I was truly saddened to see news reports of people giving money to the beggars getting fined and getting apprehended.
I never thought that the local government would enact such a law, I am aware of the problems of beggars and the homeless roaming about in Jakarta and I do agree that a serious measure is needed to ensure that many of them do not come to Jakarta or those that exploit our kindness are punished. But to be punished for being kind itself is truly and utterly appaling.
First off, this law is breaching our rights to discern and determine the type of help that we would like to give to those who are in need.
Secondly, it is crippling the thought process of our next generation on being kind towards one another regardless of their social pedigrees by generalizing that all street beggars are not to be helped, preaching kindness is hard enough as it is but by enacting this law we are saying to the young that if you see a hungry person (alas by our own judgement he or she is truly hungry) you must not give them anything, you must leave them to rot on the streets.
Third, the problem of escalation, the number of the poor would not get any lower any time soon hence the number of the poor would almost definitely increase. Whilst we inhibit their source of income by enacting this law which would also affect street vendors, newspaper selling boys/girls, they have to find another route of getting money enough to eat the easiest solution to them being uneducated and socially inept would only to turn into a life of crime, even if they get caught they would enjoy at least having a roof over their head when arrested what would they have to lose.
It is a sad day for humanity when an act of kindness in its most basic form by giving to one and another is being rewarded with a punishment.
One of the alternative to this law is to appeal to the public to channel their kindness through social foundation, this has to be a marketing campaign done much like any social or election campaigns to instill the thought of helping on a larger scale rather than diminishing the right to help beggars with a hands on approach.
The other alternative is setting up a free hotline for people to report sightings of beggars with irregularities (those that seems to be able bodied) and "gepengs" (especially violent ones), street sellers on the highways etc...
That way our rights are not violated but rather people are educated to do the right thing
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Detainment 2 years without Charges?????
I was shocked when I read The Jakarta Post Headline "Alleged trrorists should be detained for 2 years" Tuesday, 01 September 2009
Detaining someone without charges is a serious breach of basic human rights, it also breaches the basis of our legal system which the "azas praduga tak bersalah" or presume innocent until proven guilty and contradictive to the fostering of a democracy. Even a seven day detainment without charges is already a stretching of that basis, let alone two years.
Is the government trying to emulate Bush Jr.'s policies?? Most of us didn't like his policies which was basically an overreaction to the 9/11 bombings. Are we going to have our own Guantanamo bay to hold people for two years without any charges? Why are we copying a policy which is basically similar to the Salem witch hunt where people were burned first before it was realized that they weren't witches?
Another bewildering policy is to detain people, who preached hatred, now where was this notion when certain people were bashing certain sects of a religion live on air? Or when people were bashing gays? Or bashing artists whose dances are arousing? And on the other end of the spectrum would someone be detained for vocally voicing their opinions in an oratory down Bunderan HI?
It would be sad day for our newly found democracy if that were to happen, mainly because by doing and implementing the above policies we are stooping to their levels and tactics of kidnapping someone and brainwashing them for terrorists acts, And those policies were brought on by fears which is exactly what they want us to do.
Terrorism wants us to falter in our beliefs in a free society, to have equal footings and grounds on many fronts. They want us to change the basis of our laws of "praduga Tak Bersalah" but most of all they want to diminish our beliefs in a democracy.
Hence, although I agree that the military should be involved their capacity should only be restricted to aiding the Police in apprehending dangerous and well armed suspects as the Police may not be fully equipped to deal with bomb wearing, Ak-47 wielding and bazooka carrying terrorists. Because if we give the military more power than that we would be right back to the New Order era which is another win for terrorism as it means our democracy is replaced with either a military junta or like the New Order we couldn't be free to voice our opinions.
Detaining someone without charges is a serious breach of basic human rights, it also breaches the basis of our legal system which the "azas praduga tak bersalah" or presume innocent until proven guilty and contradictive to the fostering of a democracy. Even a seven day detainment without charges is already a stretching of that basis, let alone two years.
Is the government trying to emulate Bush Jr.'s policies?? Most of us didn't like his policies which was basically an overreaction to the 9/11 bombings. Are we going to have our own Guantanamo bay to hold people for two years without any charges? Why are we copying a policy which is basically similar to the Salem witch hunt where people were burned first before it was realized that they weren't witches?
Another bewildering policy is to detain people, who preached hatred, now where was this notion when certain people were bashing certain sects of a religion live on air? Or when people were bashing gays? Or bashing artists whose dances are arousing? And on the other end of the spectrum would someone be detained for vocally voicing their opinions in an oratory down Bunderan HI?
It would be sad day for our newly found democracy if that were to happen, mainly because by doing and implementing the above policies we are stooping to their levels and tactics of kidnapping someone and brainwashing them for terrorists acts, And those policies were brought on by fears which is exactly what they want us to do.
Terrorism wants us to falter in our beliefs in a free society, to have equal footings and grounds on many fronts. They want us to change the basis of our laws of "praduga Tak Bersalah" but most of all they want to diminish our beliefs in a democracy.
Hence, although I agree that the military should be involved their capacity should only be restricted to aiding the Police in apprehending dangerous and well armed suspects as the Police may not be fully equipped to deal with bomb wearing, Ak-47 wielding and bazooka carrying terrorists. Because if we give the military more power than that we would be right back to the New Order era which is another win for terrorism as it means our democracy is replaced with either a military junta or like the New Order we couldn't be free to voice our opinions.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Capital Punishment..... a Political Conundrum
For the past few months several hard hitting and gut wrenching murder cases in Indonesia and who can forget the Bali Bombing tragedy that has affected countless families both domestic and foreign are said to be resolved as the convicted perpetrators are being sent to the "gallows" (pardon my pun as I'm using an old phrase) or to be more precise they are being sent to face the firing squad.
There were many suggestions, letters and opinions on this issue, and the highlight was that the father of one of the victim's of Bali Bombing was stated to urge our Indonesian government not to carry out the death penalty.
This made me think, and quite a while I might add on the argument for this. I myself is a neutral on this issue. As my upbringing is Catholicism I am against this kind of penalty, however I was never faced (and hope to never will) with the decision of having someone's live hinging on my principal and values like the above mentioned father of the victim.
However, living in the real world has given me some pragmatical view of this issue, which led me to see this as a conundrum, a puzzle that bewilders me especially because of the values that this (the Indonesian) government uses sometimes in justifying their "governance".
In the old United States there exist such laws that is protected by its constitution and supreme courts in matters of life and death with the likes of Posse Commitatus, Self Preservation (self defence), The rights for women to have an abortion (Roe vs Wade) and rights to own a registered gun. In plain and laymen terms these laws is basically saying that it is okay for a citizen to kill (note; not murder) another in times of grave danger and for self preservation of course these circumstances may need to be proven in a court of law.
Now, with those kinds of law why would anyone wonder they have a capital punshment (death penalty) is beyond my comprehension.
Indonesia on the other hand has no such laws. People who are in immediate danger having to kill or taken another live would still be punish, our current laws forbids the forming of posse commitatus and also the act of abortion. Seems like the Indonesian is a country that champions live doesn't it. Well we still have the Capital Punishment or Death Penalty.
Now here is my "conundrum", how is it possible that if my life were to be threaten at knife point (Indonesian Laws forbid ownership of guns by a civilian) and I had no where to run and then I reacted in a manner that resulted in the death of my assailant, I would still get punish in the eyes of the law??
Now the same law that governs me to be punished allows a capital punishment or death sentence of the same assailant if I were to die at his/her hands horrifically. Wouldn't that make the law a hypocrite?? and where is does justice exist for me out of the two cases. I am alive but I go to Jail for killing in self defence and the other one I'm dead!!!! why should I care if my assailant dies with me.
Again, I must stress that I'm a neutral to the Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment issue. My problem with this in Indonesia is that the government, our legislature and legal system should not be so fickle and hypocritical. It should have the same "veil of ignorance" across the board especially if we are contemplating on using the Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment as a so called deterrent.
If we are to still have the Capital Punishment or Death Penalty as a tool of the law for deterrent or closure to the victim's families then our laws must also guarantee the right of each Indonesian to defend themselves in order to preserve their lives.
However, if we are to champion live it should be all the way. This means that Capital Punishment should not be incorporated into our laws.
There were many suggestions, letters and opinions on this issue, and the highlight was that the father of one of the victim's of Bali Bombing was stated to urge our Indonesian government not to carry out the death penalty.
This made me think, and quite a while I might add on the argument for this. I myself is a neutral on this issue. As my upbringing is Catholicism I am against this kind of penalty, however I was never faced (and hope to never will) with the decision of having someone's live hinging on my principal and values like the above mentioned father of the victim.
However, living in the real world has given me some pragmatical view of this issue, which led me to see this as a conundrum, a puzzle that bewilders me especially because of the values that this (the Indonesian) government uses sometimes in justifying their "governance".
In the old United States there exist such laws that is protected by its constitution and supreme courts in matters of life and death with the likes of Posse Commitatus, Self Preservation (self defence), The rights for women to have an abortion (Roe vs Wade) and rights to own a registered gun. In plain and laymen terms these laws is basically saying that it is okay for a citizen to kill (note; not murder) another in times of grave danger and for self preservation of course these circumstances may need to be proven in a court of law.
Now, with those kinds of law why would anyone wonder they have a capital punshment (death penalty) is beyond my comprehension.
Indonesia on the other hand has no such laws. People who are in immediate danger having to kill or taken another live would still be punish, our current laws forbids the forming of posse commitatus and also the act of abortion. Seems like the Indonesian is a country that champions live doesn't it. Well we still have the Capital Punishment or Death Penalty.
Now here is my "conundrum", how is it possible that if my life were to be threaten at knife point (Indonesian Laws forbid ownership of guns by a civilian) and I had no where to run and then I reacted in a manner that resulted in the death of my assailant, I would still get punish in the eyes of the law??
Now the same law that governs me to be punished allows a capital punishment or death sentence of the same assailant if I were to die at his/her hands horrifically. Wouldn't that make the law a hypocrite?? and where is does justice exist for me out of the two cases. I am alive but I go to Jail for killing in self defence and the other one I'm dead!!!! why should I care if my assailant dies with me.
Again, I must stress that I'm a neutral to the Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment issue. My problem with this in Indonesia is that the government, our legislature and legal system should not be so fickle and hypocritical. It should have the same "veil of ignorance" across the board especially if we are contemplating on using the Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment as a so called deterrent.
If we are to still have the Capital Punishment or Death Penalty as a tool of the law for deterrent or closure to the victim's families then our laws must also guarantee the right of each Indonesian to defend themselves in order to preserve their lives.
However, if we are to champion live it should be all the way. This means that Capital Punishment should not be incorporated into our laws.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
CHILDREN'S DECLARATION GOT STOMPED
I was reading The Jakarta Post today and saw the headline "Children feel 'hurt' on their national day". This got my attention big time especially because yesterday was the National Children's Day. I was also largely interested because I imagined that the 'hurt' was abstract and was only a catch phrase to draw readers (suggested by the apostrophe sign on 'hurt'). But to my surprise as I read the article, it was a true and real hurt even if it is not manifested physically.
I never would imagine that, a minister would ask or ordered such a thing in this day and era. How could a man who claims to be an executive for the people turn down a righteous appeal and declaration? A declaration that is neither subversive and/or offensive. The declaration that was censored was "a declaration to strive and call for the need of a special ministry for children's affairs that responds to children's needs". I was utterly disappointed especially when I saw that the Minister of Social Services, Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah, defended the restriction and censor. How could someone heads a ministry of Social Services not possess a Social Awareness of how hurtful this action was.
Although, he made an excuse that he had explained that the country's current condition warranted the government's inability to setup such a ministry, it was not his right to stop someone or a group of people to declare their efforts and aspirations. And just so you know, the declaration never mentioned any deadline to when this ministry should be established.
I was appalled, mainly because it was emblematic of the problems that children are facing through out Indonesia in being cast out, bullied and dismissed by adults or by people with power. It was even more shocking that it happened on the back of another story on child abuse (see article : Govt action needed on child abuse) on the same newspaper.
I asked myself, what kinds of reasons other than the 'excuse' that Mr. Chamsyah had given would merit such a censorship? The only reasons that I could think of right now as I'm writing this is that Those Children was not considered as constituents. Maybe because they aren't old enough to vote yet or they are being dismissed as not being "experienced" enough to handle such freedom of speech.
Well I say, all the more reason to have the ministry, because they are future constituents and being 'inexperience' they should have more guidance not less, they should be given more protection rather than more restriction especially if it is a positive declaration and most of all they should be given better examples of how freedom of speech is welcomed and protected.
Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah should lead by example, he should have protected the right of the children to declare their aspirations and initatives.
This whole thing reminded me of an episode from one of my favorite TV series from the United States called "The West Wing" in which the story was the Chief of Staff's Deputy of Communication for the White house was entertaining a group young kids that wanted their issues heard and especially about their aspiration of a lower age to vote so that they could be immediate constituents and their rights be fully protected. I suggest that Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah watch this episode, in fact I suggest that the whole cabinet to try to find the time to watch this TV Series, although this Series is Fiction the issues involved however are not plus the backdrop of how a real and idealistic democracy was injected in this Series hence they would only stand to gain by watching it.
I do hope that in the near future, the government would readily listen to the whole of the children's aspiration and declaration
I never would imagine that, a minister would ask or ordered such a thing in this day and era. How could a man who claims to be an executive for the people turn down a righteous appeal and declaration? A declaration that is neither subversive and/or offensive. The declaration that was censored was "a declaration to strive and call for the need of a special ministry for children's affairs that responds to children's needs". I was utterly disappointed especially when I saw that the Minister of Social Services, Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah, defended the restriction and censor. How could someone heads a ministry of Social Services not possess a Social Awareness of how hurtful this action was.
Although, he made an excuse that he had explained that the country's current condition warranted the government's inability to setup such a ministry, it was not his right to stop someone or a group of people to declare their efforts and aspirations. And just so you know, the declaration never mentioned any deadline to when this ministry should be established.
I was appalled, mainly because it was emblematic of the problems that children are facing through out Indonesia in being cast out, bullied and dismissed by adults or by people with power. It was even more shocking that it happened on the back of another story on child abuse (see article : Govt action needed on child abuse) on the same newspaper.
I asked myself, what kinds of reasons other than the 'excuse' that Mr. Chamsyah had given would merit such a censorship? The only reasons that I could think of right now as I'm writing this is that Those Children was not considered as constituents. Maybe because they aren't old enough to vote yet or they are being dismissed as not being "experienced" enough to handle such freedom of speech.
Well I say, all the more reason to have the ministry, because they are future constituents and being 'inexperience' they should have more guidance not less, they should be given more protection rather than more restriction especially if it is a positive declaration and most of all they should be given better examples of how freedom of speech is welcomed and protected.
Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah should lead by example, he should have protected the right of the children to declare their aspirations and initatives.
This whole thing reminded me of an episode from one of my favorite TV series from the United States called "The West Wing" in which the story was the Chief of Staff's Deputy of Communication for the White house was entertaining a group young kids that wanted their issues heard and especially about their aspiration of a lower age to vote so that they could be immediate constituents and their rights be fully protected. I suggest that Mr. Bachtiar Chamsyah watch this episode, in fact I suggest that the whole cabinet to try to find the time to watch this TV Series, although this Series is Fiction the issues involved however are not plus the backdrop of how a real and idealistic democracy was injected in this Series hence they would only stand to gain by watching it.
I do hope that in the near future, the government would readily listen to the whole of the children's aspiration and declaration
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thoughts On Pre-Marital Sex
“I never believed women had to be virgins when they got married, or that a woman has to fall in love with a guy just because they’re having sex. I don’t think sex is a big deal. I hated the hypocrisy of it. Men can do whatever, and it’s acceptable.” by Jessica Alba
Before we begin the main "course" let me tell you about what has been taught to me for almost half of my life. As an eastern/asian educated boy in Indonesia I grew up hearing that when I become a man and when I get married my wife must be a virgin. Not only that, I was taught that sex before marriage or pre-marital sex is a big sin.
As I grew up, these teachings more and more seems unreasonable to me to the point where I would ask critical questions like;
- If I as a man must marry a virgin does that mean that I must be a virgin?
- Then how would then one define virginity for a man as there is no physical traits that can be traced verify that a man is a virgin?
- What happens if a man then falls in love with a widow?
- If one truly loves a woman shouldn't he accept her truly and wholly as she is with her imperfections?
- How then a woman would find happiness if she lost her virginity? should she be made to suffer for a mistake that is only partly her responsibility?
These questions kept begging in the back of my mind from the start of my teenage years untill I finished High school.
Slowly but surely I found my answers, that is why I find that the Jessica Alba quote very interesting because it sparked off an argument that I had inside of my head that I thought was resolved over the last ten years of my life. Although for the last ten years I've only shared those thoughts with those who are close to me now that I have this media, I would like to share it with the world. So here we go;
For me at least, I agree that women do not have to be virgins when they get married with the simple reason of equal treatment that if a man expects virginity from a woman he himself should also be a virgin. My other reason is that if and when I truly fall in love with a woman I must accept her wholly as she is because I also expect her to accept myself as is.
On the matter of pre-marital sex, I do not oppose the idea but rather prefer to re-classify the whole idea.
In my view we have to have two categories and they are pre-marital and pre-adulthood sex.
Pre-marital sex is when two people above the age 18 (after Senior High; based on adulthood definition in Indonesia) who are considered as adults engage in a sexual relationship. This classification of pre-marital sex I can go along with. I do not mind when adults live together and have a sexual relationship as they have the right to form their own relationship and define as well as find out where the relationship should be going towards. More ever being adults they are responsible for their own actions and they should be able to deal with any of its consequences.
Pre-adulthood sex is when the two people are minors (18 years old and below), as most probably they are still in high school (whether Junior or Senior) and they are still dependant to their parents. I would never condone sexual acts on or by minors. Being minors they are not equipped to handle the responsibility and consequences of a having sex let alone a sexual relationship.
I seems to be on the fence when she says that a woman should not have to fall in love with a man just because they are having sex. To me this isn't totally correct because a truly sexual experience involves passion and in order to have passion you have to have a certain degree of love. Despite that fact, I do agree that a sexual experience doesn't have to be dictated by the feeling of falling in love and having to end up together.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Dillema of Distributing Condoms
Just read a quite a funny article today.........
The article was about a music album that is being sold with a free condom inside the CD case........
The funny thing is that this shouldn't have gotten any mileage at all in the press other than reason that the singer (Julia Perez) isn't that good (a bit like Paris Hilton, who I think is mostly only riding on her popularity more than her talent on her first album), at least for my taste...........
Guess what happened......... some religious organization, a provincial/ regional head of office and even a minister spoke out about banning it............
I do know that most Indonesian are smart...... especially........... those who hold official power like the ones I mentioned above............
Just because of those hot pistols shoot off their mouths the album sales actually shot up......
even some people are trying to download the music to hear if there are some promiscuous lyrics that they can make a story about.................
They should have calmed down about it and if they really need to get it off their chest they should have just played the sarcastic game for example by saying that the album will sink and even an air tight condom can't save it............... More ever how stupid do those people think Indonesian are??
There's no way people will buy an album just to get the condom and then sleep around.......
Helloooooo a pack of condom is definitely cheaper than a CD or cassette tape........
and they can be found in almost every convinience store in Indonesia now............
Also, why should anyone be surprise of the Julia Perez would do this when she was once chosen to be a part of the AIDS prevention programme......... which by the way as she said,..... her actual reason for doing so.
Although I'm not a fan of her, I applaud her efforts, because personally one of my ideas to prevent the spread of AIDS is to have a condom vending machine in every Restroom all over Indonesia and also to distribute condoms for free in High-Risk areas like Bali, Batam and Jakarta.
Give sex as well as reproductive system educations in Junior High (in Indonesia it's starts on the 7th grade after 6 year of Elementary school) or starting the age of 12 - 13 years old.
I say we shouldn't be banning her album in fact we should be doing the same thing if we want to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS............
If they say that by distributing condoms it promotes The Free Sex Lifestyle that is Morally wrong, well I say this;
"There is a bigger moral issue that is in play here and it is our God Given Moral duty to Prevent any loss of lives".
The article was about a music album that is being sold with a free condom inside the CD case........
The funny thing is that this shouldn't have gotten any mileage at all in the press other than reason that the singer (Julia Perez) isn't that good (a bit like Paris Hilton, who I think is mostly only riding on her popularity more than her talent on her first album), at least for my taste...........
Guess what happened......... some religious organization, a provincial/ regional head of office and even a minister spoke out about banning it............
I do know that most Indonesian are smart...... especially........... those who hold official power like the ones I mentioned above............
Just because of those hot pistols shoot off their mouths the album sales actually shot up......
even some people are trying to download the music to hear if there are some promiscuous lyrics that they can make a story about.................
They should have calmed down about it and if they really need to get it off their chest they should have just played the sarcastic game for example by saying that the album will sink and even an air tight condom can't save it............... More ever how stupid do those people think Indonesian are??
There's no way people will buy an album just to get the condom and then sleep around.......
Helloooooo a pack of condom is definitely cheaper than a CD or cassette tape........
and they can be found in almost every convinience store in Indonesia now............
Also, why should anyone be surprise of the Julia Perez would do this when she was once chosen to be a part of the AIDS prevention programme......... which by the way as she said,..... her actual reason for doing so.
Although I'm not a fan of her, I applaud her efforts, because personally one of my ideas to prevent the spread of AIDS is to have a condom vending machine in every Restroom all over Indonesia and also to distribute condoms for free in High-Risk areas like Bali, Batam and Jakarta.
Give sex as well as reproductive system educations in Junior High (in Indonesia it's starts on the 7th grade after 6 year of Elementary school) or starting the age of 12 - 13 years old.
I say we shouldn't be banning her album in fact we should be doing the same thing if we want to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS............
If they say that by distributing condoms it promotes The Free Sex Lifestyle that is Morally wrong, well I say this;
"There is a bigger moral issue that is in play here and it is our God Given Moral duty to Prevent any loss of lives".
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Freedom of Speech & Expression
For a few days now Indonesia has been in turmoil over the freedom of speech & expression,
first of it was because of a stupid movie made by an ignorant man that is half way around the world away and the latest was of course the banning of a "dangdut" celebrity Ms. Dewi Persik who was allegedly dancing "too erotically" by the Mayor of Bandung.
First of all let's discuss about the freedom of speech and expression,
the idea of this of course came from our "big bro" the United States of America.
The idea was simple; every one has the right to speak about their opinions and express it so that they can be heard. This is done so that the minority opinion would have a standing in any matters that would alter the course of governance and way of life in the good old USA.
I thought that was genius, because in doing so a "Check and Balance" system was automatically in place, as basically pointed out today on The Jakarta Post Reader's Forum (17th April 2008 pg 7) by a man after my own heart Mr. Guile. The right of the people who makes porn sites to post their website is what guarantees that my right to post this blog of mine exists. That's how the check and balance works. In reverse the right for me to critize, protest and rebuke and warn people to take caution of a post is protected.
Now to Dewi Persik's problem, it is the same, the right for her to work the stage and dance "erotically" (in this case I utterly disagree that her dancing is erotic, to me its more like an amazement on her stamina to perform a song and still able to move like that) is the same right I enjoy to dance the Tango or Salsa or even to enjoy the Jaipong which is a traditional "sexy" dancing. The problem of banning her under the excuse of "making the men horny" is very much ambigous and may have further legal implications that is illogical. For example, If a woman went swimming even using a one piece suit and she got raped would you say that she brought upon against herself?? would you be comfortable in saying that it's not only the rapist fault but also the fault of the woman??. I'll bet that no one in his or her right mind would believe that. Not only that, would the mayor of Bandung ban paintings of Affandi and Basoeki that has a certain degree of nudity because it would invite "horny" reactions. Even in sports, in reverse would the same mayor ban men body building competitions because they only wear "under wears" and might incite housewives who watch the competition to commit adultery?.
Now the question begs, where do you draw the line?. My line is clear, it is the people who watch, see or looked that has to be responsible for their actions. If someone saw a so called erotic show and on the way home they raped someone, that someone is solely responsible and should be punished not the performer or the artist.
first of it was because of a stupid movie made by an ignorant man that is half way around the world away and the latest was of course the banning of a "dangdut" celebrity Ms. Dewi Persik who was allegedly dancing "too erotically" by the Mayor of Bandung.
First of all let's discuss about the freedom of speech and expression,
the idea of this of course came from our "big bro" the United States of America.
The idea was simple; every one has the right to speak about their opinions and express it so that they can be heard. This is done so that the minority opinion would have a standing in any matters that would alter the course of governance and way of life in the good old USA.
I thought that was genius, because in doing so a "Check and Balance" system was automatically in place, as basically pointed out today on The Jakarta Post Reader's Forum (17th April 2008 pg 7) by a man after my own heart Mr. Guile. The right of the people who makes porn sites to post their website is what guarantees that my right to post this blog of mine exists. That's how the check and balance works. In reverse the right for me to critize, protest and rebuke and warn people to take caution of a post is protected.
Now to Dewi Persik's problem, it is the same, the right for her to work the stage and dance "erotically" (in this case I utterly disagree that her dancing is erotic, to me its more like an amazement on her stamina to perform a song and still able to move like that) is the same right I enjoy to dance the Tango or Salsa or even to enjoy the Jaipong which is a traditional "sexy" dancing. The problem of banning her under the excuse of "making the men horny" is very much ambigous and may have further legal implications that is illogical. For example, If a woman went swimming even using a one piece suit and she got raped would you say that she brought upon against herself?? would you be comfortable in saying that it's not only the rapist fault but also the fault of the woman??. I'll bet that no one in his or her right mind would believe that. Not only that, would the mayor of Bandung ban paintings of Affandi and Basoeki that has a certain degree of nudity because it would invite "horny" reactions. Even in sports, in reverse would the same mayor ban men body building competitions because they only wear "under wears" and might incite housewives who watch the competition to commit adultery?.
Now the question begs, where do you draw the line?. My line is clear, it is the people who watch, see or looked that has to be responsible for their actions. If someone saw a so called erotic show and on the way home they raped someone, that someone is solely responsible and should be punished not the performer or the artist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
