Indonesia: Free Speech vs. Treason
In the two decades since the fall of Indonesian President Suharto's 32-year reign in 1998, the use of the accusation of "treason" as a governmental tool to quash political opposition gradually reemerged in the world's largest Muslim-majority country.
Today, however, those trying to overthrow the leadership are Islamists intent on unraveling the fabric of a pluralistic society. This situation has led to the debate over freedom of speech and the separation of church and state -- or, here, mosque and state. Four recent rallies in the capital city of Jakarta illustrate the nature of what has become a full-blown controversy. In each case, protesters gathered outside mosques after Friday prayers for what they claim are "spontaneous" demonstrations made necessary by their clerics' lack of financial resources to plan and stage such events. But evidence collected by Indonesian authorities indicates otherwise. The first such protest took place on October 14, 2016. Its purpose was to demand that criminal proceedings be launched against Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama -- familiarly known as Ahok -- for "blasphemy." Ahok, a Christian of Chinese descent, was appointed to his position in 2014, when Joko Widodo became president of Indonesia. Hardline Muslim groups argued that a Christian should not be allowed to govern a Muslim-majority city. To back up their claim, they cited the Quran. Their fury grew even greater when Ahok was running for reelection: he asked fishermen in Pulau Seribu not to be "deceived" by politicians using the Quranic verse, al-Maidah 51 ("...do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies"), to dissuade them from supporting him. Although Ahok subsequently apologized for his statement, he was put on trial for blasphemy. Thousands of Islamists, shouting "Burn Ahok!" and "We want a Muslim governor!", marched from the Istiqlal Mosque through the city. This ostensible eruption of emotions, according to deputy head of the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam, or FPI), had nothing to do with the upcoming gubernatorial election. It was, he said, religiously motivated. However, the presence at the rally of former House Speaker Amin Rais indicated that politics played just as big a role as faith. The second rally took place less than three weeks later, on November 4. According to the head of the FPI, some 7.5 million Muslims turned out that day. At the end of it, one protester had died of an asthma attack and two police trucks had been set on fire by an angry mob. Hours before the third rally, on December 2, police arrested 11 people on suspicion of treason for trying to overthrow the government. Among these were: the daughter of former President Suharto; prominent economist and activist Sri Bintang Pamungkas and two brothers, Jamran and Rizal Khobar, both members of the Islamic Students Association, a group responsible for an attack on security officials during the previous rally. In addition to the allegation of treason, Pamungkas was detained over social media posts, particularly a YouTube video from the previous month. Rizal and Jamran were accused of violating Indonesia's 2008 Electronic Information and Transactions Law. Ahead of the fourth rally in question, on March 31, a second batch of arrests was carried out by police. Among those detained was Muhammad Al Khaththath, a leader of the hardline Islamic People's Forum.
Although the case can be made, as it is in the West, for distinguishing between treason and the right to criticize one's government, the issue in Indonesia is currently more complex, due to the extremist religious agenda of the opposition. Rather than looking to their religious leaders to determine matters of faith, many are using Islam as a political weapon, and breaking laws that were written to protect the very minorities who are now being treated as second-class citizens. On April 19, the campaign of Jakarta's radicals, chanting "We want a Muslim governor!" paid off, as Ahok was defeated in the gubernatorial election. On May 10, Indonesia's radicals scored a second victory, when Ahok was found guilty of blaspheming Islam and sentenced to two years in prison, effective immediately. The verdict, which came as a surprise even to the prosecutors of the case, who had requested only a suspended sentence for the offense of "inciting hatred," was handed down by a five-judge panel of the North Jakarta District Court. One of the judges, Abdul Rosvad, explained the decision by saying, "...[A]s a public officer, the defendant should have known that religion is a sensitive issue so he should have avoided talking about [it]." Rosvad also denied allegations that Ahok's arrest, trial and imprisonment were politically motivated. "This is a pure criminal case," he said. However, the popular Christian governor was defeated by rival Anies Baswedan, a Muslim, and exit polls on election day indicated that religion was the main factor behind the voting. Dr. Melissa Crouch, of Australia's University of New South Wales, told the Sydney Morning Herald that the verdict should not have come as a surprise. "To be accused of blasphemy in Indonesia is effectively to be found guilty," she said. "This gives a lot of power to those -- such as religious leaders -- who may make the initial complaint to police regarding blasphemy charges." Ahok's lawyers say they will be appealing the verdict. Jacobus E. Lato is a writer and former editor, based in Surabaya, Indonesia.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
|
Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
Contact Form
Showing posts with label blasphemy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blasphemy. Show all posts
Monday, May 15, 2017
Indonesia Quickly Disintegrating Into An Islamic Shariah Governed Mess
Friday, November 4, 2016
When Free Speech Goes Away, So Do All Of Our Rights. Shame On The Netherlands! Free Expression, Regardless Of The Topic And Whether It Is Popular Or Not, Is The Basis Of A Free Society!
Europe's New Blasphemy Courts
Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors. In Britain, the gymnast Louis Smith has just been suspended for two months by British Gymnastics. This 27-year old sportsman's career has been put on hold, and potentially ruined, not because of anything to do with athletics but because of something to do with Islam.
Last month a video emerged online of the four-time Olympic medal-winner and a friend getting up to drunken antics after a wedding. The video -- taken on Smith's phone in the early hours of the morning -- showed a friend taking a rug off a wall and doing an imitation of Islamic prayer rituals. When the video from Smith's phone ended up in the hands of a newspaper, there was an immediate investigation, press castigation and public humiliation for the young athlete. Smith -- who is himself of mixed race -- was forced to parade on daytime television in Britain and deny that he is a racist, bigot or xenophobe. Notoriously liberal figures from the UK media queued up to berate him for getting drunk or for even thinking of taking part in any mockery of religion. This in a country in which Monty Python's Life of Brian is regularly voted the nation's favourite comic movie. After an "investigation," the British sports authority has now deemed Smith's behaviour to warrant a removal of funding and a two-month ban from sport. This is the re-entry of blasphemy laws through the back door, where newspapers, daytime chat-shows and sports authorities decide between them that one religion is worthy of particular protection. They do so because they take the religion of Islam uniquely on its own estimation and believe, as well as fear, the warnings of the Islamic blasphemy-police worldwide. The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film "Fitna" as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses -- the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen -- revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world's most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found "not guilty" of a non-crime in 2011. But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?" The audience responded, "Fewer, fewer." To which Wilders responded, "Well, we'll arrange that, then."
Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move. Whether or not one feels any support for Wilders's sentiments is not in fact the point in this case. The point is that by prosecuting someone for saying what he said, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer "more," or they will be committing a crime. What kind of way is that to order a public debate on immigration or anything else? People may say, "He wouldn't be allowed to say that about any other group of people." And Wilders himself may not say that about any group of people, because he has his own political views and his own interpretation of the problems facing his country. It is worth trying a thought-experiment: If Wilders or any other politician got up and asked a crowd "Do you want more or fewer British people in Holland," I may not -- as a British person -- feel terribly pleased with him for asking the question, or terribly happy with the crowd if they chanted "Fewer." Although if British expats in Holland were responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in the country, some mitigating sympathy for the sentiment may be forthcoming. But at no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be. Like the behaviour of the British Gymnastics association, the Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing, they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future. Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
|
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The Peaceful Religion Of Islam Demands Criminalization Of Anyone Who Criticizes It!
Muslim Group Wants The West To Criminalize Criticizing Islam
By Robert Gehl on December 24, 2013 Subscribe to Robert Gehl's Feed
A Muslim group – itself known for sexism and intolerance – has called on the Western world to make criticizing Islam a crime.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), based in Saudi Arabia, has released a 94-page document on “Islamophobia” that suggests saying the following things should be felonies: “Islam is an inherently expansionist religion,” and suggesting that Muslims are inclined toward violence.
In the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, there’s no respect for freedom of religion and it repeatedly claims all laws come from Sharia Law. In fact, Sharia law is mentioned no less than 15 times. Every right – every statement – comes with the caveat that it comport with Sharia law. It demands that there be “no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah.”
This would include blasphemy laws, which make “insulting Islam” punishable by death — laws the OIC wants to bring all Americans under.
It complains they play a “negative role” by propagating “stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam.” Specifically, it doesn’t like reporting on the “radicalization” of Muslims, arguing that Islam does not radicalize Muslims to the point where they commit terrorist acts.
Yeah, tell that to the terrorist who last May hacked to death a British soldier in London. At his sentencing this month, Michael Adebolajo said he did it to “make it to paradise.”
The OIC also demands non-Muslim nations observe all Muslim holidays. How is this not “expansionist”?
If the Islamofascists want to curb criticism of their faith in non-Muslim countries, they should rein in their supremacist attitudes as well as the hordes of terrorists who give their faith a bad name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


