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.

Jakarta Post

‘Deviant’ not the only stigma given to ex-Gafatar members

After being labeled “deviant” by religious authorities, former members of the defunct Fajar Nusantara Movement (Gafatar) now have to bear another stigma: the tag of ex-criminal

Margareth S. Aritonang and Ina Parlina (The Jakarta Post)
Jakarta
Sat, August 6, 2016

Share This Article

Change Size

‘Deviant’ not the only stigma given to ex-Gafatar members

A

fter being labeled “deviant” by religious authorities, former members of the defunct Fajar Nusantara Movement (Gafatar) now have to bear another stigma: the tag of ex-criminal.

Parwanto, an ex-Gafatar member from Trenggalek, East Java, said he could not get a job as a driver for a local company after the police refused to clear his criminal record.

The 34-year-old told The Jakarta Post that to get a job he needed a police clearance letter (an SKCK) and he applied for one in April.

To his surprise, the Trenggalek police issued a letter that would likely make him ineligible for work.

“The bearer hereof [Parwanto] was involved in criminal acts qualifying article — of Law Number — [Ex Gafatar],” says the SKCK, a copy of which was delivered to the Post.

The letter does not clarify the charges against Parwanto, who claims to have never been charged with any crime.

The frustrating red tape he has had to face to get the letter has only made him more upset.

Parwanto said he had to undergo an unusually long administrative process just to obtain such a “deeply deplorable and unjust letter”.

“The sub-precinct police station told me to go to the police precint station to arrange the SKCK. At the precinct police, I was interrogated about what happened [with Gafatar]. I told them the truth,” said Parwanto.

Treated as a pariah, Parwanto questions if he is still considered a citizen. “Why am I declared an ex-criminal? I am not a criminal. I am a victim of discrimination. Am I not a citizen of this country? The government should have helped us instead of leaving us alone to be victimized.”

“I cannot get a proper job because of that SKCK. This really puts me and my family in trouble,” Parwanto mourned.

Gafatar, founded in January 2012, is estimated to have accrued 55,000 followers before it was banned and dissolved following the issuance of a joint decree released by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the Home Ministry and the Religious Affairs Ministry in March.

Three of Gafatar’s top leaders — Ahmad Musadeq, Mahful Muis Tumanurung and Andi Cahya — are currently being detained by the National Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim) on charges of blasphemy and treason.

Musadeq was already convicted of blasphemy in 2008 and was sentenced to fours years in prison. The term of imprisonment did not stop him from establishing Gafatar and recruiting more followers.

Gafatar is not the first minority group to be discriminated against through the 1965 Blasphemy Law. Rampant discrimination against minority groups, using the Blasphemy Law as a basis, has moved individuals and civil society organizations to challenge the law. Their challenges have so far been rejected by the Constitutional Court.

In addition to Musadeq, Lia Aminuddin, or Lia Eden, has also been charged with blasphemy on more than two occasions. In 2005, she was sentenced to two years in prison on blasphemy and incitement charges.

In 2009, she was taken to court again and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison after being charged with spreading flyers defaming Islam.

Human rights activists and pro-pluralism figures challenged the law in 2010 at the Constitutional Court. The court did not rule in their favor.

Constitutional Court chief justice Arief Hidayat signaled that anyone could challenge the Blasphemy Law at the court if they were able to build a case using different arguments and legal grounds from the ones used in the 2010 judicial review case, and again in the 2013 petition.

“Without mentioning a specific case, basically a provision [in any law] cannot be re-challenged if its previous judicial review has been rejected. It is called ne bis in idem [[no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action].”

Your Opinion Matters

Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.