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