Instead of rereading myself, I should've named the title "Rereading What I Wrote On My Previous Post." I wrote that piece while being mad, or, quoting myself, enraged about what is happening in Indonesia. Of course, it turned out to be an unprofessional, nonintellectual long rant that even I doubt the causes and effects mentioned were actually causal. Shouldn't have so easily related Indonesia's fear and hatred toward LGBTQ with Indonesia's forceful censorship on TV. My bad. I was naive and immature (I still can't guarantee I'm over that, but we all grow up everyday, and enough sleep always helps).
This is 2016, and it feels like London in 1988. How do I know it when I am still 23? Well, Alan Moore in 1988 voiced exactly what it feels like to be in a situation like this: "The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against." And if this general statement is not enough, he added a personal statement that also speaks for me: "I'm thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime over the next couple of years. It's cold and it's mean spirited and I don't like it here anymore." Although the family to which I refer would not be my husband and children, and Indonesia is definitely not cold, the rest of the sentence works well to describe what's been accumulating in my head. Thank you, Alan Moore, and your preface for V for Vendetta (1989).
Indonesia has it more or less the same now with U.K. then. Only it was Christianity, not Islam, that stood as the grounding rule. As I have mentioned in my previous post, Abrahamic religions rule homosexuality as sinful. This newly discovered fact about which you can read all in
Wikipedia (of course, if you're looking for some strong facts backed by evidence and legal historical record, never put your faith in Wikipedia--I have nothing against the page, but it is editable. Meaning anyone can alter the content. Helpful, but not reliable) makes me rethink of how public figures and much-publicized institutions shape religions in the eyes of the society. London was famous for its Christianity as well as Indonesia (or I should say, Jakarta and the surrounding areas) is famous for our Islam.
I don't know how people perceive these religions then and now, but I do know that it will be small wonder if there are people who think Islam is too dominant in Indonesia. I mean, the public figures and institutions here truly have no chill. Referring to (again) my previous post, I have described how it is here and now--childish instant reaction to things they don't understand.
Anyway, I will not make this about religion. Religions are religions, with their set of rules. They are neither to be challenged nor are they to be altered to suit our own needs and wants. The only thing that sadly turns religions into reasons for judging other people is that they are open to interpretation. It just so happens that sometimes, the people who interpret it become the face of the religion--while in the process, smudging its purity and kindness.
Regarding the LGBTQ issue, because the authorities has called it out as sinful, there has been a publication from Indonesia Broadcasting Commission about the prohibition from displaying transgender women and related behavior on TV. A mosque for transgender community in Jogjakarta is closed. Hate speech mushroomed. An ex-minister tweeted a misinterpreted/incompletely interpreted hadith allowing the killing of transgender people. It is dangerous, what these public figures could do with their hastily shallow understanding about their own faith and their own people.
I said I will not make this about religion. However, it is almost unavoidable to see that amidst this controversy about LGBTQ, a strong sense of Islamic solidarity is formed among the majority of Indonesians. It is natural, I must say. After all, Islam is against homosexuality (right, about that, I'm trying to say this, but. . .yeah, I can't help myself: Islam is against homosexuality, true, but Islam is never against embracing people. Go, read some history on Islam. Read the story of our Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and tell me it isn't right. You will know what I'm suggesting here).
I cannot say that this solidarity and this sudden re-realization of "Islamic values" are directly related to censorship in media (or even if it is related at all), but before you know it, everywhere things are blurred. Censorship at its best. It has been disturbing for quite some times since they decided to censor cigarettes and even the slightest cleavage on TV, but only recently I found out they also made up their mind to censor guns. In a frenzy action movie culture, censoring guns means mosaics here and there. Still, what blew everyone's mind was these two outrageous censorship: the one on cartoons and the one on kebaya, our own traditional dress. The skirt worn by Shizuka from Doraemon is considered too short (she is a 5-year-old). The bikini worn by Sandy from Spongebob Squarepants is considered inappropriate (she is a squirrel). The kebaya worn by the beauty pageant contestants is considered showing too much skin (. . . .it is our own traditional attire?).
Whether or not Islamic values are related to this unfortunate event, what happens happens. As insane as it is, this is the face of Indonesian media these days: frightened by women's body. Pardon the use of words; I am a woman and I am offended. Cigarettes are dangerous for our health, as it is scientifically proven. Guns are dangerous because it is a weapon, it harms people and breaks things. Is women's body dangerous? If you say so with whatever reason you might have (apart from religion, because it is complicated to elaborate women's position in Islam and it will need a whole another post), congratulations. You see the world through men's eyes. As Naomi Wolf said, "Beauty provokes harassment, the law says, but it looks through men's eyes when deciding what provokes it." (The Beauty Myth, 1990). If any, women's body are dangerous for themselves. Some men are so used to having excuses justifying women's objectification.
You might challenge me and argue, "You said 'apart from religion', which means it can be that these censorship guys censored TV according to rules set in religions! We see this from religions' eyes, you insolent writer!" Well, think again. Which religion forbids women from showing their skin? If your answer is Islam, think again. Is Indonesia an Islamic country? The majority of us are Muslims, I know, but is it an Islamic country? Is Indonesian law supposedly rooted from Islamic rules? You just gotta think and think again. Indonesia is home to diversity. Different languages, skin colors, religions, beliefs, norms, social values, lifestyles. There is never a rule that says majority is law. You know, you might think I'm kafir by now, and I disrespect Islam by wearing hijab while having an opinion like this. It's fine. I'm a Muslim neither because of nor for you (that, if I'm a Muslim at all; you and I both know only Allah can pass someone as a true Muslim).
All in all, again, I made this too intertwined with religion (okay, Islam). But, really, you cannot talk about these two issues without relating it with Islam. The country that was once famous for its friendly pluralism is no longer. And sometimes, to me, it is as if the government forget that they are the leaders of diverse people--they play favorites with only some groups. Coincidentally, it is Islam. Still, recalling the history of LGBTQ in London, I doubt this parade will last for long. The same goes for women's objectification.