Indonesia Increase Penalties for Kissing

GuanYin

Indonesia have increased the penalties for kissing in public from 5 years and/or $29,000 (250 rupiah) to 10 years and/or $42,590!

On top of that "unmarried couples are prohibited from cohabitation and authorities have the power to raid homes of those suspected of breaking the law under the code".

Of course this means that any film of kissing is also banned.

Does this count as a human rights violation? Surely it passes what is acceptable of a government when they tell people what they can do in their homes (whatever about the kissing).


Its all religiously dictated too, with Indonesia being the highest population of muslims in the world, although most are very liberal.

link

Moriarty

I don't think it's too big a problem really. If the law has popular support there isn't really much of an argument against it that I can see. It's their country.

The fines/custodial sentances do seem rather harsh though.

Sparks

It is a bit of a contrast though, isn't it? I mean, we'd be more likely to have a law requiring technical standards be maintained

Sand

I don't think it's too big a problem really. If the law has popular support there isn't really much of an argument against it that I can see. It's their country.

Im not sure I agree to be honest. The validity of law does not depend on its popularity or unpopularity. Im not familiar with the Indonesian constitution and given the countries history I wouldnt put a whole lot of faith in its defence of human rights, but surely they cant justify a law like this - its a gross inteference in peoples right to exspress themselves, that doesnt harm anyone else. But then, I guess they have a different definition of gross indecency.

true

Some would say thats the Muslims for you. In Indonesia you say they do not allow kissing or co-habitation. Bali is part of Indonesia. I cannot see this law applying in Bali as tourism is too much of a money - spinner there. Bali however is Hindu, from memory I think its population is only about 3 million. Indonesia is what, 900 million or something, I think it is about the fourth biggest population in the world.

Muslim intolerance is demonstrated again in the middle east eg in Saudi Arabia, no Christian church is allowed to be built at all in that vast country. Imagine if we told the Muslims coming to Ireland or the UK they could not build a single Mosque !

Better not say too much or I'll get a fatwa.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, if christians started building churche there.. it wouldn't be long before people started going over to convert the heathens..

I think they're on the right track, they're just not banning enough religions.

pete

true wrote:

Muslim intolerance is demonstrated again in the middle east eg in Saudi Arabia, no Christian church is allowed to be built at all in that vast country. Imagine if we told the Muslims coming to Ireland or the UK they could not build a single Mosque !

Perhaps a fairer comparison would be telling Muslims going to Vatican City they can't build a mosque?

Zombrex

true wrote:

Some would say thats the Muslims for you

I wouldn't be so quite to blame "muslims" for this. There is a whole lot in the Bible about not sleeping together and blah blah blah, after all Christianity and Islam are pretty much the same religion. This is religious fundamentalism at its worse, and strengthens my belief that church and state should have nothing to do with each other. But blaming the religion for the way some of its followers act is dangerous. I don't blame the Bible because Christian extremist blow up abortion centres and kill doctors.

DadaKopf

To my knowledge, Indonesia is federated so this law wouldn't apply to all parts of the country. Also, last I saw, while 'fundamentalist' laws are being introduced in some semi-rural and rural areas, they only have moderate support and are more tokenistic than rigidly enforced, even in predominantly Muslim areas.

It's against the law to have long hair in Singapore.

true

pete wrote:

Perhaps a fairer comparison would be telling Muslims going to Vatican City they can't build a mosque?

Saudi Arabia is much bigger than Vatican City. Anyway two wrongs would not make a right. I have never been to Vatican city but I have been to muslim countries where ye cant even get a drink, and where women cant drive.

pwd

10 years is considerably more than a rapist or child molestor would get in this country. We should both find some middle ground i think.

Poker_Peter

I think this illustrates the difference in values between the Muslim world and the Western world. I hope we don't have these sorts of laws imposed on us in the future.

Amz

At times I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on public displays of "affection" in this country.

TomF

Well, I often wished to have a bucket of cold water handy when I see the more off-putting displays of public affection. I would also like to see fewer episodes of "tonsil hockey" on television shows.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

its a gross inteference in peoples right to exspress themselves, that doesnt harm anyone else.

Yes, but they're hardly alone in having rules to that effect.

I think of serious issues like gay rights, and more frivolous ones like indecent exposure and - other than the severity of the law - fail to see that our (or any other) society is any different in terms of passing laws which ban this "right of expression" you speak of.

Is the problem here the law, or the sentence?

jc

Frank Grimes

true wrote:

Some would say thats the Muslims for you.

In most parts of South East Asia public displays of affection are looked down on, regardless of the religion of the people. Look in any guidebook for the region.

Saudi Arabia is much bigger than Vatican City. Anyway two wrongs would not make a right. I have never been to Vatican city but I have been to muslim countries where ye cant even get a drink, and where women cant drive.

Saudi Arabia isn't indicitative of the entire Muslim world. Women can drive in most Muslim countries, does that not tell you something?
Also, if you have such a problem being in a country that you can't get a drink in, don't go there.
What would you say if people came over here and started complaining that they couldn't smoke in a pub?

swiss

Frank Grimes wrote:

What would you say if people came over here and started complaining that they couldn't smoke in a pub?

I would say that the law was passed on health grounds, and if they want to smoke, they are welcome to do so outside.

People are drawing parallels between the Indonesian law and various indecency laws we have over here. These parallels certainly exist, but the scope of this law and the penalties it imposes are frankly way beyond anything that I can conceive happening in any western society. From my reading of this thread, this "indecency" law also fails to differentiate between, say, a quick peck on the cheek with full tonsil-on-tonsil action.

To me, this is just another example of the cultural divide that exists between East and West. Of course I think Islam is a factor, but the real motivating force behind these laws is that of conservatism, be that conservatism religiously motivated or otherwise. Now, can anyone name a large western democracy where there has been a noted rise in religious conservatism in recent years? I certainly can.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think this law is as repressive as it is idiotic. However, my real concern is not Indonesian laws, especially since it is likely that this law will have support in many areas. My concern is that the thinking that spurs laws like this can be replicated in places like America and Ireland, whereupon it might erode personal liberties even furthur in areas such as those bonkey mentioned.

Zombrex

Poker_Peter wrote:

I think this illustrates the difference in values between the Muslim world and the Western world. I hope we don't have these sorts of laws imposed on us in the future.

Well considering we just spent the last 800 years trying to stop the Catholic church from this type of controlling, I don't think we will be giving up our new found freedom anytime soon. Though it is a bit worrying the apparent rise of Christian groups trying to effect law (homosexuals, abortion, divorce, God in the EU constitution etc)

Frank Grimes

swiss wrote:

I would say that the law was passed on health grounds, and if they want to smoke, they are welcome to do so outside.

It's not the reasoning behind the law I was referring to, my point was that he would have (almost certainly) known beforehand that he couldn't drink in the country so complaining about it is pointless. As much as someone coming here for a holiday and then giving out that they can't have a smoke with their pint.

To me, this is just another example of the cultural divide that exists between East and West.

Agreed, but they are entitled to pass laws that are perceived as needed in their own countries as much as we are.
Just because they don't conform to our (i.e. a Western) way of thinking or viewing things doesn't make them wrong necessarily.

Frank Grimes

Also, these laws haven't been passed yet from what I can see:
Link

If the code is passed extant, unmarried couples could be penalized with to two years' jail and a maximum fine of Rp 30 million; the article would also give police and officials the power to raid houses of all those they suspected of living together.

pete

Wicknight wrote:

Well considering we just spent the last 800 years trying to stop the Catholic church from this type of controlling

800? The last 40 more like...

Frank Grimes

pete wrote:

800? The last 40 more like...

Even less than that, divorce is only legal in the last 10 years or so.
Abortion is still only legal once you go somewhere else to do it.

pete

Frank Grimes wrote:

Even less than that, divorce is only legal in the last 10 years or so.
Abortion is still only legal once you go somewhere else to do it.

Am i giving the swinging 60's more credit than they're due?

ionapaul

Well, I can see abortion being *less* available worldwide in 10 years, rather than more. Seems that's the way the winds are blowing....many societies seem to be searching for the 'golden mean' at the moment, the US becoming more conservative after perceived excesses during the past few decades, others becoming more liberal after years of conservatism.

Sand

Just because they don't conform to our (i.e. a Western) way of thinking or viewing things doesn't make them wrong necessarily.

Cultural views may explain certain laws or customs in foreign countries - it does not exscuse them if they are wrong. And theres no harm in saying they are wrong if you think they are wrong. Its certainly a lot more honest than saying its alright for Indonesians, but I wouldnt like a law like that passed in Ireland.

GuanYin

Sand wrote:

Cultural views may explain certain laws or customs in foreign countries - it does not exscuse them if they are wrong. And theres no harm in saying they are wrong if you think they are wrong. Its certainly a lot more honest than saying its alright for Indonesians, but I wouldnt like a law like that passed in Ireland.

Well I don't think we can really afford to make judgements on others cultures. Nor is it our place to.

But I made the post because, well its a time when I think culture intrudes on human rights as it used to here - catholicism was no angel either.

I do think (and this is off topic, but it was my topic, so I'll digress if I want to ) that people don't so much have a problem with other peoples race as they do their culture.

Looking atthe way some Asians are treated, its a totally different kettle of fish when American Asians come over.
A few have said to me that they were ignored or treated rudely til people realised they were american.

Likewise it semes that cutures like our own seem not to have the prejudices even if they are of different skin colour.

Food for thought?

Sand

Well I don't think we can really afford to make judgements on others cultures. Nor is it our place to.

I disagree with that statement 100%. You certainly would not - I hope - say it was not our place to criticise honour killings, or arranged marraiges, or female genital mutilation as being wrong, just because theyre practised as part of another culture. Human rights are universal, they are not dependant on culture. I feel that such invasive morality policing that inteferes with a simple public display of affection that must surely be covered under freedom of exspression would not be acceptable in Ireland even if a majority of people turned into Catholic fundamentalist nutters overnight, and I dont feel it should be acceptable in Indonesia.

pickarooney

Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but are these kind of laws - huge fines, way beyond the means of almost anyone in Indonesia (and certainly much more than it would cost to buy off a copper) for something that is not really a local practise) - not intended as a money-spinner to fleece unwitting tourists?

SkepticOne

Most countries have restrictions of some sort on public behaviour. It would seem to me to be more of local concern to the Indonesians themselves what restrictions they place on themselves. It is another matter if restrictions are being placed on them by some external power but that does not seem to be the case here.

It does raise the issue of the line between human rights and and the right (or even requirement) of a country to set standards of behaviour in public. In Ireland we have had laws which would now be considered wrong by many. They changed mainly because peoples attitudes changed and it was no longer politically popular to maintain them. If someone has a problem with the laws in Indonesia then they probably have to seek to change attitudes in that country.

This all depends, of course, on the extent to which the Indonesians have a functioning democracy.

"My concern is that the thinking that spurs laws like this can be replicated in places like America and Ireland, whereupon it might erode personal liberties even furthur in areas such as those bonkey mentioned."

I don't think countries in the West are terribly influenced by what goes on in S.E Asia but Ireland can certainly swing back to a more socially conservative culture for other reasons. It is really up to people here to determine what sort of laws they want.

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Its certainly a lot more honest than saying its alright for Indonesians, but I wouldnt like a law like that passed in Ireland.

Did I say that?
In what way is this (proposed) law wrong, other than it doesn't conform to our view of what is acceptable public behaviour?
We as Westerners see no harm in kissing in public, but on the other hand in most Asian countries it's considered something that should be kept to private situations. It's a difference in values, and throwing in an argument about "honour killings" is totally OTT.
You're judging something by our moral standards and deciding it's wrong.
Do you even care if the Indonesians agree with it? or should they just listen to what we're saying, as we seem to have some sort of moral and cultural superiority.

uberwolf

syke wrote:

Well I don't think we can really afford to make judgements on others cultures. Nor is it our place to.

But I made the post because, well its a time when I think culture intrudes on human rights as it used to here - catholicism was no angel either.

could we, should we invoke our own laws that apply to cultural vagaries that we find unreasonable?

out of a hat, it would seem to be the sentiment that Islam treats women poorly and certainly unequally, does this apply to the hard core countries only (and consequently it's proponents are unlikely to travel to christian/liberal countries?) or should we move to ensure that gender equality (particularly within marriage) are established and maintained.

I'm confident that such a move would meet stern resistance from the do-gooder brigade on cultural grounds despite the fact that it wouldn't be accepted for 'traditional' citizens.

On the original topic. I am uncomfortable with this, but I can't place myself in the context or culture that has resulted in this ruling. It would seem arbitary punishment. I can't see that you'd accept 5 years in jail for a snatched kiss in public but that 10 years would have you baulk.

Also any law which interferes with your freedom within your own home under decency grounds seems undue interference - but again no accounting for culture.


*I have an impression of Islam which is founded purely on ignorance but is constantly reinforced by peers

Sand

out of a hat, it would seem to be the sentiment that Islam treats women poorly and certainly unequally, does this apply to the hard core countries only (and consequently it's proponents are unlikely to travel to christian/liberal countries?) or should we move to ensure that gender equality (particularly within marriage) are established and maintained.

That is not due to Islam, but rather to the cultures of the countries in which Islam has spread - and the spread of the ultra fundamentalist wahibbist sect which has been championed by the Saudi Royal Family ( whose custody of the holy places grants them enormous clout) and financed by their vast oil wealth which has destroyed countless local variants of Islam in a fine bit of Arab cultural imperialism/demonstration of soft power.

As an example of non-wahibbi islam you could travel to China where there are female immans! They have survived where others have failed thanks to Chinas deep seated refusal to allow foreign elements influence internal Chinese affairs.

Female disenfranchisment might be justified by interpretations of Islam in several countries, but thats all they are - interpretations. Islam is actually a very anarchic religion. There is no central authority like the Pope, figures like Sistani in Iraq are empowered by the respect the faithful have for him - not his rank. As such, a different culture might have very different interpretations of the Koran that fit with their own views. The problem is the aforementioned Saudi Royal Family who sponsor the most intolerant brand of Islam around the world and strangle local interpretations.

Did I say that?

Oh so youd favour a similar law for Ireland then? Even if its their culture, it is reasonable to assume theyre not drones and there is at the very least a significant minority who dont agree with the moral majoritys views on kissing - otherwise there would be no need for the law. Their rights arent trumped by subjective culture, subjective morals or simple majorities. Who is in the right here? Would you argue that the women were in the wrong as they were offending the moral majority? How can they reconcile their faith to their actions? Maybe, just maybe like everyone in Ireland they put a division between private morals -even religious morals - and the states laws?

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Oh so youd favour a similar law for Ireland then?

Ireland is not Indonesia, the need/want for a law like that would not arise here (in the foreseeable future anyway) because of cultural differences as I have said.

Even if its their culture, it is reasonable to assume theyre not drones and there is at the very least a significant minority who dont agree with the moral majoritys views on kissing - otherwise there would be no need for the law.

So you think all laws in all countries should take into account the minority as well? In that case why should we bother with referenda? Or laws on speeding, some people see no harm in going a bit fast. And so on.
Or does it just apply to laws you deem to be wrong?

Who is in the right here?

Well, the government minister quoted doesn't seem to think the police were anyway.

Sand

Ireland is not Indonesia, the need/want for a law like that would not arise here (in the foreseeable future anyway) because of cultural differences as I have said.

So its alright for them but....

You see where I was going with that original point you took issue with?

So you think all laws in all countries should take into account the minority as well?

Well think mightnt stress it strongly enough. The law is supposed to be there for *all* citizens wholly seperate from the political process. Its not there as a tool to implement a religious/moral agenda. Or at least it shouldnt be. You wouldnt accept it if this were the case in Ireland, and youre not doing people any favours cheerleading it elsewhere.

Well, the government minister quoted doesn't seem to think the police were anyway.

Actually his only concern seemed to be that they were rude. The orwellian nature of religious police raiding a night club to arrest muslim women for not dressing in accordance with muslim teachings isnt what concerns him. But then, those women are Indonesian muslims and dont have the same rights as Irish women would have to go out to a nightclub dressed in something a little less orthodox than a bloody burka. Your rights depend on the local culture dont you know.

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Well think mightnt stress it strongly enough. The law is supposed to be there for *all* citizens wholly seperate from the political process. Its not there as a tool to implement a religious/moral agenda. Or at least it shouldnt be. You wouldnt accept it if this were the case in Ireland, and youre not doing people any favours cheerleading it elsewhere.

You're working off the assumption that the people don't want it in Indonesia. If that was the case then your arguements would hold weight, but what you're doing is applying our own beliefs and values to a cultural and religious situation that is not the same as ours.
I wouldn't accept it if it was the case in Ireland now, you are correct. Simply because the majority of people would not agree with these beliefs. And again, Ireland is not Indonesia, surely you realise the comparison cannot be made in the way you are making it.

Actually his only concern seemed to be that they were rude. The orwellian nature of religious police raiding a night club to arrest muslim women for not dressing in accordance with muslim teachings isnt what concerns him. But then, those women are Indonesian muslims and dont have the same rights as Irish women would have to go out to a nightclub dressed in something a little less orthodox than a bloody burka. Your rights depend on the local culture dont you know.

That actually happened in Malaysia, take a look at the laws that apply to Malays there. Technically they can do that.
BTW, I've been in Malaysia 3 times and the (Malay) women do wear slightly less than burqas in nightclubs.

monument

Frank Grimes wrote:

Abortion is still only legal once you go somewhere else to do it.

It's a good thing that our laws don’t support terminating unborn humans.

Then again, some prefer killing the unborn. I mean, god help them if they were actually allowed to live – they might become little “bastards”. I’m sure they’ll like it better being dead.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well since they don't have a consciousness at the time of abortion, they don't even exist so they don't care at all.

Peace

So if i went there with my girlfriend, i couldn't live with her or kiss her... Well i could kiss her but i'd have to pony up 42k or do 10years....


thats f*cking stupid. End of story.

Frank Grimes

monument wrote:

It's a good thing that our laws don’t support terminating unborn humans.

A majority support information and travel though but not the act itself in this country, which would indicate a support for it in some way or at the least it shows that Irish people (at the time of that referendum anyway) are not totally against the practice.

pickarooney

Was a referendum held to decide on whether or not this law should be passed? Why should we accept it as read that it's the will of all, or even the majority of, Indonesians?
This is just one small example of the current climate of intolerance in Indonesia. The laws against homosexuality (up to and including the death penalty) are even more stringent. I don't see why we should accept that it is the will of all Indonesians to punish gays and that this law is fitting for the country, any more than I think we should have accepted that apartheid was the way to go for South Africa.

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

Was a referendum held to decide on whether or not this law should be passed?

The law hasn't been passed, did you read the link I posted?

Why should we accept it as read that it's the will of all, or even the majority of, Indonesians?

Should we question all laws in all countries that do not fit in with our moral outlook on life, or just certain ones?
Why do you assume that it's not the will is more interesting?

This is just one small example of the current climate of intolerance in Indonesia.

This is an example of a cultural difference between us and South East Asian countries, go to Thailand or Vietnam and they'll have the same opinion on signs of public affection. Whether or not they'd suggest a law against it is another thing.

pickarooney

Frank Grimes wrote:

The law hasn't been passed, did you read the link I posted?

I know it hasn't, but if and when it does, will it be via referendum?

Should we question all laws in all countries that do not fit in with our moral outlook on life, or just certain ones?

Good question, and I addressed it in my last post - victimisation of homosexuals, ethnic minorites (and sometimes majorities), women enshrined in law.
My thoughts are that we should question all laws, whether at home or abroad, which are designed to discriminate and persecute. What way do you feel about it?

Why do you assume that it's not the will is more interesting?

Like someone else (Sand, I think) said earlier, I believe it reasonable to assume that not 100% of the people of any country will be in agreement with any one law.

This is an example of a cultural difference between us and South East Asian countries, go to Thailand or Vietnam and they'll have the same opinion on signs of public affection. Whether or not they'd suggest a law against it is another thing.

I'm sceptical about the need for this particular law (see my next-to-last post) in a country where it is not a common practice. I'm more concerned about the more seriously oppressive laws mooted recently, but this is a decent starting point on a sliding scale of what we should ignore as a cultural thing and what we should abhor as persecution.
Is there a clear line over which one shall not cross with respect to legislation in one's own country?

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

I know it hasn't, but if and when it does, will it be via referendum?

I don't know, I wouldn't imagine so.
Does any country put all changes in law to a referendum?

Good question, and I addressed it in my last post - victimisation of homosexuals, ethnic minorites (and sometimes majorities), women enshrined in law.

Does Indonesia use the death penalty against homosexuals? I've looked and all I can find is reference to it being used against terrorists and drug dealers, also the only reference I can see to homosexuality being actually criminalised is this one.

My thoughts are that we should question all laws, whether at home or abroad, which are designed to discriminate and persecute. What way do you feel about it?

What makes you think this particular law is designed to discriminate or persecute, other than it doesn't fit into our own particular belief system.

Like someone else (Sand, I think) said earlier, I believe it reasonable to assume that not 100% of the people of any country will be in agreement with any one law.

Perfectly reasonable to assume that, but would we accept outside interference in our law making process on the sole reason that the law in question does not appeal to 100% of the population?

I'm sceptical about the need for this particular law (see my next-to-last post) in a country where it is not a common practice.

The only reason I can see for anyone here being sceptical about this is because it doesn't make sense to us from a cultural point of view.
Also, if the majority of the people in the country agree/want the law does it really matter what we think?

pickarooney

OK, it seems we're talking at cross-purposes and I think you know this but are pretending otherwise. You're sticking rigidly to the subject header and I'm expanding to cover other laws recently mooted in Indonesia.

Frank Grimes wrote:

I don't know, I wouldn't imagine so.
Does any country put all changes in law to a referendum?

Just to put this one to bed (on its own, with no dirty thoughts) - the point of me asking about a referendum was in response to your question about why I thought the law might not be the will of most Indonesians.

Does Indonesia use the death penalty against homosexuals? I've looked and all I can find is reference to it being used against terrorists and drug dealers, also the only reference I can see to homosexuality being actually criminalised is this one.

Having searched agin, apparently not. I could have sworn I read it in the paper a few months back. The law in question in the title is just one of the Sharia laws the government is trying to phase in, though, and homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia law in Iran, for example. A bit of stretch, admittedly.

What makes you think this particular law is designed to discriminate or persecute, other than it doesn't fit into our own particular belief system.

I've said a couple of times already that I'm not convinced of the reasoning behind this kissing-in-public law. Laws drafted to criminalise homosexuals and rape victims (Sharia law in general) are in my mind designed to persecute. That's just the way I feel about it, and I don't have any links or statistics to back up my instincts.

Perfectly reasonable to assume that, but would we accept outside interference in our law making process on the sole reason that the law in question does not appeal to 100% of the population?

I should like to think that were a law passed that made a person a criminal for nothing more than being what he is, that objections would be raised, by people within the country and without.

The only reason I can see for anyone here being sceptical about this is because it doesn't make sense to us from a cultural point of view.
Also, if the majority of the people in the country agree/want the law does it really matter what we think?

IF - see above.

If a law were passed in Ireland banning shítting in the street (perhaps there is already one, I don't know), I imagine people would wonder why that was. It's absolutely not done in Irish culture (please, spare us your Saturday night in Athlone stories, if anyone is thinking of providing evidence to the contrary ), so what would be the point of passing such a law? Likewise, if people don't kiss in public in Indonesia, what is the purpose of this law? Who is it targetting?

Sand

I wouldn't accept it if it was the case in Ireland now, you are correct. Simply because the majority of people would not agree with these beliefs. And again, Ireland is not Indonesia, surely you realise the comparison cannot be made in the way you are making it.

Frank - human rights are universal. They are not dependant on where your from, what country you live in or what cultural or moral idealogy has managed to attract state patronage - you can argue with Article 2 if you want to continue believing that because some people are Indonesians they dont have the right to kiss in public (which is surely free exspression - article 19 Frank). Article 19 is especially important Frank because it states that the minority doesnt simply have to go along with the majoritys inteference with their rights purely because they are a minority as you seem to be arguing. I could invoke numberous examples of majorites intefereing with the rights of minorities but then Id breach Godwins law at least once.

That actually happened in Malaysia, take a look at the laws that apply to Malays there. Technically they can do that.

Oh well, that makes it alright then. As long as theyve passed a law to make morality police legal its all okay. Because laws that contravene basic human rights have never been passed have they? :rolleyes:

Frank Grimes

I won't go through each point in both posts, but can you both just answer me this:
Do you think that we have the right to dictate to another country what laws they should pass because we believe they are wrong? (I'm talking about a law such as this one, not a law to legalise genocide or something totally extreme).
Sand - do you not think that Indonesians might not view it as denying a freedom of expression rather more holding up a social norm?
Or is our definition of freedom expression and what exactly it entails the "correct" one and they are wrong with theirs, because the jist of a lot of these posts seem to be "they're wrong because we know better".

pickarooney

Frank Grimes wrote:

I won't go through each point in both posts, but can you both just answer me this:
Do you think that we have the right to dictate to another country what laws they should pass because we believe they are wrong? (I'm talking about a law such as this one, not a law to legalise genocide or something totally extreme).

I'm not sure who you mean by this. We're just plebs expressing an opinion on the internet; what we say is of absolutely no consequence to the people of Indonesia. The ones dictating are the government of that country. I think we have every right to criticise or applaud it - our definition of freedom of expression is the one that holds sway in this circumstance, I believe. By the same token, the people of Indonesia are welcome to decry Ireland's smoking ban or its repeal of the criminalisation of homosexuality.

Sand - do you not think that Indonesians might not view it as denying a freedom of expression rather more holding up a social norm?
Or is our definition of freedom expression and what exactly it entails the "correct" one and they are wrong with theirs, because the jist of a lot of these posts seem to be "they're wrong because we know better".

We can rehash the question of whether (a moajority of) Indonesians believe this to be a just and valid law ad nauseam, but in the absence of any Indonesian input, it serves little purpose.
Let's just remember that we're talking ten fúcking years in an Indonesian prison for a kiss in public. If that doesn't set off alarm bells, just how long would you keep silent?

pickarooney

FWIW: "As far as kissing (in public) or living together goes, these new laws go way too far," Indonesian women's rights activist Nursyahbani Katjasungkana said.

From here: http://adserver.news.com.au/html.ng/site=heraldsun&adsize=173x128&pagepos=1
For some reason linking to the article directly doesn't seem to work.

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

The ones dictating are the government of that country. I think we have every right to criticise or applaud it - our definition of freedom of expression is the one that holds sway in this circumstance, I believe.

Why do you think it's the government dictating to the people though?
The country is a democracy, is it not possible that the elected representatives of the people are putting this forward because the majority of their constituents are looking for this law?
Again, I'm interested to know why exactly our definition of freedom of expression is correct here, do the Indonesians themselves (in the context of their own culture and traditions etc.) not have a right to interpret themselves what applies as freedom of expression and what does not in a situation such as this one?
Also, I'm not saying I agree with the penalties, it's just the attitude that's arisen regarding the actual law itself in this thread interests me.
It's also possible that the proposal has no popular support at all in Indonesia and has no chance of being written into law, it could just be the result one MP suggesting something, the article isn't really clear about where the proposal has come from or why.
And you are correct, without a cross section of the Indonesian population contributing to this thread it's pretty meaningless

pickarooney

I just can't imagine a scenario where someone would willingly encourage the government to raid their homes in a search for immoral behaviour.
Perhaps the majority does indeed want to criminalise the minority, but I believe this also to be very wrong.
For example, many people react with similar disbelief when I tell them abortion is illegal in Ireland and that divorce was only recently legalised.

I'm trying to find some Indonesians to get some kind of a straw poll; will let you know if I locate any.

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

I'm trying to find some Indonesians to get some kind of a straw poll; will let you know if I locate any.

Cool, post up the results if you have any luck.
Btw. Ask if they know what the basis of the proposal was, i.e. popular support, marginal support or one guy getting it put into the proposed changes.