Indonesian Actors & Actresses to be Drug Tested...

Actors and actresses are just like anyone else in the community, they have their demons to confront. Sometimes these demons are legal like alcohol sometimes they are illegal like recreational drugs and narcotics. Yet, until yesterday it seemed unlikely that Indonesian actors and actresses were going to be subjected to mandatory drug testing prior to being permitted to work in film or television.

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis as to whether actors are any more susceptible to drug use than the rest of the Indonesian community. The reality is that a celebrity with a drug addiction or a celebrity caught in possession of drugs and looking at jail time is far more news worthy in terms of shifting papers and selling advertising than is a young kampung girl newly arrived in the big city. Maybe the reporting of celebrity-linked drug offenses serves to distort the seriousness of the problem.

According to the Chief Detective of the Jakarta Police, Anjan Pramuka Putra, the Indonesian Film Actors Guild (Parfi) has requested police assistance in conducting urine tests on actors. In some cases the results may indicate that the actor or actress tested has taken an illicit substance, but the reality is that acting is not a sport and it is unlikely that taking drugs is going to improve performance. In fact, a drug addiction is likely to impact negatively on the ability to work or maintain consistent performance.

For example, an actor or actress may take steroids in an attempt to "buff up" for a role, or to transform their appearance, and in so doing breach the prevailing laws and regulations. Yet, is the intent of the Parfi request to catch all those using any scheduled prescription, recreational or illegal drugs or is it just to catch those with addictions to drugs like shabu-shabu (crystal meth), marijuana, heroin, or ecstasy.

I wonder whether actors and actresses are going to be supportive of the Parfi request. Is it possible that there will be a mass exodus of Parfi members or some kind of actors strike in protest of this invasion of their privacy, particularly considering a urine sample can be tested for a whole lot more things than just to find those using drugs.

Should we be concerned that this is just the first step in mandatory random drug testing for everybody irrespective of who they are or what they do. For example, can prospective employers demand a candidate for a position at their company undertake a drug test as part of the interview process. Or, can the government demand a drug test to be taken before providing a government benefit or paying a tax return. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

Tattoo Regrets -- An Update...

I am not sure that any of you, my dear readers, are following this story, but it is a fun one. Long story short, girl goes to tattoo parlour and gets face tattooed, has regrets, says that she fell asleep and then woke up with 53 more stars than she asked for, admits to telling lies because her dad was a little upset.

Having a look at the picture above, the 56 stars are nothing. She has a really long way to go before she catches up to her artist, Rouslan Toumaniantz.

After initially offering to pay for half of the laser treatments to get the tattoos removed, the artist has decided to withdraw the offer now that Ms. Vlaeminck has confessed to lying about being asleep.

On the positive side for the artist, this is pretty good free publicity. But, it has prompted a change in procedure as the artist is now going to ensure that he gets the written consent of all his clients before any inking takes place.

Tattoo Taboos

The humble tattoo is no longer the world of just bikers, criminals, or other so-called undesirable elements of the community. I would not describe bikers as being undesirable elements of the community, if you were wondering. Tattoos have been going mainstream for some time and it seems that they have hit the mainstream vein as employers of all kinds are becoming more accepting of the idea of employees permanently inking their skin.

Just tracking the Sydney and New South Wales tattoo scene sees that from a mere three licensed artists in 1984, there has been a bit of an explosion with more than 50 licensed artists throughout the State. Tattoos were once identified as a moment of drunken stupidity in one's youth, this is clearly no longer the case! The quality of the artwork and the designs are testament to tattooing taking itself seriously as an art form.

I do not hesitate to add here that none of the tattoos that adorn my skin are the product of a drunken night on the town. Instead each has a meaning and each is significant to me as it tells my story and experiences.

Interestingly, in June 2006, Australia's biggest and most conservative employer, the Defence Force, lifted the rule that barred anyone with a tattoo from joining up. About bloody time if you ask me. It was a stupid rule because the armed forces did not kick you out once you joined up and then went and had some art done. If the defence force was serious then the ban should have been uniform and across the board. Perhaps better late than never.

Funnily enough the new defence rules would allow facial tattoos if there was a religious or cultural reason for such artwork. The idea that tattoos still carry social stigmas seems to be fading fast as tattoos become increasingly mainstream. Tattoos are also no longer immediately associated with youthful risk taking. If you do not believe this then watch shows like Miami Ink, LA Ink, and Tattoo Wars. Not everyone with a tattoo is a Charles Manson!

I have no regrets about the tattoos that I have and already have artwork ready for the next series of ink installments to be made on my skin.