Referring to an article titled “Court upholds Blasphemy Law,” (The Jakarta Post, April 20),” I would say that abolishing this law is not going to end all fanatics from pressuring “religious minorities” or “sects” in violent ways.
Saying that this law justifies violent action conducted by fanatics proves that the understanding about what a “law” represents is somewhat incorrect. To me, a law on blasphemy means that if blasphemy did occur, then the justice system will decide whether it is legal.
It certainly does not mean that private entities can do whatever they think is right, including violence, in the name of upholding this law. The fact that there is a law against corruption does not mean I can create an organization to burn corrupt peoples’ homes.
In short, I don’t think the violence is caused by this law. Meanwhile, I believe that a law like this is needed to keep some sort of public order because blasphemy is a controversial issue.
So, I think the constitutional court has got it right.
Anton
Jakarta
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|