There is not a single reason why the Film Censorship Board should ban the screening of Balibo at the current Jakarta International Film Festival. Whether the board realizes it or not, either on its own initiative or at the behest of a third party, the board seems to be engaged in a show of strength. This is not only an unhealthy development for our movie industry, but also for our democracy. The Film Censorship Board believes that moviegoers are incapable of independent thought, and need to be regulated and protected, from confusion or the influence of foreign elements.

The Film Censorship Board specifically views the scene showing the killing of five foreign journalists during the turmoil at Balibo, in the early stages of Indonesia's invasion of Timor Leste (formerly East Timor), as sadistic. The movie by Australian director Robert Connolly tells the story of the 1975 incident based on an investigation by Roger East, a journalist who went to Timor Leste at the invitation of Jose Ramos Horta (now President of Timor Leste). The Film Censorship Board says the film's plot is not based on historical facts and that this inaccuracy is irresponsible.

But historical facts depend on the person investigating them, and the outcome of such investigations do not always tell the whole truth. With an incident shrouded in mystery like a ghost coming and going, as in the Balibo case, all findings must be published so their veracity can be proven. The way to test the truth is not to obstruct anyone from discussing their findings.

In deciding whether to allow controversial films to be screened or not, the Film Censorship Board should learn from the Catholic Cinematographic Center, the Vatican body that studies films from the viewpoint of their morality.

In 1948, the movie Il Miracolo (The Miracle) was released in Italy. Directed by Roberto Rossellini, an Italian pioneer of neo-realism, the film attempted to question the issue of sainthood through Nanni, a young girl. In a drunken stupor, the village girl is tempted by a vagrant whom she thinks is Saint Joseph. Nanni then becomes pregnant. She views her pregnancy as holy, but her fellow villagers scorn her. They taunt her, physically abuse her and parade her on the streets with a washbasin on her head. Nanni manages to escape to a church on top of a hill, whereupon after giving birth, she experiences spiritual ecstasy.

Issues relating to sainthood are sensitive to the Church. The Catholic Cinematographic Center condemned the film, but it did not ban it. The film was shown at the Venice Film Festival, known for its unwillingness to screen works judged by the Vatican to be religiously offensive. The official Vatican newspaper, Osservatore Romano, published an appreciative review.

It said there were "serious objections from the religion's viewpoint," while highlighting the "undoubted fine quality of the scenes." It concluded by saying that "we still believe in Rossellini's works."

Such open thinking needs to be cultivated, including in our country. This is freedom to express an opinion, which is guaranteed in our Constitution, including the right to screen films, no matter where they come from.

In some countries, films are banned for many reasons – such as those containing topics on religion and sadism or more specifically, on incest and pedophilia. But even those reasons call for cool-headed thinking. An immediate ban does not have to be the first step.

We must remember that films, whatever they may be depicting, are entertainment. People must pay to watch them. Therefore the premise should be simple: if you do not want to watch it, do not go to the theater and buy a ticket. This also applies to the Jakarta Film Festival – seats are limited and moviegoers are automatically selected. Of course, we should not forget that digital technology now makes it easy for people to find anything that is inaccessible in their daily lives. This is precisely why the censorship and the banning is so absurd. What should be condemned is the knee-jerk reaction by the Film Censorship Board, which was supported by a number of organizations and institutions and an unfortunate sign of extreme intolerance and stupidity. It is wrong from any viewpoint. Banning is the language of those lacking in common sense.