Indonesia Increase Penalties for Kissing

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.

pickarooney

Good point. Maybe I can get a couple of people to post here.

pickarooney

Hope this link works - the opinion of one Indonesian.

Frank Grimes

pickarooney wrote:

Hope this link works - the opinion of one Indonesian.

Obviously I can't link to it , but that's the sort of opinion I've heard from people when I've been in SE Asian countries regarding this.