San Francisco lawmakers vote to ban killer robots in drastic U-turn

Story by Sam Levin in Los Angeles 

San Francisco lawmakers voted to ban police robots from using deadly force on Tuesday, reversing course one week after officials had approved the practice and sparked national outrage.


Photograph: Jeff Chiu/AP© Provided by The Guardian

The city’s board of supervisors voted to explicitly prohibit the San Francisco police department (SFPD) from using the 17 robots in its arsenal to kill people. The board, however, also sent the issue back to a committee for further review, which means it could later decide to allow lethal force in some circumstances.

The U-turn came after the majority of members on the 11-person board had voted last week to allow robots to be armed with explosives and use them to kill people “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD”. The board had also added an amendment saying that only high-ranking officers would be allowed to authorize deadly force.

The initial decision to allow “killer robots” was met with widespread criticism from civil rights groups and shone a harsh light on the increasing militarization of US police forces.

Related video: San Francisco bans killer police robots for now (CBS News)
Duration 0:13
View on Watch



Police in San Francisco granted power to use robots

San Francisco's "killer robots" plan sparks protest

Supervisors and police officials who had originally supported the use of lethal force had said the robots would kill people only in extraordinary cases, such as suicide bombing or active shooter situations.

Hilary Ronen, one of three supervisors who originally voted against deploying killer robots, said at last week’s meeting: “I’m surprised that we’re here in 2022. We have seen a history of these leading to tragedy and destruction all over the world.” After Tuesday’s reversal, she tweeted: “Common sense prevailed.”

The new policy does allow SFPD to use robots for situational awareness, such as sending the equipment into dangerous situations while officers stay behind.

On Monday, supervisor Gordon Mar tweeted that he regretted voting in favor of lethal robots and said he’d be switching his position: “Even with additional guardrails, I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with our vote & the precedent it sets for other cities without as strong a commitment to police accountability. I do not think making state violence more remote, distanced, & less human is a step forward.

“I do not think robots with lethal force will make us safer, or prevent or solve crimes,” he added.

San Francisco police have a controversial history of using lethal force against civilians, and one former officer is now facing manslaughter charges for an on-duty killing.

SFPD chief William Scott defended the department’s push to allow robots to kill people, saying in a statement on Wednesday: “We cannot be limited in how we are able to respond if and when the worst-case scenario incident occurs in San Francisco.” He said the department was interested in “having the tools necessary to prevent loss of innocent lives in an active shooter or mass casualty incident”, adding that “part of our job is to prepare for the unthinkable”.

Scott continued, “We want to use our robots to save lives – not take them. To be sure, this is about neutralizing a threat by equipping a robot with a lethal option as a last case scenario, not sending an officer in on a suicide mission.”

The Associated Press contributed reporting

Meta avoids showdown over news content in US after journalism bargaining bill shelved

Story by Brian Fung • 2h ago


A threat by Facebook owner Meta to remove news content from its platforms appears to have been averted — for now — after US lawmakers omitted an antitrust bill it opposed from the text of an annual defense spending bill released late Tuesday evening.

Meta avoids showdown over news content
Duration 4:04
View on Watch

Meta had warned on Monday that if Congress passed the competition bill as part of the larger legislation — temporarily allowing digital news publishers to negotiate collectively against tech platforms for a larger share of ad revenues — then the social media giant “will be forced to consider removing news from our platform altogether.”

The warning had come amid 11th-hour reports that lawmakers were considering including the measure as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. Meta declined to comment on Wednesday morning.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a key architect of the news media bill, has argued that the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) is necessary to help small, local journalism outlets survive in the face of Google and Facebook’s advertising dominance. It is one of several tech-focused antitrust bills pending in Congress.

In a statement, Klobuchar said: “Continually allowing the big tech companies to dominate policy decisions in Washington is no longer a viable option when it comes to news compensation, consumer and privacy rights, or the online marketplace. We must get this done.”

Danielle Coffey, executive vice president of the News Media Alliance, a supporter of the JCPA, said the bill was removed from the NDAA due to the ordinary give-and-take of high-stakes legislation. Congressional Republicans were strongly opposed to including non-defense legislation in the defense bill, resulting in many “ornaments” being rejected, not just the JCPA, said Coffey.

“At the end of the day, that determines our fate, even though there’s bipartisan support for this legislation,” Coffey said. “I don’t think anyone disagrees with the overall intention, which is to help newsrooms around the country.”

Coffey vowed to keep pushing for the JCPA’s passage, adding that it would be “devastating” if the United States fails to pass the JCPA while other countries including Canada and New Zealand consider similar measures.

Fight for the Future, a digital rights group opposed to the JCPA, applauded the bill’s omission from the NDAA on Wednesday and called on congressional leaders to advance the remaining tech antitrust legislation, which would erect new barriers between tech giants’ various lines of business and force Apple to allow iOS users to download apps from any source.

“There are precious few days left,” said Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future. “It would be an embarrassment, and a travesty, if the Biden administration and Democratic leadership can’t deliver on their promise to rein in the abuses of Big Tech giants.”

The prospect of the JCPA’s imminent passage this week prompted swift pushback from the bill’s opponents, including some that at times have heavily criticized Big Tech.

In a letter Monday to congressional leaders, more than two dozen groups said the JCPA could make mis- and disinformation worse by allowing news websites to sue tech platforms for reducing a story’s reach and intimidating them into not moderating offensive or misleading content.

The letter also said the JCPA could end up disproportionately favoring large media companies over the small, local and independent outlets that have been hit the hardest by falling digital ad revenues.

Among those that signed the letter were the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Wikimedia Foundation and Public Knowledge.

The tech industry launched its own offensive to keep the JCPA out of the defense bill, with groups including NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association announcing ad campaigns targeting the measure.

Meta, meanwhile, turned to a familiar playbook in threatening to remove from the platform. When similar legislation was on the verge of passing in Australia last year, the company briefly suspended users’ ability to share and view links to news stories on its platforms. (It later changed course and the legislation passed later that year.)

Opinion: Why Justice Alito's 'jokes' are so stunning

Opinion by Jill Filipovic • Yesterday 

If anything sums up the increasing arrogance and fecklessness of our now far-right Supreme Court, it is this: The same Supreme Court justice who penned the decision stripping a fundamental right from American women spent Monday on the bench making a joke about Black children in KKK outfits.

Santa Claus, the KKK, and other bizarre hypotheticals raised by Supreme Court in LGBTQ rights case
Duration 3:29  View on Watch

Justice Samuel Alito, who signed his name to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and has catapulted millions of American women into a dystopian misogynist hellscape that has nearly cost many of them their lives, apparently decided to play Court Jester by making a series of inappropriate jokes Monday during oral arguments for a case addressing whether a website designer could hypothetically refuse service to gay clients for their weddings. The basics are this: A Colorado graphic designer who wants to create wedding websites says she won’t make those websites for same-sex couples getting married, but she will make them for opposite-sex couples.

Notably, this woman isn’t yet running a wedding website business; she also hasn’t been sued by anyone or been in any way challenged for breaking Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. Her case is before the Supreme Court anyway. Her lawyers say that requiring her to provide wedding websites to gay couples if she’s providing them to straight ones is tantamount to her publicly endorsing same-sex marriages, which is compelled speech and a violation of her First Amendment rights.

But opponents argue – and I would agree – that the more fundamental question in this case is whether a business open to the general public can refuse service to people in violation of state anti-discrimination laws under the guise of free speech or religious freedom.

It’s an important anti-discrimination case with the potential to shape whether laws barring discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and sexuality can continue to stand. In the narrowest sense, it could make same-sex marriages second-tier, not entitled to the same privileges and protections as opposite-sex ones.

But Alito treated it as a big gag, and, it seemed, intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting the arguments in favor of enforcing anti-discrimination laws. When Justice Ketanji Jackson put forward a relevant hypothetical about a Santa Claus at the mall wanting to create his own vision of a traditional Christmas by only posing with White children, the lawyer for the graphic designer said he wasn’t sure – that would be an “edge case.”

Then Alito added his two cents: What if, he asked, a Black Santa at the mall refused to pose with children wearing KKK outfits?

This question was met with some snickers from the usually-silent audience in the chamber. And Alito seemed pleased with himself.

He shouldn’t have been. The Colorado Attorney General quickly knocked his question down, responding that there are not legal protections for the right to wear a KKK outfit. Justice Kagan added, too, that the Santa’s complaint wasn’t about the hypothetical child’s race, but the hypothetical child’s outfit.

“You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time,” Alito countered – again, trying to joke around from the bench. (Does Justice Alito see a lot of White children in Ku Klux Klan outfits?)

It was all incredibly unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice. But Alito’s behavior also points to something more insidious: how lightly and un-seriously he appears to take these proceedings, which could have dire effects on people’s lives across the country. Alito has been on the far-right end of a right-wing court that has radically undermined not just abortion rights, but the right of students to be free from the establishment of religion in public schools, the ability of politicians to regulate guns, and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with climate change. His opinion in Dobbs is dripping with mockery of previous decisions that enshrined women’s rights into law.

This all comes as the court’s reputation is in the gutter, and as much of the public is questioning its legitimacy: Fewer than half of Americans now say they trust the Supreme Court. Trust in the court dropped precipitously as it swung to the right, overturned Roe and leaned into overt partisanship by issuing a series of conservative rulings. This is a big problem, not just for the court itself, but for American democracy and stability.

This court has made clear that it is more than willing to roll back the rights of women and minority groups, and to give preferential treatment to Christianity and Christians. Case by case, it is building an America in which those who look, love or worship differently from the White Christian population have fewer rights and less of an ability to live freely.

And Alito, arguably the leader of the court’s arch-conservative wing, seems to find it all very amusing.

GANG WARFARE LIKE HAITI

Jamaica declares widespread state of emergency to fight violent crime

Story by Teele Rebane • Yesterday 

A widespread state of emergency has been declared across Jamaica to fight violent crime, the island nation’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness said in a public address Wednesday.

“All Jamaicans should be able to enjoy the Christmas season free from the threat of violence. We have some really serious criminal threats facing us and we have to use all the powers at our disposal,” Holness said.

The State of Emergency (SOE) will be enforced in nine of Jamaica’s 14 parishes, including Clarendon, Saint Catherine, Westmoreland, Hanover and parts of Kingston, Saint Andrew, Saint Ann and Saint James, which encompasses the popular tourist destination Montego Bay.


Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness arrives for the opening session of the 9th Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, California, June 9, 2022. - Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

The state of emergency allows authorities to arrest people and search buildings without a warrant.

“We have to ensure that our homicide rate and the level of violence that citizens experience on a daily basis does not get to the point where it threatens to collapse the state,” Holness added in his address.

Jamaica, which has one of the highest murder rates in the Carribean (per 100,000 people), previously imposed an SOE over several areas across the Island on November 15, but it ended on November 29 after it failed to pass a senate vote to have it extended.

The newly announced SOE was met with backlash from members of the public as well as opposition politicians.

During the last SOE Jamaica’s Supreme Court ruled that island authorities had violated the rights of a man who was arbitrarily arrested and detained for months without trial.

UN experts warn of negative effects of the Mayan Train in Mexico

United Nations experts have expressed their concern on Wednesday about the Mayan Train macro-project, 1,500 kilometers of railroad tracks in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula, due to the collateral effects it may have on the environment, indigenous peoples and the use of natural resources.


Archive - Construction work for the Mayan Train in Mexico -

 EL UNIVERSAL / ZUMA PRESS / CONTACTOPHOTO© Provided by News 360

The President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is one of the main supporters of this project, but experts consider that the Government must adopt "additional measures" that will ultimately guarantee respect for human rights and the environment.

They warn of the threats and attacks against those who challenge this initiative, as well as the limited access to independent and impartial justice, in a particularly problematic context because it is a project elevated to the category of national security.

This change of status makes it possible to derogate certain safeguards, but for the experts, it cannot make Mexico avoid its "obligation" to "respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of the people affected by this megaproject and to protect the environment in accordance with international standards".

This decision, they warned, "not only has the potential to allow human rights abuses to go unaddressed, but also undermines the project's purpose of bringing inclusive and sustainable social and economic development to the five Mexican states involved."

The chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Fernanda Hopenhaym, has also expressed her "grave concern" over "the growing involvement of the military in the construction and management of the project," which has been mired in controversy since its conception.

Among the requests made by these rapporteurs is the need for meaningful participation of affected communities, as well as the need for any assessment of the possible effects of the Mayan Train to be prepared and published in a clear manner.

"The free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples must be respected and the actual and potential cumulative impacts of projects must be assessed in a transparent manner, in accordance with international human rights and environmental standards," the signatories have stressed.

MESSAGE TO COMPANIES 

The message of the rapporteurs also extends to the participation of companies, which they urge to take into account all those derived from a project that entails costs of some 20 billion dollars.

They consider that "relevant companies and investors domiciled in Spain, the United States and China cannot turn a blind eye to the serious human rights problems related to the Tren Maya project".

ABOUT TIME!!!

UNGA affirms that Israel must give up its nuclear weapons

Story by By TOVAH LAZAROFF • JPA

Members enter into UNGA 390© (photo credit: reuters)

The United Nations General Assembly affirmed that Israel must give up its nuclear weapons in a 149-6 vote taken on Wednesday.

An earlier version of the text was approved in the UNGA's Fifth Committee in October with a 152-5 vote.

Ukraine had voted against Israel in the Fifth Committee, but this time around was absent from the proceedings after it had been criticized for standing against Israel.

Those who opposed the resolution were: Canada, Israel, Micronesia, Palau and the United States. Liberia, which had been absent from the vote in October, changed its position and opposed the text.

Another 26 countries, including India and many European states, abstained from the resolution which is part of an annual package of over 15 anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian texts the UNGA approves.


Nuclear bomb explosion (credit: PUBLIC DOMAIN)

Israel is the only country subject to that many resolutions.


Does Israel actually have nuclear weapons?

The Jewish state is believed to be the only one of nine countries to possess nuclear weapons and the only one in the region, even though it has never admitted to having such an arsenal.

The resolution presumes that Israel has such weapons. It calls on Israel to "not to develop, produce, test or others acquire nuclear weapons" and to "renounce possession of nuclear weapons."

The resolution also called on Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty and to place "all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy safeguards.

Israel, along with India, Pakistan and South Sudan has not signed the treaty.

The resolution was put forward by the Palestinian Authority and 20 countries, including Israel's allies in the Middle East such as Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates.

It was voted on just as Israel's Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan and his Emirati counterpart are leading a joint mission of ambassadors to the UN on a visit to the Jewish state.

The resolution itself was part of a slew of dozens of texts that deal with the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, in which Israel at times opposed or abstained.

It was the only country to vote against a resolution calling for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, a text that had the support of 175 out of the UN 193 nations.

Two countries obtained from that vote, the United States and Singapore.

Argentine President expresses his solidarity with Cristina Fernandez: «Today an innocent person has been convicted».

Story by Daniel Stewart • Yesterday Provided by News 360

The president of Argentina, Alberto Fernández, has expressed his solidarity with his vice-president Cristina Fernández Kirchner, after an Argentine court sentenced her on Tuesday to six years in prison and life disqualification from holding public office for the 'Vialidad case'.


File image of Alberto Fernandez, President of Argentina, with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Vice President of Argentina. - Prensa Senado/telam/dpa

"Today, in Argentina, an innocent person has been convicted. Someone whom the powers that be tried to stigmatize through the media and persecuted through complacent judges who ride around in private planes and luxury mansions on weekends", criticized the Argentine president.

Thus, the leader of the country, who has shown his "solidarity with Cristina Fernández knowing that she is the victim of an absolutely unjust persecution", has denounced that the conviction "is the result of a trial in which the minimum forms of due process were not taken care of", a process in which even "the principle of not judging the same fact twice was violated".

Alberto Fernandez has maintained that, in this case, "politics has entered the courts". With this, "justice escapes through the window", he has lambasted, through a series of messages published on his Twitter account.

In addition, the president has urged the population to take Kirchner's side "for his innocence." "All good men and women who love democracy and the rule of law must stand by his side."

Fernández had been accused of participating in a scheme to defraud the state through the concession of public works in Santa Cruz province during her tenure as president (2007-2015) and that of former president and her late husband, Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007).

Fernández reacted immediately after the sentence by denouncing being the victim of a "parallel State" and of "a judicial mafia" and remarked that when she was president of Argentina she had neither "control of the laws that are approved" in the Legislative nor "nor did she administer the budget".

In her extensive response, Fernández pointed out that "the real sentence is not prison", but "perpetual disqualification to hold public office" and announced that she will not run in the 2023 elections. "They condemn a model of economic development and recognition of the rights of the people," he said.

Latin American leaders condemn sentence against Cristina Fernandez and express their support for her

 Yesterday 

Several Latin American political leaders have expressed their support for the vice-president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández Kirchner, while condemning the sentence of an Argentine court that sentenced her to six years in prison and perpetual disqualification from holding public office for an alleged corruption offense in the 'Vialidad case'.


File - File image of a rally in San Luis in support of Cristina Fernandez, vice president of Argentina. - TÉLAM/ELIAN OBREGÓN© Provided by News 360

The president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has enunciated his "broadest solidarity" with the Argentine vice-president. "I have no doubt that she is the victim of political revenge and anti-democratic vileness of conservatism," he said.

The Cuban leader, Miguel Díaz-Canel, wanted to reiterate his rejection "to politically motivated judicial processes", reaffirming "all" his "support and solidarity" to Fernández Kirchner "in the face of the judicial and media harassment against her". To this message, Díaz-Canel added two messages: "Cuba embraces you" and "All with Cristina".

The president of Honduras, Xiomara Castro, has joined the solidarity and support sent to the Argentine vice-president, "who is now facing the attack of the 'lawfare' after surviving a failed attempt against her".

"The truth will prevail and the will of the Argentine people supports you", added the Honduran president before expressing "strength to Cristina".

In the same line, the president of Bolivia, Luis Arce, indicated that "they are trying to ban Fernandez de Kirchner from political life with an unjust sentence".

"We are sure that the truth will prevail over any attack against the dignity of the people and democracy in our great homeland", added Arce.

Former Bolivian President Evo Morales also condemned the sentence and expressed his support for the Argentine politician. "Our most vehement repudiation and condemnation against the judicial and rigged coup that tries to truncate the political rights of our sister Cristina Kirchner," he said on Twitter.

"After failing in their attempt to assassinate her, today they try to eliminate her politically. Strength sister Cristina, the fight goes on!", Morales criticized.

From Brazil, the president of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's Workers' Party, Gleisi Hoffman, has spoken out, indicating that Cristina is "victim of persecution and politicization of the Judiciary". "The PT is at her side, strength, the truth will win".

Honduras initiates 30-day state of emergency to fight gangs

Story by Daniel Stewart • Yesterday  Provided by News 360

The Honduran government has decreed a state of emergency that will last for at least the next 30 days, in an attempt to contain high crime rates, especially in the cities of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula.


A Honduran military officer and a policeman (file).

 - GILES CAMPBELL / ZUMA PRESS / CONTACTOPHOTO

Authorities have put the spotlight on some of the most troubled neighborhoods in the two main Honduran cities, where gangs have been stepping up their criminal activities, such as robberies and extortion.

"We must be implacable against organized crime," said the director of the Honduran National Police, Gustavo Sanchez, during the launch of a special operation that began with an impromptu ceremony in a neighborhood in southern Tegucigalpa.

Hundreds of police have since been carrying out searches and arrests in some of these areas controlled by the Mara-18 and Mara Salvatrucha gangs, the main targets of this operation, according to Sanchez, who asked the agents to fully respect human rights.

Related video: Honduras declares national emergency; President Xiomara Castro announces 'war on extortion' (WION)  Duration 2:32 View on Watch

Despite the measure, the authorities have explained that it will only affect those who are members of these types of organizations, so the rest of the citizens have full freedom of movement to carry out their normal activities, although they may be detained by the agents until their identities are verified.

Of the almost 300 municipalities in the country, only two, those of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, are under this measure. In the capital, 89 neighborhoods are being intervened, while in the second city there are 73, reports the Honduran newspaper 'La Prensa'.

On Thursday last week, the president of Honduras, Xiomara Castro, announced the implementation of a state of emergency that would last at least until January 6 due to the "national emergency" faced by the country because of the increase in crime.

The decree approved by Castro stated that "by virtue of the serious disturbance of peace and security" in the country's main cities caused by criminal groups, it had been decided to "suspend the guarantees established in the Constitution" and empower the Police to arrest those they consider responsible "for associating, executing, or having links" with crimes and offenses.

The measure is reminiscent of a similar one announced by one of its also troubled neighbors, El Salvador, where its president, Nayib Bukele, has had a state of emergency for more than seven months now, amidst criticism and denunciations of human rights violations by international organizations.

Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid

Story by Reuters • Yesterday 

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The Mexican lower house of Congress on Tuesday rejected a controversial electoral reform backed by the president, after critics said the proposal had the potential to undermine the country's electoral independence.

Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid© Thomson Reuters

With 269 votes in favor, 225 votes against, and one abstention, the leading party and its allies fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill, which sought to convert the National Electoral Institute (INE) into a smaller and more powerful body of elected officials, alongside other political changes.


Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid© Thomson Reuters

Still, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has already initiated an alternative route to get his reform through, having hours earlier sent a new proposal to the lower house. This does not include constitutional changes, and therefore requires only the simple majority the ruling coalition holds.


Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid© Thomson Reuters

The new bill, as anticipated, is also somewhat less ambitious, with its main objective to reorganize and redefine the administrative tasks of the INE, as well as closing offices that will allow $150 million a year in savings.

Related video: Thousands protest in Mexico against electoral reform proposal (WION)   Duration 2:18   View on Watch

The rejected bill was seen by the political opposition as a threat to democracy and organizations such as Human Rights Watch said that the "regressive" initiative put at risk the continuation of "free and fair" elections.

Lopez Obrador, known by his acronym AMLO, has defended his proposal as a way to strengthen democracy and reduce the influence of economic interests in politics.

In mid-November, a massive protest against the president's electoral reform brought tens of thousands of people to the streets, prompting a counter-march led by the president to support it.



Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid© Thomson Reuters

Still, AMLO's insistence on approving his bill before he leaves office in 2024 has had an unexpected result of uniting a fractured opposition and emboldening it ahead of next year's regional elections.

(Reporting by Diego Ore; Writing by Isabel Woodford; Editing by Sandra Maler)


Mexican Congress rejects president's electoral reform bid© Thomson Reuters

NO SEX ON THE BEACH
Tourists 'think twice' about Indonesia following criminal code revisions

Story by Reuters • 

KUTA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Indonesia's decision to outlaw cohabitation and sex outside of marriage may hurt the tourism industry in Bali, travelers and businesses said, just as the island destination gets back on its feet after the COVID pandemic.


Passengers arrive at the I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport in Badung, Bali© Thomson Reuters

In an overhaul of its criminal code that critics have called a step backwards for the world's third-largest democracy, Indonesia this week introduced a host of laws, including banning insulting state institutions and spreading views counter to the country's secular ideology, in addition to morality clauses.

Travelers and businesses warned the new laws could deter foreigners from visiting or investing in Indonesia.

"If I can't stay with my girlfriend in a hotel together, I'd think twice about it," said Wu Bingnan, a 21-year-old tourist from China who was visiting Bali.

Related video: Indonesia Passes Legislation Criminalizing Adultery (Newsweek)

Duration 0:38

View on Watch

Changes to the criminal code will only come into force in three years' time, but Maulana Yusran, deputy chief of Indonesia's tourism industry board, has said the new rules were "totally counter-productive".

Others sought to calm fears of a morality-related crackdown in Indonesia, a nation of 17,000 islands where citizens are predominantly moderate Muslim.

"The regulation just makes it clearer than what we have at the moment, that only certain people have the right to lodge a complaint. (As hotel operators) we are not worried and don't feel that it will impact our business," said Arie Ermawati, manager of Bali's Oberoi Hotel.

Currently, Indonesia bans adultery but not premarital sex. The new criminal code says such activity can only be reported by limited parties, such as a spouse, parent or child.

Foreign arrivals in Bali are expected to reach pre-pandemic levels of 6 million by 2025, the tourism association said previously.

(Reporting by Sultan Anshori; Editing by Crispian Balmer)