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.
If we can't scrap Blasphemy Law, simply don't use it
Suggesting that the Blasphemy Law must be annulled at the moment is not realistic; it takes, if it is likely to happen, a long time, accompanied by a bold, creative, yet very risky political move.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Islam Defenders Front (FPI) leader Rizieq Shihab speaks to reporters before facing police questioning at the Jakarta Police headquarters on Feb. 1, 2017 for alleged treason. The police also arrested a woman who allegedly had intimate conversations with Rizieq, and later raided her house in East Jakarta. (Antara/Akbar Nugroho Gumay)
O
ver the last few months, two cases involving three accusations have implicated Islam Defenders Front (FPI) leader Rizieq Shihab. One relates to a statement he made about Pancasila, which led to Sukarno’s daughter Sukmawati accusing him of insulting the state symbol.
Another pertains to his denigrating remark about the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, for which he is accused by the Indonesian Catholic Students Association (PMKRI) of insulting christianity and by the Students Peace Institute of hate speech.
The number of cases can be counted as three, actually, by adding his comment of more than a year ago when he criticized a Sundanese greeting. Knowing about the prosecution regarding these cases, I believe there are many who share my mixed, ambivalent feelings. On the one hand is a realization that the law on blasphemy is problematic, so that it should not be used and it should be repealed.
On the other hand is the desire to see Rizieq get the feeling of being in the shoes of his and his followers’ victims, when the weapon he and his followers often use is now used against him.
In fact, Rizieq has reacted in a defensive way similar to that displayed by Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama on trial. Rizieq said that his short remarks were only a few minutes in duration and they had been taken out of context, ignoring the whole one-hour-long speech. He claimed he only criticized founding president Sukarno and did not denigrate Pancasila.
There is a sense of revenge around Rizieq’s prosecution. It has the potential of creating a cycle of retaliation, furthering sectarian polarization and enforcing legal approaches instead of peaceful reconciliation through dialogue when adjudicating disputes. Free speech advocates must avoid using the law and many of them in fact have suggested that even in the case of Rizieq.
To be more realistic, however, what are the alternatives? Consider this: Given the increased awareness among Muslim groups of the law and how they use it even for a trivial thing like a slip of the tongue, avoiding the law while Muslim groups continuously use it is self-defeating. Moreover, the intention of vilification in the case of Rizieq is noticeable.
