Friday, February 4, 2011

Women's rights activists say pornography law intruding into people's private lives

Okezone.com - February 4, 2011
Mahfiroh, Jakarta – Women's activists including the Women's Legal Aid Foundation (LBH APIK) and the Free Women National Network (JRPM) are supporting television host Luna Maya as a victims of the distribution of a private video containing sex scenes. The legal proceedings against Maya are not in accordance with the aims of the anti-pornography law.

The groups said that in the application of the anti-pornography law in the case involving the distribution of a private video containing sex scenes from a computer hard disk belonging to pop star Nazril "Ariel" Irham, his fiancee Luna Maya has been a victim who in the end became a suspect.

"We oppose pornography. [But] we believed that that the ones who are guilty in pornography are the parties that distribute, reproduce and make pornography available at internet cafes (warnet, warung internet). They are the ones who are responsible for pornographic material", explained women's activist Yeni Rosa Damayanti in the public complaints room of the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) on Friday February 4.

As already pointed out by advocates, continued Yeni Rosa, in the elucidation of Article 4 of the anti-pornography law it states that making a video containing pornography for personal consumption is not a criminal act. "This is what has shocked us", she said simply.

In the same vein as Yeni Rosa, LBH APIK activist Sri Nur Herawati conceded to feeling anxious because human rights violations have been committed against Ariel, Maya and Cut Tari (his former partner also shown in the sex video). All three are actually the victims of the distribution of a private video containing sex scenes.

“In the Ariel, Luna Maya and Cut Tari case, we have seen a process that is not in fact in accordance with the aims anticipated by the anti-pornography law", she said.

JRPM activist Vivi Widyawati expressed a similar view saying that the state is intruding too far into people's private lives. "The state is in fact not protecting [the public], but is actually making the public feel uncomfortable", she said. (nov)

[Translated by James Balowski.]