks. If they want to worship as they prefer, no problem too.
    But they chose to come to an Anglo-Saxon democracy, so they ought to shape up or ship out. If they prefer a world of polygamy, child marriage, arranged marriage, cruelty in abbatoirs, unequal inheritance laws, then they are in the wrong place.

  4. ET says:


    This is, as BM says, an incredibly different situation from wearing a jilbab that really doesn’t merit comparison.

    I had said

    You may say the analogy of hijab and KKK outfit is over the top. But even so it certainly would apply to a burqa or niqab, of which the hijab and jilbab are nothing but watered-down versions. They are symbols and not just fashion accessories.

    I made a direct comparison between the KKK outfit and the burqa or niqab, not only because they conceal ones identity – the reason why most countries forbid wearing masks in public – but because in my opinion they are also on a par as expressions and symbols of intolerant radicalism.

  5. ET says:

    venna said

    Why not? I’ve seen many advantages by accepting multiculturalism.

    It’s not so much the principle of multiculturalism which is at stake but in how far the different cultures involved aren’t mutually incompatible. Poles and Latinos, even Indians and Chinese may have different cultures but they have already proven to be of mutual benefit. Syariah and Western lifestyle however will never go hand in hand and Aceh, the example under topic, is the overwhelming proof, even in such trivial matters as women wearing trousers. But at least they, just as Iran and Saudi Arabia, follow their principles consequently, so the West should better take its conclusions and adapt its policies accordingly.

  6. BrotherMouzone says:


    Did it ever occur to you that you have a tendency to run helter skelter after your own prejudiced imaginations, resulting in conclusions on a personal level that are completely irrelevant? Like a patronizing bully schoolmaster haughtily putting down his pupils.
    Not a very inspiring debating partner, if you ask me.

    So just to get this clear, you don’t want to answer my challenges to your irrational prejudices because I’m a big meany…

    I do apologise, I didn’t realise you were so delicate. Perhaps if you showed the same level of tolerance towards women who choose to wear the burkha, then people would be nicer to you in return. Intolerance breeds intolerance. You can’t go around calling all Burkha-clad women Osama groupies without expecting someone to bite back, old boy…


    just feel saddened when I see lovely Indonesian ladies shrouding themsleves in these garments. And sadder when I read of cases where they are forced to by local governments, school rules

    I agree that it is bang out of order when government or employers force women to don the Jilbab. But why feel sad when a lovely Indonesian lass decides on her own to wear it? Do nuns make you sad also? Because they wear basically the same garments for not entirely dissimilar reasons.

  7. ET says:

    You can’t go around calling all Burkha-clad women Osama groupies without expecting someone to bite back, old boy…

    Yes I can when they demonstrate in his favour holding up his picture. But some here like to bite for whatever reason. Playing the devil’s advocate probably enhances their feeling of self-worth.

  8. Odinius says:

    Ross said:

    Odinius. Read my words in my previous post.
    Indonesia was from its inception a multicutural country. Sundanese, Javanese, Ambonese, Sumba, Timorese, Padang etc.
    It has no other option, despite the difficulties of multiculturalism.

    So were the USA and Canada, as much as anyone could be before the advent of multiculturalism.

    You’re avoiding the point, though, Ross. You argue that European countries shouldn’t have to be multiculturalist, but why should Indonesia? Because it started that way? So then, once a country is multiculturalist, it’s not allowed to change, even if the majority want it to?

    How about the extremist Muslims who claim, with some historical accuracy, that Aceh was a conservative sultanate before the Dutch, so that justifies ‘returning’ to sharia?

    I’m being devil’s advocate here, because I’m not a fan of “different rules for goose and gander.”

    For the record, I’m NOT a multiculturalist, because I don’t believe in “group rights.” I believe in individual rights. But I do believe in equal protections regardless of what group you’re from, and that IS a European, or at least British and French, tradition.

  9. Odinius says:

    ET said:

    I made a direct comparison between the KKK outfit and the burqa or niqab, not only because they conceal ones identity – the reason why most countries forbid wearing masks in public – but because in my opinion they are also on a par as expressions and symbols of intolerant radicalism.

    It’s not a good comparison, though. For the record, I’m probably more on your side of the equation than on BM’s, when it comes to burqas (but more on his than yours when it comes to hijabs/jilbabs). I’m no fan. But these are apples and oranges here.

    One is a robe used by clandestine groups of individuals physically engaging in violent acts against people of specific racial, ethnic and religious groups, in part to deliberately hide who they are when they commit the act. The other is a dehumanizing way to shut women out of society. Not really comparable.

  10. Ross says:

    Not sure I understand you, Odinius. Canada was never multicutural in the sense that Trudeau declared it to be when he held power. His predecessor, Pearson, had a Royal Commission on BI-culturlaism, British and French were the founding nations of Canada.

    America was always fundamentally Anglo-Saxon, and melting pot policies made it stay that way, till the trendies of the Ford Foundation and their ilk got things into a mess.

    Yes, countries can change, homogeneous to multi-cult, but reversing that is harder. If Brits or Canadians had enjoyed a referendum on being made multi-cult, or even now had that privilege, their answer would be interesting.

    How else could Indonesia have develped, since there was no common culture? If say the Javanese had tried to force everyboy else into their culture, it would have exploded.

    Homogeneous nations are more at peace with themselves than multi-cultural nations, or do you disagree?

  11. Odinius says:

    Bi-culturalism = more-than-one-culturalism. Once you add in recognition of the native tribes, and you’ve got more-than-two-culturalism. Multiculturalism!

    The US is a liberal state, that theoretically only looks at individuals, not groups. But it also affords different groups equal protections, and has always done so for religions. The founding fathers were explicit that the country was NOT a ‘christian nation.’

    Of course, neither are examples of extreme, salad bowl multiculturalism. But the US was never really a melting pot either. Each successive wave of immigrants, beginning with the British and Dutch, then soon including French and Germans (then Scandinavians, Irish, Mexicans, Jews, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. etc. etc.) left an impression on the culture. The US is thus more of a ethno-cultural stew, where you can still see some shape and flavor to the original ingredients, but they also get mixed up in the sauce.

    Indonesia wasn’t founded as an extreme, salad bowl multculturalist society either. It was conceived of as a religiously pluralist society, but has been fairly militant about suppressing political expressions of ethnicity, including among Javanese.

  12. Ross says:

    The earliest US Congressmen voted to subsidise Christian missions to the Indians. They were not remotely multicult. Canada put the Indians on reservations, rightly or wrongly, not exactly multicult, and Pearson, who was as liberal as it gets, recognised clearly that only two cultures counted. Bi- is not multi-.

    Obviously every immigrant has an impact, but the goal was always absorption into the existing society, until Trudeau, a highly suspect character, decalred nobody had to leave his alien ways behind when he or she arrived in Canada. Much the same in the USA, where immigration was kept proprotional until the late Ted Kennedy’s legislation screwed that sensible policy up. He and Trudeau were two of a kind.

    If Indonesia isn’t multicultural, I don’t know what is. It always has been, and if any regime tried to force Balinese to stop being Balinese, there’d be hell to pay. Same with all the other cutures. It is a natural condition here, and while legally the government could try to impose cultural uniformity, it would be madness.

    Almost as mad as taking ancient nations like Britain’s and telling them they are now to be multicultural whether they like it or not.
    A senior civil servant spilt the beans on Labour intentions in this matter, but of course Cameron’s ‘conservatives’ failed to seize the day, scared stiff of the liberal establishment, or so heavily infiltrated they endorse the socialists’ scheme anyway.
    Goodnight, comrades!

  13. venna says:

    It’s a question of associating certain symbols with ones own experiences. Although I may understand your feelings the abyss between these two perceptions is a bit too wide to overcome.
    Anyways, no hard feelings. It’s just water under the bridge.

    I got your point. No hard feeling too, it’s just an online discussion. Just sometimes it got my nerve when people keep criticizing women with hijabs and always associate them with something unpleasant, while most of them probably do not have the luxury to contemplate let alone understand about the meaning of their customs, and do not always know how to defend themselves.

  14. Odinius says:

    Look at the Jefferson/Madison/Washington quotes over in Barry Soetoro, Ross. Clearly the founding fathers had no intention of favoring Christianity over other religions. They didn’t even particularly like Christianity.

    That didn’t stop certain adminsitrations and other political figures from diverting from that model, but the model is still the foundation of US society.

  15. Ross says:

    They didn’t like the Church of England, Odinius. The Ulster-Scots were key players in the War of Independence, and they were dissenting Protestants par excellence.
    If you want a good quote from a very liberal American of relatively recent date, try Earl Warren, the most pink Supreme COurt Justice in living memory.

    “I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses. Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia or the Charter of New England or the Charter of Massachusetts Bay or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the same objective is present – a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people…I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.”

  16. venna says:


    Homogeneous nations are more at peace with themselves than multi-cultural nations,

    I was thinking about this alot, and coincidentally one of my friends posted this article in his fb:

    One point from this article that catch my attention is: living in highly diverse society can led to social isolation or withdrawal, and increase distrust not only to those from different race but also to their own race.
    Distrust to different race, I can understand, since naturally people will like those who share similarities with them. But distrust their own race? This is pretty interesting.

  17. Odinius says:

    Ross said:

    They didn’t like the Church of England, Odinius.

    No, they didn’t like organized religion. It’s clear in the quotes. They didn’t say “we’re going to do this whole no respecting a given church because we don’t like the church of england, but because we don’t like tyrannical religous authority. If you want more proof, look at the stuff Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, etc. had to say about Calvinism or Catholicism.

    Here’s a healthy dose of Jefferson’s opinions on religion for you:

    Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

    You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

    I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

    …and Earl Warren, for the record, is not one of the founding fathers.

  18. Dirk says:

    Allah seems to be terribly worried about women’s clothes.

    What a strange god !

    If he really were the creator of humankind, he would know that we were born naked and that we dress the way we like.

    Who is this god who is keen on a dress code ? Zeus and Apollo never bothered. Neither did Thor and Odin or the Aztec gods. Even the great god Juju on the mountain of Kenya doesn’t order women to cover up.

    And who are these men who seem to know what Allah wants ? Do they have an internet connection to Allah ? How arrogant they are, claiming to know what their god wants !

    Repressed sexuality, that’s what it all boils down to. Those imams and kyai not only condone marriages with minors, but they also don’t have a clue what pleasures lay in store for an uncircumcised man.

    Because they are circumcised, they don’t enjoy what nature and evolution has given me : a sensitive penis that has not been mutilated.

    And finally, click here

  19. Ross says:

    Unlike Odinius, I don/t have any hangups about the religion that built our civilisation.
    Chrsitendom was always a foce forv good in the world, not least when we tried to deliver the Holy Land from Muslim occupation. The Crusades were a war or wars of liberation and it is a great ptiy they were not successful.
    As Dirk comments, we are faced with the darkest barbarism. When even ‘moderates’ like NU endorse child molestation as a form of marriage, we know who the enemy of civilisation is. FIGHT IT!

  20. Hans says:

    clothes based on a world of dreams and the clothes fills you with imagination, dreams process your experiences, thoughts and feelings. They can give you a deeper understanding of yourself and your life based on personal desires and experiences, that I do not like is why the Indonesian and other Muslim women are being cheated on to dream, dreams are what we all have and live with, does not really know what or how anyone lives without dreaming, we are going up every day and try to do something to realize our dreams, which should be normal for every free person, the dream of own house children, husband, car. then there are individuals with unusual dreams are one thing, we can not allow such individuals parasite-destroying for so many.
    during the Crusades, we probably lost only once, and that to Salah ad-D?n Yusuf ibn Ayyub, which is one of the Muslims that still command respect. ok that was not successful.

  21. Odinius says:

    Ross said:

    Unlike Odinius, I don/t have any hangups about the religion that built our civilisation.

    Not much of a substantive rejoinder to the clear evidence that the American founding fathers did not, in any way, shape or form, privilege Christianity over other religions, that.

    Actually, this comment is rather silly, and demonstrates your sensitivities, not mine. I think Christianity is a source of charity, learning, egalitarianism and peacefulness; or dogmatic obeisance, ignorance, intolerance and violence–as much as any other organized religion. Which side people lean on comes down to the social conditions you find in a given place and time, and the individuals themselves.

  22. Hans says:

    Parasitic people with unusual dreams, as I see it, these weird religious leaders from various religions, which can deceive the less knowing that volcanoes erupt because they local residents pray too little, and all that they now can think of.
    Not all are crazy head , I know a priest in northern Sumatra which are ok and helping poor

  23. ET says:

    Ross said

    If Indonesia isn’t multicultural, I don’t know what is. It always has been, and if any regime tried to force Balinese to stop being Balinese, there’d be hell to pay. Same with all the other cutures. It is a natural condition here, and while legally the government could try to impose cultural uniformity, it would be madness.

    There’s a difference between what politicians declare and what happens in the real world. Bhinneka tunggal ika may sound nice as a slogan to placate different ethnicities and forge a unitary state but we all now that the real pudding has a quite different taste. Transmigrasi and creeping islamization (also in Bali) are the stealth politics to infiltrate and subjugate the local populations into the Java-dominated monoculture.

    Multiculturalism has only a chance to survive if the cultures involved are on a par re. numbers, influence and non-expansionist ideology. If not, the dominating ones will try to absorb and destroy the smaller, weaker and tolerant ones.

    Sad as it may be but actually multiculturalism only exists in Utopia. Everywhere else it is the perfect recipe for instigating trouble.

  24. diego says:

    Result of islamization in bali:,20100602-252176,id.html

    Islamic organization staging a protest about semitic problem in a (supposedly) hindu land.

  25. Hans says:

    A school in Uppsala, Sweden decided to students in their final visit to the Uppsala mosque
    before summer. During the visit, the girls had to wear a special “kerchief”
    over the body and once inside the mosque they heard Muslims compare
    homosexuality with incest. Now entered the mosque for incitement to racial hatred.

  26. TheWrathofGrapes says:

    /// Injun Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    That girl in the orange shirt is so hot she has to be criminal! ///

    Do I see the word ending with uck under her left breast?

  27. ET says:

    @ diego

    Result of islamization in bali:,20100602-252176,id.html

    Islamic organization staging a protest about semitic problem in a (supposedly) hindu land.

    Acung jempol for your comments in Tempo re. the demo in Denpasar.
    At least you have the guts not to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

  28. Ross says:

    ‘they heard Muslims compare
    homosexuality with incest.’

    Yo, Hans, I have many a time and oft criticised various Islamic nonsenses, but what’s your beef when they make an obvious point that some sexual practises are revolting and un-natural?

  29. Oigal says:

    when they make an obvious point that some sexual practises are revolting and un-natural?

    How can an act between two consenting adults conducted in private be revolting to you unless you are peeking in the window.

    Personally, I am huge supporter of the daily doubles. Anything that thinned out the competition for the opposite gender had to be a good thing in my book! Not to mention, I was mentored in my early days not to adopt the cro-magon we hate gays attitude, invairably they gave the best parties (particularly the female version), best eats and always but always there were some..ahem…straight people there. Too easy to come across as the caring new age guy..and satisfy ones lust for the other gender.. yea yea I know I am going to hell! 🙂

Comment on “Trousers off for Women”.

RSS feed

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-20
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact