Prohibition of Using Koteka Does Not Mean Discrimination Against Papuans

Prohibition of Using Koteka Does Not Mean Discrimination Against Papuans

The accused Papuan activist who wore a penis sheek during a trial at the Central Jakarta District Court did not violate the law, because what was worn was part of Indonesian culture. . It's just that what the Papuan activist did might be more relevant if it was done at the trial of the Papua District Court.

The prohibition of using koteka in the trial does not mean there is discrimination against Papuans. Don't misinterpret the definition of discrimination itself. All institutions have their own rules, the use of koteka is deemed inappropriate in court proceedings, the proof is that there are a lot of media that blur koteka photos.

The defendant said that the prohibition on using koteka was discrimination, the prohibition on using koteka in the trial was not because of discrimination, because each institution had its own rules that had to be obeyed. Isn't Koteka used in traditional events? No need to use Koteka if the aim will only cause controversy, and not as a Papuan identity.

The use of koteka in trials is an unusual thing. because koteka is only used in traditional events or official events. This is not discrimination against Papuans, but rather rules about modesty in dressing. There is no intention that shows discrimination.