Indonesia: Blasphemy law violates women’s rights
The law on blasphemy tramples on the rights of women, the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) testified Friday in the judicial review of the 1965 law. Commission chairwoman Yunianti Chuzzifah told the Constitutional Court her organization had received several reports from women who had been discriminated against because they were followers of religious sects and traditional beliefs not officially recognized by the government. “The implementation of the 1965 Blasphemy Law … violates women’s constitutional right not to be discriminated against,” Yunianti said. “Female members of some faiths and beliefs that aren’t recognized by the state can’t obtain an ID card unless they list one of the official religions [on the ID], which is done against their will.” The commission testified in the review as a related party.
The Constitutional Court has so far held seven hearing in the review, filed by petitioners from NGOs and self-proclaimed supporters of pluralism in October last year. Yunianti said many women from these unrecognized faiths had also been deprived of the right to a registered marriage. “Children borne from the union are denied birth certificates because the mother isn’t considered an individual before the law,” she said. “As the result, the children are denied the right to an education, or worse, suffer the stigma of being labeled illegitimate children.” Such a situation, she added, clearly violated children’s right to grow and be free from violence and discrimination.
Yunianti cited cases of women from the Ahmadiyah sect bringing their case to her commission to tell of the hardship they endured with every attack on the group. “They reported of being threatened with rape, and of being sexually harassed during attacks and when they took refuge,” she said. “They also told of being fired from their jobs as teachers, and of their children getting second-class treatment from teachers.” Her testimony was met with loud jeers from the gallery, mostly members of hard-line Islamic groups.
The Ahmadiyah are deemed heretics by mainstream Muslims for recognizing sect founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet. Islamic teaching holds up Muhammad as the final prophet. For years, Ahmadis have suffered attacks from various hard-line Muslim groups, including the fire-bombing of their mosques and homes. Also testifying Wednesday was Jakarta Interfaith Communication Forum chairman Ahmad Syafi’i Mufid, who said that even in democracies, human rights and freedom of religion had their boundaries.
“One’s freedom to embrace a religion or belief is limited by the law, which prevails to maintain security, order, health and public morality, and to protect other people’s basic rights and freedom,” he said. He called on the court to dismiss the review of the law, adding that if it were revised, the government must immediately issue a regulation-in-lieu-of-law of greater clarity and detail “so as to avoid misinterpretation which could lead to chaos and vigilantism”.
Culture analyst Emha Ainun Nadjib, testifying as an expert witness, said rescinding or retaining the law could both prove dangerous. “If the law is repealed, it will create new conflicts and generate hatred,” he said. “But if it’s retained, there will always be anxiety.” He added he would not recommend either choice unless “all of us pledge not to threaten one another”.
* Source: The Jakarta Post, Tuesday, April 20, 2010 04:05 AM
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/13/blasphemy-law-violates-women%E2%80%99s-rights-commission.html
Blasphemy law, a shackle to the Indonesian people
Indonesia, the third-largest democracy in the world, may be facing gloomy days ahead. In December 2009, the late former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid led a coalition of civil society organizations in filing a judicial review against the archaic blasphemy law (PNPS No. 1/1965). A move to abolish this problematic law would expectedly further consolidate Indonesia’s democracy, freedom and harmony.
Unfortunately there is strong resistance from the government and several religious and social groups against this move. Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali and Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar officially rejected this judicial review.
On Feb. 4, Suryadharma Ali met with leaders of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) to talk about the judicial review.
This is an unbelievably disappointing move by a government official of his stature.
The FPI is a militant organization and the HTI is a global organization whose aim is to combine all Muslim countries into a unitary Islamic state or caliphate. The HTI is an organization that is even banned and proscribed in many Arab and Islamic countries.
The FPI, and particularly the HTI, should not have a say on matters of the Indonesian people. The HTI does not represent the interests of the Indonesian people and our nation.
The argument proposed by defenders of this blasphemy law, is that the law is meant to maintain harmony and peace among religions. Forgive me for saying this: “It is complete baloney!”
This PNPS No. 1/1965 has been the ground on which the Criminal Code (KUHP), article 156a, rests. This KUHP, instead of maintaining peace and harmony, has been the umbrella under which various militant groups attack, burn and destroy others.
A recent example is the case of Welhelmina Holle in Masohi, Central Maluku, in December 2008. There were accusations and rumors that Holle, an elementary school teacher, had been offensive about a religion in one of his lectures in class.
As a result, a mob ran amok and destroyed 67 houses, a house of worship, and a community building. Hole was put on trial under the pretext of that law.
It is the existence of the blasphemy law that ignites conflict. It does not maintain harmony and peace.
The blasphemy law is just problematic on so many levels. Ironically it appears that many support it.
Newspaper reports regarding the blasphemy law may seem to picture a widespread rejection to the judicial review. But it is important to take this with a grain of salt. Opposition to the judicial review is only proclaimed by heads of institutions and a mob of “radical” groups with loud voices.
Most Indonesians are perhaps rather oblivious or rather ignorant regarding the case. Considering it is not on the headlines and the complicity of jargons used in the case.
However, we can be sure if explained properly, the public will want the abolition of the blasphemy law.
Not only is this law problematic sociologically as illustrated above. It is in direct contradiction to our Constitution.
Indonesia is a unitary state. The highest law of the land is the Constitution (UUD 1945), and all the laws under it should be in line with the Constitution.
On the same token all the lower laws of the land should also not contradict each other.
An important point to note is: our Constitution protects religious freedom to its citizens as individuals, not the freedom for religious groups to bash on others.
Article 28E on freedom of religion clearly states that each person/human/citizen has the right to choose and believe according to their conscience.
In 2008, Indonesia ratified an International Convention on discrimination and passed a law to abolish Racial and Ethnic Discrimination (UU PDRE).
This law rules that no one can be discriminated based on their beliefs, values or rituals that belongs to their group (articles 3, 4).
In short, the antiquated blasphemy law is no longer needed. It violates the Constitution and is also in contradiction to a law of equal stature (UU PDRE).
In 2007, Hudson Institute published a comprehensive study on freedom of religion around the world. The study ranked countries in the same manner as Freedom House’s rankings. A country is ranked from 1 to 7, 1 being most free and 7 not free or repressed. Indonesia was ranked at 5 (partly free).
A surprise and disappointment, particularly considering Malaysia was ranked at 4. At that time I did not agree with the classification given by Hudson Institute.
Regardless of the various horizontal conflicts (cited by Hudson as reason for the low ranking of Indonesia), it did not make sense that Indonesia is less free in terms of religious freedom compared to Malaysia.
But today, I think Hudson Institute was accurate after all.
Although the blasphemy law case has not hit headlines in local newspapers, the International Community observes us closely. For example, the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has submitted an amicus brief in support of the judicial review to the Constitutional Court.
The deterioration or progress of freedom in Indonesia is important not only to Indonesians but also to the world.
We do not and should no longer live in the Dark Ages where blasphemy laws, inquisitions and burning of heretics are part of society. Indonesia is a religious country based on harmony, peace, multiculturalism and acceptance of differences.
It is important for our leaders to realize that without religious freedom, Indonesia cannot move forward.
Many academic studies show the strong correlation between economic growth and religious freedom. The works of Ilan Alon and Gregory Chase “Religious Freedom and Economic Prosperity” and the extensive studies of Grim and Finke are only a tip of the iceberg of evidences showing that religious freedom is important for a country’s growth and prosperity.
The decision by the Constitutional Court under Mahfud M.D. will be an immensely important one regarding the future of the nation. It will be a very tough decision, considering the amount of political and organizational pressure on the Constitutional Court.
It should have the courage to make a decision based on what is right, rather than submit to pressure. After all Malcolm Muggeridge once said: “only dead fish swim with the current!”
Tobias Basuki, Jakarta
* The writer, an alumnus from Northern Illinois University, Department of Political Science, is Director of Research and Studies at Institut Leimena.
* Source: The Jakarta Post, Tuesday, April 20, 2010
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/11/blasphemy-law-a-shackle-indonesian-people.html
Indonesia: Plaintiffs expect progressive ruling on blasphemy law
More than half of the experts presented by the Constitutional Court agree the blasphemy law is problematic, boosting plaintiffs’ confidence that a judicial review to contest the law will be successful.
The court has recently upset women’s rights activists and supporters of pluralism by rejecting a judicial review of the controversial pornography law, which they said could be used to criminalize women and artists. The petitioners of the judicial review of the blasphemy law, however, believed the result of their endeavor would be less gloomy. One of the plaintiffs, noted Muslim scholar and women’s rights activist Musdah Mulia, said she was “optimistic” the court would rule in favor of the petitioners.
“This is a new found awareness… on the law that applies in the country and [impinges] constitutional rights. It is unfortunate, though, that this awareness has only been felt by a small group [of intellectuals] but not people in general,” she told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.
After 12 hearings, the court has seen a total of 49 experts take the stand, 16 of whom were appointed by the court. They are considered to be more neutral than experts presented by the petitioners and the government. Eight, including noted Muslim intellectual Azyumardi Azra, Catholic priest FX Mudji Sutrisno and cultural observer and poet Taufik Ismail, asked for the controversial law to be revised. Many have criticized the ambiguity of the law’s definition of blasphemy. Azyumardi said the revised law should “provide a clearer definition of what constitutes blasphemy”.
Five other experts, also presented by the court, recommended scrapping the law altogether. They include liberal Muslim scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla, reverend S.A.E Nababan and cultural observer and critically-acclaimed cinematographer Garin Nugroho.
Garin, the last expert to testify in the judicial review request, said the law has discouraged Indonesians from discussing religious issues. “It is the biggest setback in the history of this nation in terms of democracy and its agenda for pluralism,” he added.
One expert, Djohan Effendy of the Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace (ICRP), said that the law “has claimed victims”. Although he did not give his recommendation on whether to keep or scrap the law, he agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that “faith falls into God’s authority. The state and its apparatus should never interfere”.
Another court-appointed expert, anthropologist Ahmad Fedyani Saifuddin, recommended enacting new regulations to replace the 45-year-old Blasphemy Law. He deemed the law irrelevant as Indonesians today are living in a different country than in the 1960s. Back then, he said, the government focused on ensuring national integration and pacifying the revolution and the guided democracy.
But one court expert argued that the law should be retained. Edward Omar Syarif Hiariej, a law expert from the Gadjah Mada University, said that the law was constitutional and ensured public order.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, however, noted that Edward also said that the law has always been used to judge one’s thought. The law’s substance, he added, has actually been included in the Criminal Code.
Experts presented by the government and those coming from Islamic organizations have warned of possible conflicts in society should the law be revoked. Constitutional justice Maria Farida said in a recent interview with the Post that the panel of judges “does not take conflict threats into account in its judgment”. Musdah said she highly appreciated the process the court had taken in the review of the law. “The discussion in the Constitutional Court has been very elegant and open,” she added.
* Source: The Jakarta Post, Tuesday, April 20, 2010
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/03/plaintiffs-expect-progressive-ruling-blasphemy-law.html
Indonesia Upholds Controversial Blasphemy Law
JAKARTA — After months of hearings and protests from both sides, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court ruled Monday that a 45-year-old law banning religious blasphemy was constitutional and would remain on the books.
The 1965 decree allows the attorney general’s office to ban religious groups that “distort” or “misrepresent” official faiths and calls for up to five years in prison for anyone found guilty of heresy.
The law also limits the number of officially recognized religions in Indonesia to six: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism. In practice, the law is applied primarily to perceived offenses against mainstream Islam. Nearly 90 percent of Indonesia’s 240 million people are Muslims.
Several fundamentalist Islamic groups, which had gathered during previous hearings since the court took up the case in November, rallied outside the courthouse again Monday as 600 riot police officers looked on.
Members of the Islamic Defender’s Front, a militant group that has attacked religious pluralism rallies in the past, attacked lawyers seeking to repeal the law during the court’s final hearing last week.
The court’s chief justice, Mohammad Mahfud, said in the 8-to-1 decision that the law did not contradict the country’s 1945 Constitution or its national ideology, known as Pancasila, even though both nominally guarantee freedom of religion.
The judicial review was first sought by a coalition of human rights groups led by the Wahid Institute, an organization founded by Indonesia’s late president, Abdurrahman Wahid, that campaigns for religious pluralism.
“This is a setback for Indonesian democracy,” said Uli Parulian Sihombing, a human rights lawyer and part of the team that filed the constitutional challenge. Mr. Sihombing said that under Indonesian law there was no appeal process for constitutional challenges.
Supporters of the law, who include members of the parliamentary commission charged with handling religious issues, say the law is necessary to prevent confusion and conflict between religious groups.
The 1965 decree was cited in 2008 when the government all but banned Ahmadiyah, an Islamic sect that does not believe Muhammad is the last prophet — a central tenet of Islam — after pressure from fundamentalist Muslim groups.
In 2007, the Indonesian Supreme Court sentenced Abdul Rachman, who is the No.2 leader of a religious group known as Lia Eden and who claims to be the reincarnation of the Prophet Muhammad, to three years in prison for blasphemy.
Police also arrested Ahmad Moshaddeq, the leader of an Islamic sect known as al-Qiyada, on charges of blasphemy in 2007, even after he declared from the steps of a central Jakarta police station that he had realized his teachings were misguided and would return to mainstream Islam. The attorney general’s office banned al-Qiyada that same year.
Mr. Moshaddeq, whose house was burned down by a mob, has said that he is the next Islamic prophet and does not require his followers to pray five times a day or toward Mecca.
Other Islamic sects have faced persecution under the law. Mr. Sihombing estimates that hundreds of people have been jailed, including a number of journalists.
Human rights campaigners argue that militant organizations use the law to justify violent attacks on minority religious groups. Ahmadi followers are regularly attacked, they say, and their mosques burned.
By PETER GELLING
* Source, The New York Times, April 19, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/world/asia/20indo.html?ref=global-home