I

slamic State (IS) movement leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared in 2014 the establishment of the Islamic caliphate, a new political system that challenges the existing world order. A number of FPI (Islam Defenders Front) activists in East Java, who often staged '€œhate speech'€ rallies against minority groups, are now flocking to Syria to join IS.

From ground zero, they post pictures that paint a picture of '€œthe glorious lives of fighters'€ with their AK47 rifles. More importantly, they also encourage their sympathizers to follow suit in defending their oppressed brethren.

The conflict in Syria has become the '€œopium'€ to divert these recruits from their daily problems. It also created a market for '€œhate speech'€ to mushroom.

The rule of thumb to success in this business is as follows: The more you can demonstrate your hatred toward other groups, especially against Shiites because the Assad regime in Syria is believed to be Shiite, the larger your audience and the more respect you will get. This is a terrible problem and there is no simple solution.

There are two extreme approaches to deal with the phenomenon. The first suggests that we, the society, do nothing and let the group do whatever it wants in the name of democracy. We may say only crazy people will support IS, so why should we bother fighting against its propaganda?

But, of course, this approach is very dangerous because the youth are very vulnerable and easily seduced, many lives will be lost, families will be damaged and Indonesia'€™s security will be at risk if they come home.

The other extreme is what is happening in Malaysia, which reminds us of Indonesia under Soeharto, when oppression prevailed. Such policies will be unpopular and counterproductive because we will only create heroes of people who do not deserve such reverence, like Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) founders Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Ba'€™asyir. In fact, the two were tried and sentenced, although confusion and suspicion of politicization marked the legal process against them.

At the moment, we face the same confusion about the legal boundaries and enforcement of the law. So we need to first of all establish what Indonesian law says and how it should be enforced in the event of incitements of hatred, hate speech, recruitment, radicalization and other things.

Second, we have to acknowledge that if no new threat is found in those acts, it is only natural that the law is lagging behind the development of threats.

In the case of people who return home from Syria and Iraq after fighting with radical groups, should they face the law or not?

The existing law is not clear about this issue so we cannot charge the people. But if we make the law clear, then we can enforce it and ban Indonesian nationals from joining the fundamentalist groups. We can also criminalize people who recruit fighters here.

Without clarity in our legal system, the era of the 1980s will repeat with Indonesia and Malaysia changing roles. In those days, Indonesian hardliners fled to Malaysia because of the draconian law at home at that time.

They chose Malaysia because they could freely organize Islamic radical groups there to be sent to Afghanistan. Today, Malaysia is cracking down on Islamists and Indonesia is relatively free, allowing Southeast Asian hardliners to flock into Indonesia to recruit and organize.

To prevent that from happening, we need consistent enforcement of the law. We know persecution of religious minority groups is rampant in Indonesia. It is very damaging for national interests yet the law cannot intervene and there is no political will to address the matter.

Such weak law enforcement and a lack of political will has given a license to the extremists to go ahead and do whatever they want because they know that they will not be held accountable.

Other activities like vigilante behavior of groups who basically are bullying others have created a space in which they can engage in hate speech in the way that the state does not intervene because of fear about being dubbed '€œanti-Islam'€.

It happened when Muslim and Betawi ethnic groups demanded that legitimate Jakarta Governor Basuki '€œAhok'€ Tjahaja Purnama step down.

It is true that Ahok did not receive physical threats and he was fine, survived and laughed the rally off, but we do need to think clearly about the boundaries because we need to know which acts are acceptable and which are not.

If we give freedom to vigilante groups so that they can push the boundary of unacceptable acts that go unpunished, other groups will take the opportunity to follow suit.

As we can see in the open recruitment of Islamists bound for Syria in many mosques in Jakarta, Surakarta, Semarang and Lamongan, many people decided to join because of the open space created.

When recruiting, the tag line for IS is very alluring: '€œYou are not joining a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda but an Islamic State that has territory, thousands of soldiers and assets worth billions of dollars, mostly from oil, such that you can directly be involved in the battles.'€

For young bachelors, there is more on offer: to set up a new life with a wife whom the Islamic State will provide. Married recruits can also get more wives there as well.

No doubt that hate speech also serves as a powerful tool to cement a group'€™s cohesion by creating fear
of otherness and establishing boundaries of who can be '€œinsiders'€ of the group and who must be excluded as '€œoutsiders'€.

But hate speech also has a lucrative business side. IS '€œemployees'€ could be hundreds of people who benefit economically from the production of books, T-shirts, pamphlets, websites, flags, vests, CDs and others. For each line of '€œbusiness'€, there are also writers, reporters, creative designers, salesmen and accountants.

How can we create boundaries then? We can start by saying that the law says what the principles are
and then we can impose those principles consistently.

At the end of the day, there is no single solution and there is a strong need for public participation so the debate will be healthier.

We can emulate the reaction of the community of Facebook and YouTube users who demanded that social media administrators withdraw any posting that contains child pornography.

We should make the same demands on those who use social media to recruit Islamists, who could be our children or relatives? Is it not possible for the user community to resist such postings and request that they are taken down?
______________

Weak law enforcement has given a license to the extremists to do whatever they want.
_________________

The writer is founder of the Institute of International Peace Building and is pursuing a PhD in politics and international relations at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.