TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Experts insist blasphemy law undermines freedom
Critically acclaimed cinematographer and cultural observer Garin Nugroho, who testified as an expert in a hearing of the judicial review request of the 45-year-old Blasphemy Law on Wednesday, said the law discouraged people from discussing religious issues
Change Size
C
ritically acclaimed cinematographer and cultural observer Garin Nugroho, who testified as an expert in a hearing of the judicial review request of the 45-year-old Blasphemy Law on Wednesday, said the law discouraged people from discussing religious issues.
“It is the biggest setback in the history of this nation in terms of democracy and its agenda for pluralism,” said Garin, whose controversial interpretation of a Hindu epic in his piece Shinta Obong drew rebukes from a Hindu youth organization.
“Several articles in the law have vague interpretations. This law has the potential to side with the majority to the detriment of minorities,” he said.
Cole Durham, a professor of law at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, USA, said in his testimony that the law failed the necessity test in several respects.
Apart from discriminating against certain groups, Durham said via teleconference, the language used in the law was vague and therefore left open the possibility of arbitrary application.
“When ‘deviation’ from the tenets of a religion occurs, or when one ‘resembles’ another excessively, it is far from clear to ordinary citizens,” he added. He was testifying as an expert on behalf of petitioners.
He highlighted that while desecration of sacred objects was frowned upon and reflected modern societies’ poverty of spirit, “it is equally important to remember that, except in most repressive regimes, apostasy and heresy fall under religious, not civil, jurisdiction”.
“Invoking the machinery of the state to carry out recriminations is extremely dangerous, both because of the unpredictable consequences it may unleash, and also because the empowered state may create other problems, even for the prevailing groups,” he added.
Former justice and human rights minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra, who testified as an expert presented by the court, challenged Durham’s view, saying the law had become a means to prevent interreligious conflict in Indonesia.
Violence marred Wednesday’s hearing at the Constitutional Court — the last hearing before the court issues a ruling next month — when members of the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) intimidated lawyers of the petitioners, calling on them to drop their bid to repeal the law.
Bystanders began taking pictures, further enraging FPI members, who attacked three men, yelling “Erase the pictures”.
One of the men attacked was Novel, a member of the Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI), who had come to the hearing to assist expert witness SAE Nababan who testified at the hearing. He captured several pictures and video clips of the incident.
“I was slapped, kicked and punched in the stomach when a huge crowd chased me up the ramp leading to the first floor. One of them tried to strangle me,” he said.
