Luna Maya, Twitter, Paparazzi, and Prostitutes

One of the good things about not having a twitter account is that there is no temptation to vent one's frustrations and anger out into the public sphere. Perhaps on a little reflection Luna Maya might have thought twice about ranting that "infotainment are lower than prostitutes, murders!!! May your soul burn in hell!!!" I guess it is fair to say that she was not mincing any words there. But does she have a point?

To work this out one needs to consider the situation that preceded this little rant. Luna Is dating a singer of one of Indonesia's bigger bands, Ariel of Peter Pan fame. Ariel was married and has a beautiful young daughter (no where near as good looking as Will of course). There has been some suggestion that Luna is a home wrecker and it is her fault that Ariel split with his former wife. However, that was not the issue that sparked the most recent venting.

Luna's twitter account, lunmay, was shut down recently after the vent went public. Luna has apologized to her 123,952 followers for shutting down the account. I probably would not have had one in the first place if I was a star of the small and silver screens. Simply, tweeting that you are watching a movie is like a red rag to a bull and is certain to bring the paparazzi stalkers out in force.

As the story goes, Luna, Ariel, and Alleia (Ariel's daughter) went to watch the premiere of Ariel's first movie, The Dreamer (Sang Pemimpi) at EX Plaza. Now, my recollections of EX are that it was an excellent place for a little bit of celebrity spotting if that was your thing. In any event, little Alleia had fallen asleep during the movie and was being carried out by Luna.

This is where it gets really interesting. In the scramble for good photos and an interview one of the infotainment throng cracked little Alleia on the head with a camera. For a parent, even the girlfriend of a parent, this can certainly arouse some pretty heated emotions. If someone clocked Will in the head with a camera, then I would be tempted to grab the camera a clock the fella right back.

The lesson here is two-fold, Luna Maya had apparently agreed to an interview in the lobby once little Alleia was in the safety of the car. So, the gathered throng of infotainment journalists would have got their interview and obligatory shots if the had been a little more patient. the second lesson is do not vent your frustrations on Twitter no matter how justified you feel about it.

The spat, if the Twitter message can be called such, has escalated with the Indonesian Journalists Association threatening to take legal action against Luna for allegedly comparing them to prostitutes. The comparison to murderers was a little harsh, but the comparison to prostitutes probably is not so harsh.

In fact, it is probably a slur against all the prostitutes out there. Let's face it, infotainment journalists and photographers sell their assets to those willing to pay for it, similar to prostitutes. But, on a more serious note, the Indonesian Association of Journalists might also want to consider that one of their members was responsible for the assault of a child. My question would be, "does the Indonesian Association of Journalists really want to pursue this one?"

Most people might have an insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip and news, but most of these people would also balk at the idea that journalists need to assault and harm children in order to get their pound of flesh.

Maybe it is time that the government considered putting into place specific laws that protect celebrities from over-zealous infotainment journalists. And, perhaps it is also time that those that drive the market, infotainment publishers started to self-regulate what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to getting that all important shot or all important interview.

Public figures are what they are, but this does not mean that they forfeit all their rights to privacy because they have appeared in a film or worked as a presenter on TV.

It is time the infotainment industry got their collective act together and showed some class.

Circumcision in Australia -- Legal?

I was reading an interesting article earlier today and thought it was worthy of a post. Not quite sure how it fits in with my recent posts on alleged Indonesian criminals and the underage marriage and the alleged subsequent abuse of Manohara, I am guessing it doesn't. However, circumcision is something that we have thought about with young Will.

We talked about it with the doctor while we were in Indonesia. I am not sure 'talked about' is the right phrase, as we broached the subject with the doctor and his response was, "no need!" And, that was the end of the conversation. We have not talked about it with the doctor here and to be perfectly honest we have not talked about it between ourselves either.

So, onto the post.

Circumcision was a routine procedure when I was born. Estimates suggest that the rate of circumcision around the time of my birth was somewhere around 90%. Generally, the reasons for the procedure were health based. Simply, it was healthier to be without a foreskin than to be with one. It has only been in more recent times that the argument has moved to the rights of the child, serious questioning of the supposed health benefits of circumcision, and whether the "mutilation" is warranted. I must say that I have never felt mutilated myself and harbor no ill will to my parents for allowing the procedure to be done.

The current rate of circumcision in Australia is about 12%. The numbers are approximate. However, it is suggested that a great number of the circumcisions that still occur are for religious reasons. Religions where circumcision is required include Judaism and Islam.

The debate not only revolves around the physical and health implications of the procedure but also the legal implications. The recent discussion on this point by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute says that the criminal and civil law with respect to circumcision is far from certain, and in fact circumcision may abuse the rights of the child.

Circumcision is the general term in the sense that the mere utterance of the word is recognized by most However, in legal terms, the correct term for where problems may arise is 'non-therapeutic male circumcision'.

The main concerns revolve around the physical loss and then the social and psychological effects of having one's foreskin removed. The issues though are more interesting in that there is some debate as to whether circumcision is in fact an assault or wounding or maybe even grievous bodily harm.

If the argument is accepted that the procedure constitutes any one of the actions noted in the previous sentence, then it is unclear as to whether a parent could in fact provide consent to allow their child to be harmed. Nevertheless, the jury is still out on whether the procedure is in reality something that causes an injury in the strict legal sense.

So, is Will to be circumcised? The jury is still out on this one as well.

This post probably lends itself to a gratuitous posting of a penis picture...but I won't go there.

The NSW Police Force

It seems that having a criminal conviction is no bar to getting into the NSW Police Force. A Freedom of Information request has uncovered that 133 current serving officers have criminal convictions. This makes up less than 1% of the total number of officers serving in the Force of some 15,200 officers.

Nevertheless, some of these convictions are for fraud, negligent driving, and assault. The majority are for drink driving offences in both the medium and high ranges. Other offences included unauthorized access to police computer systems.

None of the officers with criminal convictions have served any jail time.

I guess this is what they mean when they say "everyone deserves a second chance". I suppose police officers should be no different from anyone else.