Laws Against Pornography and Porno Action

RUU APP is not a new discourse in this country regulatory legislation. He is also not a new draft law prepared. This bill has been prepared more than 3 years ago, by the government. However gaungnya not as loud now. Even until the mid-year 2005, this bill can be said to disappear from circulation, in the sense of not getting publicity means.
This bill rediscover its popularity when the preparation of the National Legislation Program Period 2004-2009 Parliament. PBB, PKS, and PPP urged that this bill be a priority. Finally in June 2005, this bill into Parliament Initiative proposal with 30 signatures proposer (from a minimum of 13 signatures).
Why is this bill in trouble (which I call the result of broad political constellation)

It's not a difficult matter to find some substantial weaknesses of this bill. Here I will give several reasons:
1. God spoke on-call
As a state law, all legal products are appropriately generated and rooted in the ideology of the State, in this case the Pancasila.
However, this bill clearly reveals that the role of God (with all its interpretation) put forward as the source of a state law.
Here are excerpts of General Explanation of the Bill APP: "Indonesia is a country that adheres to the Pancasila ideology ...-cutted-life ideology berketuhanan As a follower of the Indonesian people believe that God has forbidden the attitude and actions of a-social, a-moral, and a-moral in life sex, such as abuse, infidelity, violence, sex, sexual deviation, and dissemination gagasangagasan about sex, because it can damage the fabric of community life-cutted-Such actions are also considered to demonstrate against the power of God. "
The question that arises is, why should carry the name of God? Although humans against the power of God, that's not right and obligation to take care of the state. State relating to public space, God is a private space.

2. Self-Degrading Culture of the Nation
This bill made the argument to protect the fabric of society. But in fact, he even considers culture itself as the nation's porn. Kemben, koteka, the tradition of bathing in the river, the reliefs in the temples it is considered pornographic by this bill.

3. Subjective Acting Opportunities
Article 25: "... prohibited from displaying certain sensual body parts." Explanation of Article 4: "... is a certain sensual body parts such as genitals, thighs, hips, buttocks, navel and breasts of women, whether visible or in part entirely. "
Use of the word 'among others' in the explanation of Article 4 indicates that is allowed to add other body parts into the category of sensual. This in no way be justified. Law will be pushed around by the authorities.

4. Discriminatory
Examples for this can be seen in defining "certain sensual body parts" as the explanation of Article 4 above. When calling 'genitals, thighs, hips, buttocks, navel' This bill does not pay attention to gender differences. However, when calling the breast, which is referred to female breasts. Gender discrimination occurs in this article.
Article 28 UUD 1945 declared a legal product can not be discriminatory. Therefore, viewed from the perspective of the Constitution, this bill is not worthy of promulgation.

5. Mind-based law ngeres
Several chapters in this bill shows that the compiler actually have a mind that ngeres, or legalize ngeres mind as a legal basis. One example is the explanation of Article 28.
Article 28 paragraph (1) reads: "Every person is prohibited erotic dancing or swaying erotically in public." Explanation of Article 28 reads: "... while those who are doing is shaking erotic body movements are rhythmic, not following the principles of dance , and further highlight the sexual nature such that these movements can be predicted aims to stimulate lust. "Again, who can be 'suspect' movement aims to stimulate lust? Of course they ngeres minded.
Today in Parliament (committee) only the PDI-P faction which explicitly stating his refusal. Another fraction stating there is absolutely supports (F-MCC), or have not stated attitude. Looking at the political position of the existing parties, not one of pessimism seems to show, at least for the process in parliament.
But pessimism is not going to change anything. The only thing that can change the state is raising public opinion and resistance. If we can not change the attitude of the pro draft, at least we should force them to think again, again and again. Think of the impact and the resistance is going to happen. Bali is a good example for this.
Demonstrations conducted by various elements of society, either pro or contra, also shows how this bill relate to all parties. Even the MUI had to form the Guard Desk RUU APP. Something strange here, if it wants to develop the laws governing pornography products, why not be open to criticism given. If the constructive criticism was rejected, even to make the threats, natural and not wrong, if then people wonder, "Is there anything hidden?"
Are there hidden?
The question "Is there anything hidden?" Is certainly worthy of us to ask. One of them, and which in my opinion the most important are concerns about the entry of religious law, in this case Islam. Actually, not just Islam, even the Church of Law, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian one, if entered into the state system and to regulate and enforce dress code of morality, of course, should we tolak.Kecenderungan mass action that happened also suggests this fact. Party Pro RUU APP, almost certainly comes from a known radical Islamic organizations or the struggle to enforce Islamic laws, such as FPI, MMI, HTI, etc.. Counter-parties with no intention to exaggerate infinitely more complex and consists of various groups / kelompok..Ini not about hating a religion or group. It is about the diversity that this country became the joint. If the diversity of Indonesia rejected outright, and a monoculture is enforced, who is convinced that this country would be better?