Ariel, Is It You?

The big questions are about to be answered in the ongoing saga that doubles as the Nazriel "Ariel" Irham sex tapes trial. The biggest question of them all, in fact, "Ariel is that you in the tape making mad passionate love with Cut Tari?"

Well, according to Cut Tari, it is Ariel. There were no ifs, buts, or maybes in Cut Tari's testimony. In fact, when Cut Tari appeared to give her testimony she was asked to go to the front of the court room and watch a couple of clips of the [in]famous sex tape that she has admitted to being in. While she was there, the judges asked her who she was bumping uglies with. Cut responded, unequivocally I might add, with "why, your honours that is Ariel!"

Strangely enough, Ariel through his defense counsel is maintaining that, despite the somewhat obvious similarities between the man in the video and him, it is not him doing the bump and grind with Cut Tari. In some ways it is not hard to feel for Cut Tari. This must be an incredibly humiliating experience. She has confessed believing that the truth will set her free. Yet, it has still got to be difficult having this whole sordid affair played out in public. Nevertheless, the trial remains closed to public in order to protect the public's "innocence" and "morality" from harm.

The more interesting part about Cut Tari's testimony is that the video is placed in 2005 or 2006 as a production year. This is interesting because there is no real certainty in that time frame. So, does this mean the affair lasted for some time during that two-year period? Or, does it mean that they made so many tapes of their sexual encounters that she cannot rightly remember which tape this is? It is also interesting because Cut Tari was married in 2004. This has led to some hardliners wanting to see the whole trial process for Cut Tari cast aside and just get to burying her up to her neck and then stone the woman to death.

Folks, it is just a sex tape. It is most definitely not the end of the world as you, or we, know it! Life goes on, the band will keep playing. This whole charade is becoming increasingly not worth the effort.

Although, that said, the prosecutors are pulling out their big guns. Anton Castilani, a police officer from national headquarters has taken the stand to offer expert testimony as to whether there is any likelihood that the man in the video with Cut Tari is in fact Ariel or a very good look-a-like. Castilani's testimony seems to support the prosecution case theory that the man in the mirror is not Michael Jackson but it is Indonesia's own, Nazriel "Ariel" Irham of Peterpan fame.

I will let "you" the experts in the court of public opinion decide for yourselves. The choice bits of this photo for comparison have been pixelated. In my expert opinion, it's Ariel.

The Pope Sees the Light...

Pope Benedict XVI has seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not Jesus. The Pope, God bless his soul, has finally worked out that abstinence, although the best solution, is not a reality that the Catholic Church can make happen. Well, not unless they start forcibly restraining unmarried or un-partnered couples.

Condoms, particularly the use of them, are not a 100% effective way of preventing the spread of STD or STI. However, they do significantly better than the option of taking a shower without a raincoat. In any event, the Pope's support is not blanket support for the idea that the Catholic Church facilitate a program of condom distribution through its parishes.

The Pope's support suggests that prostitutes, and in particular male prostitutes,would be beginning to act responsibly if they were to start using condoms. I might have to go out and get the book from which the Pope's comments are sourced: Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. And, the news story that I pilfered for this piece was quoting from excerpts that were published in The Vatican rag, L’Osservatore Romano.

The Catholic Church has adopted a position that is anti-condom use. It has maintained this position in the face of some intense and harsh criticism. So, is this statement by the Pope indicative of a softening in the position of the Catholic Church? No, it is not. The Pope was very explicit in restricting his comments to a very narrow range of condom use. His choice of male prostitutes was undoubtedly a conscious one that was sort to deflect any concerns about condoms being used as a contraceptive device. The position of the Catholic Church with respect to the use of condoms as a form of contraception remains unchanged.

Yet, when it is all said and done, there is an argument to be made that this may in fact be a first step in recognising that the issue of HIV / AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease and infection is an issue that transcends simple arguments of morality. It is an issue that has and will continue to be a measure of the times in which we live, particularly if you live in Africa or Asia.

Progress is progress even if it is in small and scripted steps.

Ariel Going to Trial on Monday...

The fact that this case is going to trial is symptomatic of the ills of the Indonesian justice system. It is also indicative of why most Indonesians are skeptical of claims that there has been serious reform happen in the legal system or is likely to happen. This is particularly so on the coattails of Gayus Tambunan who has been able to take at least 68 trips outside of his cell by paying off the relevant officials.

Anyways, Nazriel "Ariel" Irham of Peterpan fame and more recently of Peterporn fame is going to trial on Monday (22 November 2010) for his alleged role in the distribution of a couple of sex tapes starring himself and Luna Maya and Cut Tari. The trial will be in the district court in Bandung because the alleged act, distribution, took place in Bandung. Interestingly enough, the police have not been able to determine where the actual sex tapes were made.

Ariel has been in detention since 22 June 2010. It is time that he is either released of prosecuted. So, in that sense it is a good thing that this is heading towards a resolution with a trial date set. It is sad that it is going to trial at all.

Unfortunately, the trial is to be closed. According to the Acting Attorney General (well, an anonymous source), pornography trials are closed-door affairs. The rationale, presumably, is that the titillating details would be too much for most Indonesians and they would be influenced in a negative way by all the "perversion" that will come out as evidence in the course of the trial. The only real problem with that is that most people who would be watching the trial have already watched the 'offending' sex tapes either online or on their mobile phones.

There is no reason for this to be a closed trial. This case does not involve minors. The fact that it is closed gives rise to claims that the trial will be unfair. To ensure fairness, the appropriate course of action is to have this hearing as a public one. This is particular so considering that the prosecutors have backed away from pursuing charges for the production of the sex tapes and will be proceeding exclusively on the distribution charges as they are described in the 2008 Anti-Pornography Law.

If Babul Khoir Harahap is to be believed, then the whole prosecution case rests on what Ariel did not do. If this is true, then why is it that Luna Maya and Cut Tari are not being prosecuted at the same time? Simply, they also new about the sex tapes and did nothing to prevent their distribution.

When it is all said and done this is just a couple of sex tapes. There are millions of them out there in cyber space. Yes, there may be some morality questions to be argued here. Maybe there are even some religious concerns about pre-marital and adulterous sex. Yet, the law does not criminalise people for filming themselves in the throes of sexual gratification or orgasmic climax. The law does criminalise distribution if the perpetrator of that distribution is pro-active and consciously doing so. However, the law does not criminalise the failure to prevent distribution of a sex tape where you were unaware of the intended distribution.

Therefore, it would seem that the prosecution really needs to be able to prove that Ariel handed off the sex tapes to Redjoy, and that he knew Redjoy (Reza) was going to upload them to the internet. As far as I recall, Ariel and his amateur porn colleagues have always maintained that they were the victim of a crime, theft. On face value, it would seem that the prosecution is between a rock and a hard place in terms of proving this. Perhaps, there is a need for this to be a closed hearing!

Ho hum...

Pamela Anderson and the FPI...

Is it just me? Or does the FPI have a problem with any woman that does not wear the veil or at the very, very, very least dress modestly from head to toe in a manner that they find modest? And, since when has the helping the victims of disaster been haram or prohibited under Islam?

Some of Pamela Anderson's best days are behind her at with respect to looking super good (note to self...time to watch some Baywatch re-runs). But, all the same, she still is pretty much smoking at 43. Besides, Hugh Hefner reckons she still has enough left in the tank to do a Playboy cover. Herein lies the FPI problem with Pamela Anderson. Ms. Anderson has decided that she is going to donate USD 25,000 to a charity that provides water filters in disaster areas. This charity, Waves for Water, work all over the world.

The FPI in their infinite [lack] of wisdom have decided that they need to vocalise their opposition to the donation, and particularly the fact that it is likely to be used in Indonesia. The FPI penchant for porn and its special liking of Playboy is well known. I have always figured that most FPI members are anti-Playboy because it gives them an excuse to go out and collect playboy magazines presumably to stock up on them as "burning material" for later protests (or just to read them and stick the pages together and then burn them!). Nevertheless, getting back on track, the FPI has decided that because the money comes from Pamela Anderson, and is the product of a porn shoot, that the money is haram.

I always thought it was possible to make an utterance or two and then get on with the job so to speak.

Habib "Hey Baby" Umar Salim of the Jakartan Branch of FPI has determined that accepting money from a Playboy shoot is tantamount to asking God to strike Indonesia down with another disaster. The logic being, at least in the mind of Hey Baby, is that porn is a much bigger challenge for Indonesia than any of these natural disasters combined. Porn is so big a problem that it is better to reject the Pamela Anderson donation and allow children, along with their parents, to die from a lack of clean water. But, hey, God will undoubtedly be pleased with your efforts Hey Baby.

If Hey Baby had any brains he would realise that God would not be fooled by this sinner, Pamela Anderson, at judgment day and would not allow her to try and claim mitigating circumstances that the donation should buy her way into paradise. But, Hey Baby might also recognise that the call is one that God gets to make and not him.

However, it would seem that Hey Baby's bigger grievance is that the media is not reporting that the FPI has opened an aid centre for the victims of the Mount Merapi eruption. Hay Baby is whining that the media only writes bad stuff about the FPI like they kill people. Well, you and your white-robed thug buddies do go around beating people up and destroying their property because they do not subscribe to your brand of Islam so the media does have a right to report that, don't they? And, it might well be newsworthy that your opposition to this donation, and the good that it will bring through access to clean water, is tantamount to killing people.

If the hat fits...

And. lucky last...is this the money shot?

TitS and the Porn Star Phenomenon...

Poor old Tifatul Sembiring (AKA "TitS" for those of you who are yet to read my earlier posts on the man and his mission) has a problem with porn stars! I am not sure that the preceding statement needs any further clarification. Nevertheless, it is going to get one. It seems TitS has determined that hiring foreign porn stars to star in local horror movies is just another way that local film producers are going about poking fun at the moral standards held dear by Indonesians. The other problem that TitS seemingly has is that hiring international porn stars undermines his anti-porn message.

The recently released film "The Moans of a Virgin Ghost" (Rintihan Kuntilanak Perawan) which starred the [in]famous porn star Tera Patrick and the less famous Indonesian [porn star] wannabes of Catherine Wilson and Angelique came in for special mention by the poorly-performing Minister of Communication and Information.

The Minister has taken this film, and the bringing in of Tera Patrick to star in the film, way to personally. It really is not an attempt to either mock the Minister or to mock Indonesia's anti-pornography laws. According to TitS, Tera Patrick "personifies the resistance to morality". Nice call, Minister. So, self-confessed polygamists are not a moral challenge to the Indonesian community? Violence against women and children can take many forms. If one is going to campaign against moral evil, then it makes sense to line up all the morally reprehensible and deal with them all at once.

The exploitation of porn stars in non-porn roles, particularly big-name foreign porn stars such as Patrick, Miyabi (Maria Ozawa) and Rin Sakuragi is nothing more that smart marketing designed to generate as much cheap advertising as they can by orchestrating controversy. What is really sad is that the Minister and the FPI, among others, continue to fall for this viral marketing strategy.

But, thanks TitS, this would seem like a most gratuitous time to post more pictures of Tera Patrick in "all" her glory!

She must be wearing a different cut of swimmers to what she normally wears...

Julia Perez and the New York Times...

For a political candidate with no political experience and a reputation for controversy Julia Perez has certainly quickly mastered the art of using the media. Here is a young woman who's primary claim to fame involves being in touch with her femininity, sexuality, and sexiness who has managed to captivate a nation and seemingly the world into a race in a small town in rural Java.

It is an interesting aside that she is running for elected office in the town that the current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, hails from, but that's all it is, an aside.

The more intriguing issues were an attempt to introduce "moral" standards that candidates would have to meet in order to be able to nominate and stand for public office. This was designed with Julia Perez (or Jupe) in mind. It has come and gone, and is now well and truly off the radar for the present time. It is probably a good thing for many others other than Julia Perez because there are quite a few politicians that would conceivably have moral issues that would otherwise exclude them from public office (no need to name names, is there?).

There are those that doubt the legitimacy of Perez's candidacy and her ability to do the job as they would rather focus on the presumption that Ms. Perez is being exploited by shrewd political operators in an effort to embarrass the president and to exacerbate the divide between Indonesians of a more moderate and pluralistic view and those who adopt more fundamental and hardline approaches.

However, no one seems to be canvassing the idea that the person doing the exploiting is Ms. Perez herself. Maybe it is Perez that is exploiting the opportunity and the offers to run for office are just the opportunity she has been looking for.

Let's face it; win, lose, or draw in the election, she has won on a bigger scale in that she will now have expanded her base into places she might otherwise never have been able to. How many seriously experienced Indonesian politicians can claim recent stories on CNN and now in the New York Times.

It should be remembered that even though she has little or no political experience of consequence, she does have plenty of social activism related experience as a spokesperson on a number of issues relating to sexual health, among others. This might in fact be more "experience" than some current politicians had when they were elected to office in the present term.

Democracy is a beautiful thing. This time it seems that democracy Jupe style is a lot better looking than what the opposition has to offer.

One final note (and an admission), I am glad that she is running because it is a good excuse to go through my collection of Jupe photos and post them in the relevant blog posts. Enjoy (all these photos are freely available on the Internet, you can search for them and more if you need to).

Ho hum...

Naked Teachers & Penthouse Magazine...

It would seem that being a teacher and getting your gear off do not mix under any circumstances. This is not a case of a teacher getting their gear off and fiddling with one of their students. This is a story about a New Zealand teacher who decided that it would be a good idea to get her gear off for Australian Penthouse magazine. The offending pictures are supposedly available on their website. Stuff NZ broke the story here.

On second thoughts this might not have been such a good idea. the New Zealand Teachers Council is now investigating. Sounds like a good excuse for the Teachers Council to go and get themselves a few copies of the magazine or open up the website, for research of course.

The young woman, Rachel Whitwell, apparently dates a pornographer. So, in that sense it does not seem to be an unlikely scenario that she might be convinced to get her kit off. The proof of the pudding is in the viewing, and there are six photos to be viewed. Among the six photos are two full-nudes. Oh, to be able to post those. Perhaps, I should post them for educational purposes. You know, what not to do if you are a teacher. Anyways, for those of you that want the full monty, then look here. The two pictures posted above are the more modest of the six available.

According to Whitwell, aka Lexy, the photos are not her only claim to fame. She is also a bit of a writer, having penned a number of erotic stories for magazines and runs her very own pole-dancing studio. I wonder if this means that teaching does not pay all that well in New Zealand.

Nevertheless, the Teachers Council feels that this is a case where the public and private lives of a teacher overlap and the claims must be investigated. It appears though that the photos might prove a little bit difficult to disown seeing they have been professionally done. So, the need for an investigation is an interesting call.

Perhaps a meeting to find out why the photos were done and whether there was any consideration on how posing for Penthouse might impact on Ms. Whitwell's ability to teach in a classroom. Yet, even then, the reasons are pretty obvious, the young woman is exploring whether or not she has what it takes to be a model.

Ms. Whitwell is registered to teach in New Zealand through to 2011. However, she is currently having time off to care for her young daughter, and to pose for nude and topless photographs when she is not in full-on caring mode.

The issue that the Teachers Council will look at is whether this little excursion into modelling will negatively impact on her ability to do her job. For others there seems to be a few morality issues to consider as well. It would seem that teachers are role models, and as such posing topless and naked in a well known magazine like Penthouse, or their website, is not a good example for children.

I am not sure that I ascribe to the view that getting your kit off in any impacts the skills one has or does not have as a teacher. Just because people have seen her naked will not make one iota of difference to whether or not she is a skilled teacher. The question is whether or not now that plenty of people, her colleagues, and perhaps some of her students have seen her in all her glory whether the perception of her abilities change?

They probably do.

Why this post? I am thinking about getting some formal qualifications as a teacher. I am not thinking about getting into modelling or getting my kit of for Playgirl or something (even if I wasn't the fat ugly bugger that I am).

New Film Law -- Indonesia -- Extended Version...

This was originally written for http://en.hukumonline.com and can be found there. This is a slightly amended version of that piece.

Overview

The bill is not short on controversy and not all stakeholders are happy about the provisions that have been codified into the new law. The bill, as most Indonesian laws do, make grand and bold statements as to the context in which the bill was drafted and debated. In this case, the bill suggests that the reformasi that Indonesia has undergone since 1998 and the fall of the New Order Regime of the former president Soeharto included not only a political reformation but a cultural one too. As part of this cultural reformation the manner in which film is viewed has changed.

Consequently, the previous regulatory framework for film, Law No. 8 of 1992, is no longer fit for purpose and needed to be repealed and replaced with a piece of legislation that reflects the current state of the Indonesian film industry in 2009.

A Step In The Right Direction
The government views the new law as a step in the right direction with respect to the promotion and development of the thriving Indonesian film industry. However, in contrast, some within the thriving Indonesian film industry are openly questioning whether the new law is going to be conducive to the freedom of expression they have enjoyed in recent years to make the films they have wanted to make or whether the new provisions are going to stifle their creative opportunities with respect to making films that satisfy their creative energy. And, any stifling of the creative aspects of film-making would seemingly fly in the face of a recent Presidential Instruction on the Creative Economy.

Principles of the New Law
Indonesian laws generally include simple statements that are then left to either the elucidations of the law to explain or later implementing regulations to provide clarity to the statement with respect to how it is to be interpreted or enforced. The principles are a perfect case in point. Article 2 simply lists nine points which seemingly constitute the principles upon which the law is to be based, and presumably interpreted:
a. An Almighty God;
b. Humanity;
c. Unity in Diversity (bhinneka tunggal ika);
d. Justice;
e. Benefit;
f. Legal certainty;
g. Collectiveness;
h. Partnership; and
i. Policy.

Each of these is explained in detail in the elucidations. For example, the unity in diversity principle would require that films respect the diversity of cultures and ethnicity that is prevalent in Indonesia. Whereas, the definition for benefit is pretty much self-explanatory and requires only that films bring benefit to not only the people but the state as well.

Objectives and Functions
Similarly the objectives and functions of the new law are nothing more than mere statements. Unfortunately, the elucidations provide no further insight other than to say that all of the terms in Articles 3 and 4 are self-explanatory. Among the objectives are: advancing the prosperity of the community, introducing the cultures and diversity of Indonesia to the world, to educate, and to guide honor, among others. Whereas the function of the law is much more simple: cultural, educational, entertaining, informative, drive creative works, and economical.

The Debate
The debate, although seemingly settled, with the passage of the bill through the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) on 8 September 2009 may not be the end of the matter as there have been concerns raised with regards to whether or not quorum was reached in the DPR when the bill was passed. However, a more pertinent debate is whether the provisions infringe on the freedom of expression that Indonesians believed they enjoy as part of the series of Constitutional amendments made at the beginning of the reformation period or not.

At the heart of this debate is whether a modern and developing democracy such as Indonesia needs a censorship board or agency to vet film content or whether a film classification board would be sufficient for the purpose of rating films based on their content. Furthermore, the new law stipulates that film scripts must be registered and listed with the minister at least three months prior to any filming being undertaken. Ostensibly, this is to ensure that no two films are being made with the same title or on the same content / issues. Nevertheless, this provision would seemingly provide the power to the minister to vet and then veto any film which the minister deemed to be inappropriate.

Moral Values and Societal Norms
The provisions of the new law require that all films conform to explicit societal mores and norms, and these are set out with respect to what is prohibited in Article 6. Simple, scenes that show violence, gambling, the misuse and abuse of drugs and other addictive substances, pornography, provocation between ethnic groups or races, questions religion or religious practices, encourages criminal activity or lowers the honor of the community are all prohibited.

In essence, a foreign film like Ocean’s Eleven, which deals with gambling, and therefore would seemingly have to fall foul of the censors and be prohibited from screening. Similarly, local Indonesian films such as the martial arts film, Merantau, might also fall foul of Indonesia’s new censorship board as a consequence of the scenes that portray violence, drugs, and perhaps even scenes devoted to issues of human trafficking.

Anti-Monopoly Provisions
The inclusion of anti-monopoly and unfair business competition provisions in the new film law in an interesting development with respect to re-legislating an area already covered in other laws and an area where there is a specific institution, the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha / KPPU), in place to hear complaints and allegations that companies have, or are, engaged in monopolistic and unfair business practices.

The reality is that those involved in the film industry must now pay particular attention to the manner in which they make their films, and then deal to have them shown in Indonesian cinemas and theatres.

Article 13, for example, states that all those involved in the showing of films must not only show the films of one film-maker or show imported films for more than 50% of the hours they show films in any six-month period. A breach of these provisions is deemed to be the exercise of a monopoly or engaging in unfair business practices.

Article 14 prohibits the entering into an agreement with any film business where that agreement is designed to hinder a competitor. Any agreement that is deemed to hinder is a breach of the provision.

Both Article 13 and 14 are then addressed in Article 80 which sets out the penalties for breach. These penalties include, for the breach of Article 13, a term of imprisonment up to six months or a fine of IDR 100 billion. For a breach of Article 14 (Art. 80(2)) is similarly a term of imprisonment up to six months and a fine of IDR 100 billion.

The question is whether or not the film law needs to define what constitutes a monopoly or an unfair business practice. It is clear that the purpose of the KPPU is to make these determinations within the framework of the prevailing law. The new Film Law does not mention the KPPU by name but Article 80(3) would imply that under the prevailing laws and regulations currently in force in Indonesia that the most likely venue for any dispute regarding monopolistic and unfair business practices is the KPPU.

Nevertheless, the provisions of the film law would seemingly restrict the ability to determine what constitutes a monopoly or an unfair business practice to what is stated in Articles 13 and 14.

Age Classifications
The new law sets out four classifications; all ages, 13+ years of age, 17+ years of age, and 21+ years of age. Films for the 21+ classification can only be screened between the hours of 23.00 and 03.00 and these films cannot be screened in a public place.

Foreign Films and Film-Makers
Foreign film makers wanting to use an Indonesian location must obtain the permission of the minister prior to shooting being commenced. The Elucidations to this provision only state that it is ‘self-explanatory’. Presumably, the permit procedure would require that the foreign film maker submit a script and all other relevant information prior to the minister considering a permit application.

Expansion of the Indonesian Film Industry Through Quotas
The government’s argument for the new law supporting the development and expansion of the Indonesian film industry relies on the rather short Article, Article 32, which stipulates that at least 60% of all the hours that films are shown during any six-month period must be Indonesian films. The question many film makers have is whether they can make a sufficient number of films in light of all the prohibitions they are under with regards to content.

Interestingly, this provision seems very unlikely to guarantee quality local film making, but rather seems more likely to guarantee mass production of films designed to fill a quota. There are legitimate concerns that this particular provision may serve to undermine quality Indonesian film making in the future.

Film Appreciation
Film festivals, or more broadly film appreciation activities, are specifically regulated under the new law. These activities can be undertaken by private individuals, groups or organizations, the central government, or regional governments. Nevertheless, specific provisions on how the relevant articles are to be implemented will become clearer once the associated Ministerial Regulations are issued.

Central Government and Regional Government Authorities – Devolution of Power
The devolution of authorities under the provisions provides that the regional governments can facilitate film production within their respective regional areas. This would include facilitating Indonesian films to satisfy the 60% content provisions noted previously. Regional governments would also be required to facilitate the production of documentary films on their respective cultural uniqueness and other regionally specific issues.

Facilities and Incentives
The central government has responsibility with respect to facilitating film-making through the provision of tax and other kinds of duty and excise exemptions and reductions.

Funding
The funding of films is set out as a joint responsibility that would permit the central and regional governments to contribute. However, it is expected that any funds that are to be provided by government would be best administered through the creation of a film corporation which is tasked specifically with managing these funds. Unfortunately, the new law and the elucidations do not provide any additional input on this issue beyond funding being a joint responsibility.

Sanctions
The new law sets out both administrative and criminal sanctions. The administrative sanctions are the standard written warnings, fines, temporary suspension of activities, and the revocation of licenses and permits. The criminal sanctions provide for terms of imprisonment of between 6 months and 2 years, and fines of between IDR 10 billion and IDR 100 billion.

For example, the screening of a film that has not been passed by the censorship board is liable for criminal penalties that include a term of imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of IDR 10 billion.

Where the breach is committed by a corporation, then the penalties are increased by one third.

Censorship Board
Finally, the current censorship board is to remain in place until such time as the new censorship board is installed. The new censorship board must be installed no later than 18 months from the date of enactment of the new law.

The Censorship Board is classified as an independent body that reports to the president through the relevant minister. The primary job of the Censorship Board is obvious, to censor films and film trailers. Every film that is to be shown in Indonesia must have successfully negotiated the Censorship Board.

The Censorship Board is to do its work based on the provisions of Articles 6 and 7. Interestingly, the Censorship Board, aside from just making a determination as to whether a film or a film trailer meets the exacting standards of Articles 6 and 7, can also make recommendations for the imposition of sanctions on film-makers who breach the provisions of the law.

The Censorship Board is to comprise of 17 individuals of which 12 are to be nominated by the community and 5 are to be nominated by the government. Each member is to be appointed to a four-year term and may be re-appointed for a further four-year term. Appointment is by the president in consultation with the DPR.

Conclusion
The new law is not without some controversy. The majority of this controversy has centered on whether the new law will impinge upon, and restrict, creative film-making. It is clear that the new law holds this potential. Nevertheless, as with any law the proof of the pudding is going to be enforcement. If the government is committed to enforcing the law as it has passed then there would appear to be very little wriggle room for film makers.

Films are required, under the new law, to meet some very exacting standards and as such any deliberate breach of the provisions to make a point would be a brave move on the part of film makers. This is particularly so when a script must be registered with the minister before production can start and then the film also has to negotiate a Censorship Board rather than a classification board. This is even more onerous when film makers realize that the Censorship Board has the power to recommend sanctions on film makers determined to have breached the prevailing provisions in Articles 6 and 7.

Finally, however, the entry into law appears a mere formality with the president expected to sign the bill.

The Halal Products Bill -- Islamization by Stealth?

Whenever Indonesia debates a new law or an amendment bill that infringes upon civil rights or has been drafted to address a specific religious requirement, a parallel debate arises about whether or not the bill is an attempt at Islamization of Indonesia. Sometimes, the concerns raised are legitimate and sometimes they are not.

The morality based bills such as the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code which would ostensibly ban public displays of affection between men and women, including married couples, is one such example. Another example, was the passage of the Anti-Pornography bill, as the bill to all intents and purposes seemingly restricts the freedom of expression particularly in the arts. A further example is another bill currently before the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) on film. This bill certainly ups the ante with respect to censorship and what is permitted to be made, let alone what might negotiate any censorship board.

However, it is the Bill on Halal Products that seems to have drawn the ire of many as a direct and not so stealthy attempt to impose Sharia law on all of Indonesia's citizens and not just the majority of the community that identifies as Muslim. Halal in a very general sense means that the product is one that is permitted for the purposes of consumption by Muslims.

This bill in essence sets out what must be done in order for a product to be classified as halal, and then once an application is made for certification as halal, and then how that product is to be packaged and labeled. The bill does not prevent the production, distribution, and sale of non-halal (or haram / prohibited) products. Once again, the bill sets out how a product comes to be classified and labeled as halal. Presumably any company seeking to have a leg of ham classified as halal is going to fail in their application. However, this does not mean that the leg of ham cannot be sold.

In many ways the halal symbol or label is no different from the "healthy heart" symbol that you can find on products that have successfully passed the certification process stipulated for the symbol to be applied. This is also similar for products that now carry symbols that say they are certified suitable for diabetics or people with high blood pressure or products that are certified dolphin safe.

The difference is that in most cases the symbols attached to products are certified by independent bodies and are not regulated in law beyond a very basic minimum. For example, in Australia there are laws that require that the claims of a product be substantiated. This would mean that if a producer offered a cure for cancer, then that claim would need to be substantiated. If it could not be substantiated then this would be a breach of the prevailing laws and regulations.

So, in that sense the bill is hardly Islamization by stealth. The adding of a halal seal to products will provide a guarantee to discerning Muslims that the product they are about to purchase meets some exacting standards with respect to a products halal-ness or lack thereof. Nevertheless, this might depend on how independent the certification process is and how independent those involved in the certification agency are.

Currently, it would seem that the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) will play a primary role as the peak Muslim body in Indonesia. Then again, how independent can the body be when its role is specifically to certify what is and what is not halal for a specific religion?

A far greater threat would be a local ordinance, such as the one recently pushed through in Bogor as it attempts to become a halal city, which prohibits the slaughtering of pigs within city limits. This would seemingly increase costs as any pork products would have to be brought in from other places and not sourced locally. An argument might conceivably be made that this ordinance is a breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be subject to discrimination. Whether anyone picks up the baton on this one remains to be seen.

Going forward, it seems likely that this debate is going to arise ever more frequently.

Jenna Jameson, Tito Ortiz, and the Twins

This is old news and truth be told I have not been following the film career of Jenna Jameson or the Mixed Martial Arts career of Tito Ortiz. However, I was watching the Celebrity Apprentice and Tito Ortiz was on that. This prompted a Google search and that was the pre-cursor to this post.

For those of you that have been living under a rock, like me, Jenna Jameson is a porn star. I am told that she is pretty good at what she does. I am not a connoisseur of porn so I cannot really comment on whether she is a good actor. I will defer to people with more experience in this field than I to pass comment.

I do not pass judgment on Jenna Jameson or her profession. I am actually supportive of a person's right to choose to appear in adult films. For those moralists out there, then perhaps it is worth considering the not so simple supply and demand arguments. What comes first in this equation, the supply or the demand? Particularly before one gets into what God thinks.

Well, Jenna and Tito welcomed twins, boys, into the world in March. Congratulations! My wife and I have one son and at six months he is already a handful. I am guessing that twins will be at least double the challenge.

Anyways, this is not a post about whether porn should be legal or not nor is it about that is morally right. It is a post designed simply to ask one question:

How is she going to answer the question that goes: "so, mummy, what do you do for a living?"

I ask because I was also watching "The Wonder Years" episode where Kevin tags along one day with his dad to his dad's office in an attempt to find out what his old man does to earn a living.

The Pornography Law -- Judicial Review

This has appeared previously on the en.hukumonline.com website - here.

The debate on the pornography law seems to be a never ending one and is set to continue in the Constitutional Court on 23 February 2009. On 9 February 2009, in a move without any fanfare or announcement, eleven individuals filed a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking a judicial review of the Pornography Law. The petition seeks to have Articles 1(1), 4, and 10 repealed as constitutionally invalid.

The petitioners, among others, include Billy Lombok (Minahasa Christian Gospel Church), Jeffrey Delarue (Indonesian National Youth Committee of North Sulawesi), Janny Kopalit (Manado Catholic Youth), Goinpeace Tumbel (North Sulawesi Indonesian Christian Youth Movement), Bert Supit (Minahasa Cultural Council), and Charles Lepar (Manado Inter-Church Youth Forum). To represent them in the judicial review process, they have engaged O.C. Kaligis as their lawyer.

The substance of the petition is not surprising and is representative of much of the debate on the validity of the pornography law to date. The first claim as it relates to Article 1(1) is that the definition of pornography is too broad and as such is all-encompassing. The petitioners are arguing that such a broad definition will catch legitimate art and other traditional cultural practices under the definition.

The crux of the argument is that with such broad cultural diversity in Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke that it is unfair to have such a broad definition. Simply, what is acceptable in Papua might not be acceptable in Aceh. But, that lack of acceptance must not see the conduct criminalized as pornography or indecency.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the Constitutional Court reads the pornography law as a whole or only the individual articles. The reason for this is that the government continues to maintain that the law specifically protects certain art and cultural traditions under other articles within the law. The petitioners despite representing an eclectic mix of church and youth organizations, they are also artists who feel that they have a legitimate grievance here in light of some of the art that they produce, such as carvings and paintings, would seemingly fall foul of the definition.

An angle adopted by the petitioners, and worthy of note, is that as working artists who earn a living and support families from their artistic income the pornography law discriminates against them and in essence violates their right to work. This is the substantive argument against Article 4.

The problem, as the petitioners see it, with Article 10 is that the article is open to multiple interpretations. The petitioners seem to focus on the term “depict nudity” and the definition may vary from one region to another in terms of what is considered to depict nudity. The argument seems to rely, similarly to Article 1, on the fact that Indonesia is a country with a rich history of pluralism and cultural diversity.

However, in a generic sense the term, depict nudity, is not problematic. Simply, what is depicting nudity in Aceh will still be depicting nudity in Papua. The difference is whether or not the current law would provide an exception for the depiction.

On the sides to this petition there are still many within the community that take issue with the pornography law. One issue that continues to arise is related to enforcement and how law enforcement agencies, irrespective of whether they are the police or the Office of the Public Prosecutor, intend to enforce the provisions that many consider to be problematic.

At various times both the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Human Rights have invited law enforcers to discuss in detail the proposed implementation and subsequent enforcement of the provisions of the law. These organizations generally focus on the broadness of the definitions and the all-encompassing nature of these definitions as the basis of their rejection of the provisions of the law. In this case Article 4 was also noted as being most problematic.

However, the police see the law as a valuable tool in combating crimes related to pornography. Nicolas A. Lilipaly, Head of the Pornography, Indecency, and Morality Unit at the Metro Jaya Police Headquarters, is unequivocal in stating that the Pornography Law has enhanced the police’s ability to deal with pornography, which had to date been dealt with under provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Code.

In another interesting aside and also related to the pornography law, the Chief Judge of the Central Jakarta District Court, Andriani Nurdin, stated that where laws exhibit weaknesses then the duty falls to the court to exercise their discretion and interpret the provisions as they appear or to create the law where the legislation remains silent. There is likely to be some serious questioning of this kind of judicial activism of the bench from the community, particularly if the courts were to use their discretion in ways that clearly exceeded the intent of the parliament when drafting the law.

This latest installment in the debate on pornography is certain to keep the issue alive within the community.

(RAB / SH)

What's Your Preference?

The miracles of modern medicine and our ability to save and prolong life are an integral part of who we have become, who we are, and who we will be. It is also a matter of some concern, at least, in a medical ethics sense.

The most obvious example of a current concern is the leaps and bounds being made in cloning technology. I am all for development of new technology. Nevertheless, new technology, particularly in medical science, is going to give rise to some interesting ethical and moral debates.

I have just finished reading this interesting story about prospective parents being able to choose not only the sex of their child, but also the child's hair colour, eye colour, and even skin colour. I guess this is like a little bit of pre-natal cosmetic surgery.

The issue here is that some individuals are exploiting advances that were made with more primary concerns involved. Scientists who have developed the ability to identify certain diseases or markers for potential health problems have also, as part of the process, discovered ways to manipulate cells and genes to ensure certain outcomes, like blue eyes.

Medical research is not cheap, so it is of no surprise that the selection of the specialized traits for your baby will also not come cheap. The current estimated cost is USD 18,000. Having had a look at my perfect little bundle of screaming joy on getting home earlier tonight, I can think of other things to put USD 18 K to, rather than a set of hazel coloured eyes or darker skin.

When it is all said and done, to each their own. However, even if I had the money or the ability to choose these traits, I would not do it and I would not have done it in this case. This, for me, is a separate issue from one such as identifying a gene for disease, such as down syndrome. But, that's just me.

The Death Penalty in Indonesia

The family of Imam Samudra are intending to lodge a complaint in the event that he is executed. The complaint will be based on a claim that he has been murdered. There are interesting legal arguments relating to state sanctioned murder.

My personal view is that it is murder, it is a willful killing authorized by the state, and it is wrong. I am not arguing that Indonesia does not have the right to use the death penalty. The argument is a loser as international law permits a death penalty state to continue to use the death penalty. I am arguing on moral grounds that the death penalty is wrong. I am arguing that two wrongs will never make a right. Simply, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I am arguing it is not a deterrent to crime.

Yet, with all those things said, it is unlikely that any claim submitted by Luluk Jamaludin (stroking his goatee in the photo), the younger brother of Imam Samudra, will have legal legs. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the death penalty is a valid form of punishment that does not breach any right to life protections provided for in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has also ruled that execution by firing squad is not cruel and unusual punishment.

I just do not see a claim making any headway in a system that seems to be aligned in favor of state sanctioned killings.

Pornography and Indonesia

If recent reports are to be believed, then the controversial Pornography Bill (previously known as the 'anti-pornography and indecency bill) seems to be set to pass the House of Representatives soon. Some lawmakers are hailing this as some kind of prophetic Ramadan gift.

The bill is clearly a threat to the stability of the nation. The provisions appear to criminalize a good deal of Indonesian culture and will undoubtedly have a significant impact on tourism. For these reasons alone the current format of the bill needs to be re-worked in order to make the bill enforceable and not controversial. The provision provide for a little more than just prohibiting the publication of magazines like Playboy.

The bill poses significant threats to privacy as well.

There is opposition to the bill. Unfortunately, this opposition does not appear to be well-marshaled and it would seem the bill's supporters are likely to be bulldozing this through the Special Committee and to a vote on the floor.

Interestingly, Golkar through one of its lawmakers has suggested that the best course of action that may induce a rethink is if there was spontaneous rallies that provided vocal opposition to the bill.

The biggest issue is that the bill regulates morality. There will always be legal questions as to how far a government can go in regulating the morality of its citizens, particularly in the private sphere. The morality issue then gives rise to questions such as whose morals and how are these morals to be defined? To name but a few. There is little doubt that people support the idea of restricting or prohibiting access to pornography and indecency. What is in doubt is whether the current definition of either of the key terms is suitable for the purpose.

Another important question is whether there is a need for a specific pornography and indecency law. Most legal scholars would agree that the key offenses are already regulated in existing legislation, including the Criminal Code, Child Protection Law, and the Cyber Law (ITE). Some might argue that this is a lex spesialis law that deals with a very particular set of circumstances and offenses. However, this argument is moot in the sense that there are no arguments can be made that the provisions are not anything but mere duplication of provisions contained elsewhere.

With a definition of pornography like this:

"Pornography is any work that includes sexual materials in the form of drawings, sketches, illustrations, photographs, text, sound, moving pictures, animation, cartoons, poetry, conversations or any other form of communicative message"

it is little wonder that people have concerns.

Even greater concerns arise when the issue of enforcement is discussed. The bill would seem to allow an interpretation that suggest vigilante justice is permissible. The relevant provisions suggest that the community may take preventive measures. This is clearly different from the community having a mere reporting role where they suspect a breach may have occurred. If this indeed is an acceptable interpretation then you are going to have unqualified individuals and groups making legal determinations with regards to what constitutes pornography and indecency.

The stoning of Playboy's offices and the forcible closures of bars, pubs, and entertainment venues is just the beginning. Other places of indecency and pornography are likely to include museums and theaters.

A cold change is definitely in the air!

Governments Regulating Morality

It seems that the Government of Jakarta has decided the best way to break the chain of HIV infections plaguing the capital is to regulate the morality of its citizens and to pass the burden of testing and screening onto businesses. Sometimes you have to worry about the policy wonks and drafters sitting in City Hall and their inability in putting together a coherent policy and a workable law.

What follows might be too analytical for some. However, it is worth pondering some of the points raised.

It might be argued that this Regulation has been a long time in the making and an equally long time in the coming. The Regulation, No. 5 of 2008, seeks to break the chain of HIV infections that, at least, statistically have seen a rapid spike in the upwards direction. HIV/AIDS is a serious problem in the capital and there is no doubt that the government needs to be more proactive in the fight against the virus.

The basic premise of the Regulation is to break the chain of infections. Furthermore, the Regulation is designed to ensure that the quality of life of HIV / AIDS suffers and intra-venous drug users improve. However, the responses that the government proposes to this end are interesting for many reasons. In many ways the provisions of the Regulation seem to be more suggestion in nature than enforceable as the provisions seem to be aimed at regulating moral behaviour and criminalizing poor moral judgment.

The rest of the Regulation deals with matters that provide a loose framework for ensuring that people living with HIV / AIDS have access to adequate medical treatment and are not discriminated against once their HIV status is known either to an employer or the community at large. It is not explicitly clear from the construction of the Regulation but it appears that generally this provision would make it an offence to discriminate against and vilify a person with HIV.

Furthermore, the Regulation requires businesses that are considered to be high risk and potentially sources and spreaders of the virus to be more pro-active in screening their staff for HIV infection. Through to June 2008 there are 3,123 cases of HIV reported in the capital which on a percentage basis is small considering the size of the population.

There are five components to the Regulation:
1. general provisions;
2. promotion;
3. prevention;
4. medicine; and
5. treatment and support.

In general the Regulation targets those individuals that are considered high risk or work in high risk businesses. These businesses are identified in the Elucidation to Article 15(g) as, among others, employees of massage parlors, spas, discotheques, and karaoke joints. However, the Regulation also makes special mention of ensuring that pregnant women and nursing mothers have access to suitable and continuing services to ensure the health of any children born to a HIV positive mother.

Promotion is a matter of communication, information, and education. The promotion role is to be filled by the community, the Central Government, and the Government of Jakarta as required. However, it is expected that there is to be a degree of synergy developed among these promoters to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of any promotions undertaken.

It is expected that the promotion activities will focus on two core elements, namely: changing lifestyle patterns and reducing the stigma attached to being HIV positive.

The educational aspect of the promotional program is to include both internal and external (extracurricular) elements within schools. This means that schools are required to develop a personal development or sex education program that includes materials on HIV / AIDS. Interestingly, the Regulation uses the word “schools” and the Elucidation to the relevant article does not provide any assistance to how schools must be defined. So it is therefore reasonable to assume that the word schools can conceivably include from the primary level through to the senior secondary level.

Nevertheless, the likely target will be senior high school. Yet, if statistics were to bear out that increasingly larger numbers of junior high school students were engaging in high risk behaviours then it would seem to make sense to start the education program at the junior high level.

In a more general sense the promotion elements of the HIV / AIDS program are aimed at promoting the idea that a harmonious and loving family is one that does not tolerate high risk behaviours.

The prevention strategy on face value is a good one. Unfortunately, neither the Regulation nor the Elucidations provide enough detail about how the prevention strategy is going to be implemented in full. There is considerable scope for further regulations in order to “fill” out the regulatory framework.

The prevention strategy includes, among others, the following:
1. abstinence for unmarried people;
2. sexual relations only with those who are your legal partner;
3. use of preventive aids (presumably condoms although nothing is mentioned) by people of known HIV status;
4. programs to reduce the negative impacts of intra-venous drug use;
5. standard operating procedures for organ transplants and blood transfusions;
6. programs to ensure that pregnant women of a known HIV status have prioritized access to antiretroviral drugs to lessen the risk of transmission to their unborn child;
7. programs that require high risk business to routinely screen for HIV infections in their employees;
8. universal precaution for health workers who are at risk of contact with HIV; and
9. family counseling.

The above strategy gives rise to a number of questions. These questions will need to be answered going forward either in a legislative manner or in terms of a commitment to allowing certain strategies to take shape. There is also considerable scope for public / private partnerships to develop in such areas as needle exchange programs and injecting rooms as a means of reducing the negative impacts of intra-venous drug use and abuse. Other possibilities include the development of community health programs that promote the use of condoms and make them readily available to the masses.

Furthermore, the compulsory nature of the obligation on employers to test employees who work in high risk businesses is an interesting one on a number of different levels. For example, the costs of the testing are to be borne by the businesses themselves. However, the Regulation is unclear as to whether the government is going to appoint an accredited screener for the process or are the businesses free to choose a screener of their own? The Regulation is also unclear as to what the employer is to do with an employee who is HIV positive once they are uncovered through the screening process.

Another interesting question not properly addressed in the Regulation is how are bars and pubs to be tested and screened in this process. Admittedly, the Regulation would cover employees of bars but it would not conceivably cover freelance female and male sex workers who might inhabit such establishments. It would appear that there would also be a need to screen these people as well. However, if they are not employees then who does that responsibility fall to? And isn’t the screening of high risk individuals one of the pillars of this piece of legislation?

In a perversely funny kind of a way, the Regulation seems to suggest that certain entertainment venues are places of prostitution. It is clear that prostitution is illegal in Indonesia so if the government of Jakarta is making such an admission then would the more common sense approach be to close these venues down and reduce the level of prostitution in the city.

The reality is that the Regulation is far from being as comprehensive as it might have been. Considering the intent of the Regulation is to break the chain of HIV infection, then to leave large numbers of high risk individuals to voluntary testing would seem to undermine the good intentions of the provisions as they currently stand.

In terms of medicines the Regulation is much more scant on provisions and states that further regulations are to be issued to clarify this matter.

The Regulation creates both Provincial and District / City AIDS Prevention Commissions which in a cynical sense serves to create another level of bureaucracy in the system. However, if the Commissions were able to be developed in a manner that allowed for consolidation of the current diaspora then this may be a positive development.

Interestingly, the Regulation sets out a role for community participation but simultaneously obligates the members of the community to treat people living with HIV / AIDS in a just and humane manner. Combined with the earlier noted provisions, this appears to bring into play the possibility of people being charged and prosecuted for vilifying HIV positive individuals.

The community’s role also seems to include a moral policing aspect as the Regulation is specific in stating that the community must ensure that the is an increase in religiousness of the community and that the existing family units are maintained. The Regulation then goes on to state that the community must create an environment that is conducive for the, presumably, wider acceptance of the fact that there are HIV positive people and drug users living within their midst.

The Regulation also includes a Chapter on investigation and explicitly states that investigators can either be police investigators or appointed civil service investigators. The provisions in Article 27 set out what the investigators are authorized to do but what the Regulation is lacking is specifically what the investigators are to investigate. It is therefore presumed that the matters that would be subject to investigation are those relating to compliance and the specific provisions noted in the Chapter on sanctions.

Yet, it is worth noting that investigators have extensive powers to fingerprint, photograph, and seize property and documents. What is unclear from the Regulation is whether this power is as unfettered as it seems to be.

The provisions require businesses to test staff members at least every three months. Presumably, this means that investigators would be able to demand documents that would prove compliance. The sanctions provisions only note the following offences:

1. failure to keep HIV status data confidential;
2. failure to follow standard operating procedures with regards to transplants and transfusions;
3. non-discrimination against HIV positive people in the provision of medical services; and
4. compulsory HIV screening for high risk employees.

The administrative sanctions would include written warnings to businesses that have failed to comply with screening procedures. Ongoing compliance failures would then allow the government to shut down the business.

The criminal sanctions provide for terms of detention up to three months or fines of up to IDR 50 million. The deliberate spread of HIV is not subject to a specific penalty under this Regulation but rather the Regulation states that the criminal penalty will be whatever is applicable under the prevailing laws and regulations.

The Regulation was issued on 22 July 2008 and came into force on 24 July 2008.

Vulgarity on Indonesian TV

Being the world's largest Muslim nation means that one is often left wondering at some of the stuff that gets on TV, particularly late at night. Even though the late evening hours and the wee hours of the morning are hardly times that the kiddies will be watching the idiot box, there are idiots out there like me who instead of getting their beauty sleep prefer to waste time watching silly TV shows. Some of these shows are overtly sexually provocative and then some are more covert. Nevertheless, it would appear that the content would still breach the broadcasting standards that are applicable in this fine land.

The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia / KPI) has taken offence to a couple of shows currently showing in much earlier timeslots. There are four shows to be exact that have come under scrutiny and have been warned for inappropriate content. The shows are: Extravaganza, One Piece, Ngelenong Nyok, and Suami-Suami Takut Istri.

Working backwards because I do not regularly watch Suami-Suami Takut Istri, come to think of it I watched it once and thought it to be stupid and haven't watched it again. I have voted with my remote and as such do not need any help from the KPI on this one. Suami-Suami Takut Istri translates "Husbands Afraid of Their Wives". The title is self-explanatory and provides an insight into the show. However, the KPI has taken issue with domestic violence in this case wives who abuse their husbands. Domestic violence is wrong but it is an interesting turn around to have the violence perpetrated by wives against their husbands. The other problem for this show is that the KPI thinks that children are portrayed in unsavoury settings. Not sure what that means though. Perhaps it is kids in a setting where there is domestic violence.

For Ngelenong Nyok the issue is that one of the characters is a little person (dwarf or midget -- politically incorrect, right?) and the other characters make fun of him. Then there is another character with buck teeth who also comes in for the brunt of some less than politically correct jokes. This is another show that I do not watch. I just do not find it all that interesting or funny.

One Piece is an anime series which is under the gun for showing violence and blood, sensual looking women, and close-ups of women's body parts. Nothing quite like a cartoon woman wearing spandex to get the juices flowing! I had not realized there were quite so many Indonesians with an anime fetish!

Extravaganza is not my favourite show but I do watch it every Saturday evening. I normally crash out in front of the TV with the better half and have a good little chuckle over the 2 hours the show runs from 19.00 through 21.00. The humour on Extravaganza is generally sexually suggestive, but I have not found it to be vulgar. I guess though I am pretty liberal in my views and attitudes to vulgarity. I tend to watch it because I enjoy the idiocy of the characters played by Tora Sudiro and Aming (pictured). Nevertheless, the particular complaint is one that one of the female characters in one of the skits was portrayed as being sexually harassed.

Now, sexual harassment is wrong. Yet, this was a comedy skit and as such does it have a responsibility to portray this matter in a more serious way. Sexual harassment is no joke. However, I guess it is open to interpretation as to whether the skit was in fact one where the character is sexually harassed or is the definition applied by the KPI too narrow for the purpose. I do not recall the episode in question, although it was aired on May 10, so I might have a look on You Tube later as many of the skits are available there. In any event I would have to see it again to pass any comments that I would feel comfortable defending.

Anyways, under the Law, if the broadcasters ignore the warnings and continue to flagrantly violate the KPI's authority in this area, then the KPI can impose fines of up to IDR 10 billion and persistent breachers would be potentially liable for terms of imprisonment up to five years.

I guess we wait and see.

Sex and War

This certainly gives additional meaning to entertaining the troops. An Australian entertainment trip to Afghanistan has allegedly ended in one of the entertainers having sex with a number of Special Air Services (SAS) troops. The singer, Tani Zaetta, has strongly denied the claims and has the backing of another member of the entourage, Angry Anderson of Rose Tattoo fame, who has also denied that the alleged sexual encounters every took place.

The interesting part here was that the allegations were contained in a debriefing memo to the Minister of Defence and then the memo some how made it into the hands of the press.

Yet, in the big scheme of things if Zaetta is doing her part for troop moral and the sex is between consenting adults is there really any harm here? Perhaps if the troops involved are married and a long way from home then there might be some moral issues but the sex itself does not seem to be illegal, unless of course there is something in Zaetta's contract that says she is prohibited from having sex with the troops.