Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Indonesia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

@Cal1407: Current infobox states status of LGBT as "legal". However, IMO the word of "legal" implies that there are law/act/regulation that explicitly allows it. Meanwhile AFAIK, As of August 2023 there is no law/act/regulation that explicitly allow or prohibit LGBT. If we look example of |status= on Template:Infobox LGBT rights, the word "never criminalized" was used. Therefore, I propose to change the word of "legal" on status parameter to something else (unregulated, not specified or perhaps you have better suggestion?) Ckfasdf (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. Imho, I do not really agree with your proposal. If you see this article, you can see that the legality of LGBT in African countries such as Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Djibouti, etc. are written as "Legal (No laws against same-sex sexual activity have ever existed in the country)". As you mentioned earlier, Indonesia doesn't have a law that specifically regulate LGBT activities. Therefore, I'm advocating for keeping the word "legal" for now, perhaps adding the phrase "(No laws against same-sex sexual activity have ever existed in the country)" behind it. Thank you. Cal1407 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cal1407: IMO, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really strong argument to keep using the word of "legal". And if you look up the definition of "legal", every references that I look up said that it means something that is permitted by law (reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). And as I said earlier, since Indonesia don't have any law that specifically regulate LGBT activities, it cannot be considered as "permitted by law", so we can't say that is "legal". For time being, I propose to put as Grey area simply because no law regulates this issue at the moment. And for addition of phrase "No laws against same-sex sexual activity have ever existed in the country", It can be included in the body of article and it's a bit too long for infobox. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that's not prohibited by law is legal. Being gay is like being left-handed. If there's no law prohibiting left-handedness so it's legal just like any other citizens in the society. There's no need for a law to regulate left-handedness or specifically targeting left-handed people. Springtime95 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's no law regulating left-handedness so does it mean left-handedness is illegal? Springtime95 (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no law specifically regulating mangoes, cherries...doesn't not mean they are not legal. All sexual activities that are not prohibited by the law are legal. Springtime95 (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that's not specified by law is neither legal or illegal. We can categorized something legal or illegal only if there is specific law that allows or prohibit it. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that's not prohibited by law is legal. Springtime95 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being gay is like being left-handed. If there's no law prohibiting left-handedness so it's legal just like any other citizens in the society. There's no need for a law to regulate left-handedness or specifically targeting left-handed people.Springtime95 (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As per @Springtime95, it is legal if no law is prohibiting it. Here is a Wikipedia article explaining that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed.
The other Wikipedia pages on LGBT rights also use the word legal even though there's no law permitting consensual same-sex sexual activity. Take Japan and Taiwan for example. StrategyFan (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protect this page

[edit]

Can someone protect this page to only registered users can edit this page? -GogoLion (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal's meaning

[edit]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/legal

the most widely used meaning of legal is "allowed/not forbidden by the law" in opposition with illegal. And there are expressions " de facto legal", "de facto illegal" meaning there's no law about it but in reality it's legal or illegal.

I know there are many homophobes in Indonesia but wikipedia is neutral.

Homosexuality, eating pizza, left-handedness, wearing make-up...is legal "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a legal maxim. It is the concept that any action can be taken unless there is a law against it. It is also known in some situations as the "general power of competence" whereby the body or person being regulated is acknowledged to have competent judgement of their scope of action.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed#:~:text=%22Everything%20which%20is%20not%20forbidden,is%20a%20law%20against%20it. 

Springtime95 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Springtime95: Refer to dictionary definition of "legal", (such: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which all of them consist of two word, the first one is "permitted/allowed" and the second one is "by law". When defining "legal", those two words are come hand in hand, you cannot just take the first word and ignore the second word, hence definition of "legal" is 'permitted/allowed by law', not only 'permitted/allowed'. The word "by law" means there has to be a regulation that regulate any word that comes before "by law". In order for something to be considered "legal", that thing is required to be explicitly mentioned in a regulation/rules/law/act that whatever that tings is allowed to do.
If you want to put 'legal' on the article, then you need to provide reference that there is a regulation/rules/law/act in Indonesia that explicitly allows LGBT. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All activities that are not forbidden by the law is therefore allowed by the law. All law systems in the world say that. Springtime95 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Activities that is not prohibited by law, is may be allowed to do but does not automatically translates to allowed by law. Please note that the key is "by law". Ckfasdf (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a law that mentions about eating chewing gum or strawberries in your country. If not, does that mean that eating chewing gum and strawberries is not legal? Springtime95 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The law established that citizens can do things that are not forbidden by the law. It's a fact in every country. That means it's legal. Springtime95 (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all law say that citizens can do things that are not forbidden by law. So eating chewing gum, pizza or homosexuality is legal because it's not forbidden by law. Springtime95 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a law that mentions about eating chewing gum or strawberries in your country. If not, does that mean that eating chewing gum and strawberries is not legal? Springtime95 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without specific regulation to regulate something, we can not says something legal or illegal. Hence per definition, chewing gum and strawberries is not legal if there is no specific regulation. However, please note that just something is not legal doesn't means that thing is illegal. Again the key is "by law". Ckfasdf (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So eating chewing gum is not legal? Springtime95 (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
assuming no specific regulation that regulate chewing gum, It is not legal, but allowed. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eating chewing gum is legal because it's an activity that's not forbidden by the law. The law allows freadom to do things that are not illegal. There can't be 1 million laws targetting every human behavior. Springtime95 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again back to the definition, both word of "legal" (allowed by law) and "illegal (prohibited by law) are related law/regulation/rules. There are many activities that is not prohibited by law, hence makes it to be not legal, but still allowed to do. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the law stated that humans have freedom and can do things that are not forbidden by the law. Therefore homosexuality, eating chewing gum, playing games are legal activities that are protected by the law of freedom and citizen's rights. They are de facto and de jure legal. Springtime95 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citizen's freedom is a legal right. Springtime95 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same-sex marriage in France is legal although there's no law specifically mentionning it. The law only say that people are free to marry the one they love, so it's legal. Springtime95 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same-sex marriage in France is legal because French President signed the law in 2013 (see https://www.refworld.org/docid/51a47a1818.html). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the law is called marriage equality law that doesn't mention homosexuals or heterosexuals at all. It just stated that consenting adults are free to marry the one they love, meaning that both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are legal. Springtime95 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That french law is Loi n° 2013-404 du 17 mai 2013 ouvrant le mariage aux couples de personnes de même sexe (law opening marriage to same-sex couples, no. 2013-404). And in WP, we have article for that law (see Law 2013-404). Ckfasdf (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it open the way to same-sex marriage by aborting the mentionning of opposite sex in the marriage law. It's gender neutral. It doesn't say anything about same-sex but people and lawyers understand that it include same-sex couples (by saying every consenting adults). The same for marriage in many countries that recognize same-sex marriage. they just don't mention opposite sex in the law. Springtime95 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err.. The title of law is quite explicit, law opening marriage to same-sex couples, I don't know why you insist to say that It doesn't say anything about same-sex Ckfasdf (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how about the US? It has a gender-neutral marriage law. Springtime95 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Same-sex marriage is legal in France due to law opening marriage to same-sex couples, no. 2013-404, it's also legal in the US due to Supreme Court ruling. The same can not be said for Indonesia. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia has passed a gender-neutral marriage law that doesn't mention gay people at all but it mean that all married couples are recognized.
https://www.riigikogu.ee/en/press-releases/plenary-assembly/the-riigikogu-passed-the-act-allowing-gender-neutral-marriage/ Springtime95 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Springtime, you’re in danger of WP:BLUDGEON’ing here. You’re clearly passionate about this (especially looking at comments like this on a banned user’s page Special:MobileDiff/1192253636 ), but starting several different threads and being combative with other users doesn’t help us build an Encyclopedia. GraziePrego (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing with ckfasdf who is pretty interested in this topic. My opinion is that homosexuality is legal in Indonesia. Springtime95 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that user were banned. I'm new to wikipedia. sorry. Springtime95 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
everything that's not forbidden by the law is legal by the law. Show me a specific law about left-handedness? There will never be a law specifically mentionning homosexuality because homosexuality is a normal human behavior that's not something special.Springtime95 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the law established that citizens are free to do things that are not forbidden by it. So homosexuality is legal and protected by the law of freedom and citizen's rights.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp Springtime95 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Riigikogu (Parliament of Estonia) passed an Act which provides that two adults will be allowed to contract marriage regardless of their gender from 1 January 2024. The Act had been declared to be a matter of confidence in the Government before its second reading. The implementing acts of the Registered Partnership Act would also be passed with the Act.
55 members of the Riigikogu voted in favour of and 34 voted against passing the Act on Amendments to the Family Law Act and Amendments to Other Associated Acts (207 SE), initiated by the Government. Springtime95 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article is "LGBT rights in Indonesia". Use of the word "legal" to describe the "Status" of "LGBT rights in Indonesia" in the infobox makes no sense since "rights" cannot be "legal" or "illegal". The same applies to "Military". It's not clear what "Not explicitly prohibited by Law (de jure), Illegal (de facto)" means in this context. Is it being gay? Trans? Having non-heterosexual intercourse? I think the infobox should be removed from this article; it's more confusing than clarifying. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are legal rights and not illegal rights. Springtime95 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how rights work. The statement "LGBT rights in Indonesia are legal" (which is what using "status" = "legal" implies) is nonsensical. You either have a right to do something or lack a right to do something. Rights themselves are not "legal" or "illegal". voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
legal mean allowed by the law. There are rights that are recognized by law (freedom of expression, freedom of religion) but there are rights that are not (freedom to move in North Korea, freedom to kill, freedom to die...). Homosexuality is legal because it's protected by the law of freedom and citizen's rights which stated that people have freedom and can do what the law don't forbid. Springtime95 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what legal means. The scope of this article is "LGBT rights in Indonesia", not "Homosexuality in Indonesia". So, it would make sense to say homosexuality is legal in Indonesia because it is not criminalized. It does not make sense, however, to say that "LGBT rights" are legal in Indonesia. For something to be "legal" it needs to be either expressly authorized or not prohibited; rights are entitlements to be treated in a particular way. Legality and rights are analytically distinct concepts. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT are also citizens of Indonesia so of course LGBT rights are legal citizen rights but at which level? LGBT rights are just like women rights or minority's rights. So you can say "homosexuality is legal in Indonesia" and homosexuality is a part of LGBT rights.Springtime95 (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ping other user for more opinions @Cal1407 and GraziePrego:
@Springtime95 and Ckfasdf: I'm with Springtime95 on this. I have brought up this issue to Ckfasdf a few months ago, and I have also brought up examples with other countries as well. Homosexuality is not criminalized in Indonesia, therefore it is de jure legal. Cal1407 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cal1407:, I think we should refer to template documentation, the word "legal" is only applicable if there is any law the explicitly allows homosexuality, such as legal in France or legal in the US. In case of no explicit law regulate to prohibit it, the word "never criminalized" shall be used. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course another source of confusion is that in Common Law, something can be legal or illegal if there's relevant court precedent. But Indonesian law is predominately Civil/Continental.
Wex (LII (Cornell)) gives definitions for legal and illegal. The former in isolation is not a term of art -- they choose to give more space to the informal usages. The latter gets more technical: "illegal" is "any action which is against or not authorized by the law or statute." So it can be either by inclusion or by exclusion.
All this is to say I agree with the general objections of Ckfasdf, that "legal" and "illegal" in isolation are not useful or well-defined terms for something like the lede sentence or infobox (until context is well-established), and that their alternative suggestions should be considered instead. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no law stating that homosexuality is illegal. So what is it then? DragonSign (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It simply means that if an act is not regulated by law, you cannot be prosecuted for conducting it... hence "never criminalized". Ckfasdf (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you also use that word for Taiwan and Japan then? StrategyFan (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Taiwan, it is "legal" since 2019 due to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 on 24 May 2017. However, Japan is the same as Indonesia, it does not have any regulation on this matter, hence it's also neither legal or illegal. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 4 months since the last discussion. So, what's the decision? StrategyFan (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
replying to @Cal1407. StrategyFan (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Calls for discrimination and criminalization' section

[edit]

Referring to Pineapplethen's last edit, where he insisted on removing the word "criminalization," I must express my disagreement. The original wording is based on the cited source, which clearly states that the proposed laws will focus on banning actions, promotions, and campaigns related to LGBT activities, with stricter penalties for promoters and producers compared to users, similar to drug laws. The proposed laws emphasizes harsher penalties for those who promote or produce LGBT content, and it also suggests that users or individuals involved in LGBT activities could face criminalization, potentially with the option of rehabilitation, similar to how drug users are treated under current laws. Additionally, the laws likely includes jail time for individuals involved in LGBT activities. Given that the proposed legislation is compared to drug laws, which include imprisonment for offenders, it is plausible that the laws could impose jail time, especially for those promoting or producing LGBT content. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this to my talk page instead? First what is your opinion on LGBT issue in Indonesia? Pineapplethen (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Ckfasdf about including the word "criminalization". @Pineapplethen, the personal opinion of Ckfasdf on LGBT people is not relevant so not sure why you'd be soliciting that. GraziePrego (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: We are discussing a specific paragraph in this article, and I don't see any reason to move this discussion to your talk page. I also agree with GraziePrego; opinions on this topic seem irrelevant since we are focusing on a very specific point in the article, specifically the 5th paragraph of the 'Calls for discrimination and criminalization' section. If anything, this should only be a discussion about verifiability. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed law is similar to RUU Ketahanan Keluarga, which is unlikely to pass. As mostly in the parliament, a law is unlikely to pass if it is not introduced by the biggest party in the parliament. Theoritically, any law which regulates sexual activity in general must only be regulated in the criminal code (heterosexual or homosexual) and it can’t be regulated with other laws outside of this in Indonesia. For now, no laws against LGBT media have been passed, it is unlikely so, but if it did, it would be put on Living Conditions, Media and Censorship part. So long as a law haven’t passed, there is no need to put it on Wikipedia. There have been cases where editors have been trying to falsify data on LGBT rights articles in order to hate on them. I’m not trying to judge that anyone is homophobic, but that is why I asked for personal opinion. Pineapplethen (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: You're unnecessarily expanding the discussion. We are focusing on a very specific point in the article, specifically the 5th paragraph of the 'Calls for discrimination and criminalization' section, which is based on this source. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof of any real draft legislation regarding to it. Aswell as Republika can’t always be counted as reliable sources based on WP:RS, the date is too outdated in 2016. No law have been proven to be proposed in relation to that news. Pineapplethen (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is Republika not a reliable source? GraziePrego (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: We are specifically discussing the 5th paragraph of 'Calls for discrimination and criminalization' section, which informs the reader about a particular event in 2016. In this event, a politician from the United Development Party expressed support for the proposal of anti-LGBT laws and suggested that these laws should carry penalties similar to those for drug offenses. Given that drug laws include imprisonment, it is highly likely that the proposed legislation could result in jail time, especially for individuals promoting or producing LGBT content. The discussion is focused on an event from 2016, so the fact that no such laws have been enacted or proposed to date or that the news is from 2016 is irrelevant to the point being made. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, You should also reply GraziePrego comments above. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is not needed, we should focus on what is happening at the moment, not in 2016. Pineapplethen (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an article on LGBT rights in a country is both the status quo and the history. That means including anti-LGBT rhetoric from politicians in the recent past — or indeed anti-LGBT rhetoric from 100 years ago — as well as the current situation.
This is clearly documented in a reliable source and is not a trivial event, I can see no reason not to include it. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen:, I agree with OwenBlacker. In fact, almost all Wikipedia articles focus on both the current situation and the past history of a given topic. Our discussion falls under the latter category, as the current situation regarding LGBT rights is already covered elsewhere in the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'pidana' or 'kriminalisasi' is nowhere mentioned in the original source, 'hukuman' means 'punishment' whereas 'dilarang' or 'larang' means 'forbidden' or 'ban'. All I did was simply translate it into the right linguistic patterns since the Indonesian word for criminalization ('kriminalisasi' or 'pidana') is nowhere mentioned in the old source. I did not suddenly change what was written in the article, instead, I corrected it based on the actual translations. Also, @GraziePrego Republika is an Islam-based online newspaper, its views are certain times based on their conservative interpretations of Islamic values and not based on Neutral point of view as consistent with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. PKS is also a conservative Muslim-based party, many of its members have views against the public discussion of LGBT rights, but not all PKS members have homophobic views or are against the existence of LGBT people. For example, Mardani Ali Sera, a PKS politician argued that there is no need to prohibit same-sex relations by the Minister for Empowerment of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform in Indonesia (MENPAN-RB) in 2020. [1] So the party conforms with times and situations and if such law is rejected that means that there will be no choice but to respect other people of diverse gender or sexual orientations. I think that this is it and the end of the discussion, there is no need to return to the previous version as all I did was to correct direct translations from the original source, not to change it in anyway that differs from the original source. Pineapplethen (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: While the word "criminalization" is not explicitly mentioned, the source does compare the proposed anti-LGBT law to drug laws, which include both punitive measures (or "hukuman" in Indonesian, indicating criminalization) and rehabilitation. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there should be another controversy regarding LGBT rights topic on the Prosperous Justice Party instead, it shouldn’t be in this article but on another one. Like Green Wave (Malaysia) phenomenon, this article is only about the current laws that exists. If you still wanted to revert it, it would be better if the first title sentence says in the past, since it is not talking about the current situation. Pineapplethen (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: Again.. you are unnecessarily expanding the discussion. The main point here is how to incorporate information from the source into the article. As I mentioned earlier, the source does compare the proposed anti-LGBT law to drug laws, which include both punitive measures (or "hukuman" in Indonesian, indicating criminalization) and rehabilitation, so the original wording is clearly sourced. This approach was also confirmed by at least two more experienced editors (OwenBlacker and GraziePrego), so I don't understand your objection.. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article only refers to "Hukuman", which means punishment in English. Punishment doesn't always means criminalization by state actors, it could be that a student is being punished by teacher for being late to class. The part that you are trying to revert to is within the “legality of same-sex sexual activity” section. Only the criminal code is able to regulate hetero or homosexual sexual activity within Indonesia's principle of legality, it is not able to be regulated in a law other than that, and the new criminal code of Indonesia doesn't criminalize private same-sex sexual intercourse. I see it unnecessary as bringing up about old topics would further marginalize Indonesia's persecuted sexual minorities. I believe @OwenBlacker is aware that the only thing I did was translate it according to the source, since the source doesn't explicity mentioned that same-sex sexual activity will be criminalized in the proposed law. Pineapplethen (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: Punishment in the context of law is typically enforced by the executive branch (or, as you mentioned, 'state actors') and adjudicated in court by the judicial branch. As I stated earlier, while it wasn't explicitly mentioned, it was implicitly suggested. The politician's intention was to have the anti-LGBT laws carry similar punishments as the drug laws. In Indonesia, the drug law includes one article on rehabilitation (Article 54) and 37 articles on criminal provisions (Articles 111 to 148). Therefore, making such a comparison indicates a clear intent to criminalize LGBT individuals. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, criminalization of legality of same-sex sexual activity just means it is not allowed to have private same-sex sexual activity within the country's jurisdiction. Like Malaysia for instance, their penal code doesn't allow any person to have same-sex sexual activity in private or public. However it is unable to be fully enforced since the right to privacy is still recognized as human rights world-wide. The proposed law that the PKS fraction wanted CANNOT criminalize private same-sex sexual acts, it only refers to public behavior, not private behavior.[2] It would be counted as discrimination instead of criminalization of private same-sex acts. Implicit suggestion is not enough to prove criminalization of private same-sex activity either, also the proposed law have a high chance of failing. Pineapplethen (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapplethen: I understand what criminalization is. The source clearly stated that the politician's intention was to have the anti-LGBT laws carry similar punishments as the drug laws, which also include rehabilitation. This point is explicitly stated, and two other editors also understand this. It seems you are completely ignoring the fact that drug laws have criminal provisions that criminalize users, distributors, and producers, and are only focusing on the provisions that allow for rehabilitation. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The politician mentioned in the source is also a member of the House of Representatives. They have the authority to propose laws that could potentially criminalize a wide range of activities, but whether those laws are accepted by other members of the House of Representatives and formally enacted is another matter. In this specific case, they expressed their support for proposed anti-LGBT laws that aim to ban and criminalize LGBT activities. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to refresh your memory, below are two comments by other editors that align with my understanding.
GraziePrego said Agree with Ckfasdf about including the word "criminalization"
OwenBlacker said This is clearly documented in a reliable source and is not a trivial event, I can see no reason not to include it. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That some politicians are not anti-LGBTQ+ does not mean that the calls for anti-LGBTQ+ laws did not happen. This should be documented in the article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did include calls for anti-LGBTQ+ laws within the scope of the article translations, however the article did not say LGBT people are going to prison for having same-sex sexual activity either. I literally didn’t change a thing other than correcting it based on actual translations. It is sometimes common for Indonesian editors to not have fully positive views on LGBT rights in general, for instance in the Indonesian Wikipedia version, the LGBT rights in Indonesia page is being vandalized although the govt says that the new criminal code would not criminalize same-sex sexual activity in private (referring to article 414 of the new KUHP)[3]. Pineapplethen (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Indonesia&oldid=1262916945"