As we welcome the police’s decision to drop their plan to monitor religious sermons for radical content, we are still left with one unanswered and fundamental question: What to do with hate sermons? We certainly can’t ignore them.
Some of the hatred and violent teachings that have led to young people becoming involved in terrorist activities, including suicide bombings, originated from mosques, hence the plan to monitor sermons. Police are simply trying to enforce article 156 of the Criminal Code that stipulates that anyone delivering hate speeches can be jailed for up to four years.
This inevitably brings us to the question of the freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and its limits, one of them being the law against hate speech. How do we enforce this law without violating people’s right to free speech?
Society certainly cannot remain silent in the face of the growing influence of violent ideologies that preach hatred and encourage people to attack others on the grounds of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual-orientation or economic class.
If there is one big lesson that we take from the devastating twin bomb attacks in two Jakarta hotels last month, it is that we as a nation have become too lenient in the face of such barbaric acts, and this has sent the wrong message to those engaged in hate speech and the spread of violent ideologies to continue on their radical path.
Instead of an outright condemnation, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono publicly claimed that he was being targeted by terrorists, while others tried to pin the blame on the deterioration of socio-economic conditions that make society a breeding ground for radical Islamic teachings and terrorism.
At the very least, police have been bold enough to claim that part of the problem can be sourced to mosques where violent ideologies and hatred are being freely discussed.
The idea of police vetting religious sermons however is as abhorrent as the violent messages they seek to prevent. During the Soeharto regime, many preachers were jailed for advocating hatred, not so much against other religions as against the government. The police then were nothing more than an oppressive tool used to sustain the violent regime.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with article 156 of the Criminal Code. Every nation – and especially one as racially, ethnically and religiously diverse as Indonesia –needs a law to deal with hate speeches. The article only became notorious because it was widely abused by Soeharto for more than 30 years.
Rather than relying on the police, this time around, members of the public should be encouraged to report hate speeches. This is part of their civic duty as much as their obligation to report on suspicious activities in their neighborhood. Let the court decide when free speech crosses the limit of tolerance and becomes hate speech.
Our best insurance against the spread of violent teaching and hatred is not the court, but our education system, and in a democracy, by using free speech to fight hate speech. Our society is mature and wise enough to tell what’s right and wrong.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|