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.
Freedom of religion vs. freedom of expression: Where the road splits
Since the mid-2000s, interfaith dialogues have become one of Indonesia’s flagship diplomatic initiatives.
Change Size
A
late-night text from my colleague in Stockholm, Ambassador Kama Pradipta, sent chills down my spine. The message said a group of people planned to again burn the Quran, a sacred scripture for billions of Muslims all over the world.
The spats of desecration of the Quran in Sweden and Denmark shocked the Muslim world and yet, such flagrant behavior is allowed under so-called freedom of speech and expression.
Ironically, this absolutism of free speech creates a space in which individuals can abuse and offend people of faith.
Indonesia and many other countries, particularly members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, have denounced these senseless acts.
Foreign Minister Retno LP Marsudi, when speaking with her counterpart from Denmark about the incident, categorically highlighted the fallacies of hiding behind freedom of expression to offend others.
Pope Francis also expressed abhorrence regarding the desecration of the Quran, as this act detracts from efforts to promote tolerance and harmony between different groups.
Desecration like this hurts Muslims all over the world, sowing seeds of anger and animosity.
Anger will arise against the perpetrator and the governments that seem to be indifferent toward the feelings of billions of Muslims.
Furthermore, paradoxically, any harsh reaction shown by Muslims is often portrayed disproportionately as blind fanaticism. Such reactions can lead to further prejudice against Muslims, exacerbating existing Islamophobia.
This is where the road splits, with those who champion freedom of speech separated from those who adhere to the traditions and values of the holy books.
Having said that, the question arises as to whether a bridge could be created to help narrow the gap between the two groups.
The question requires further analysis to determine the causes of intolerance and animosity between groups, including underlying issues of deep-seated cultural divisions and unsettled historical relations among followers of different religious and nonreligious groups.
Attempts to narrow the gap will face an uphill battle. Yet, we cannot stay idle and let the divisions lead to a collision between cultures or a clash of civilizations as prescribed by Samuel Huntington.
We should not let this doomsday scenario come to fruition. Therefore, we must invest in sustained efforts to plant and nurture seeds of tolerance.
In fact, Indonesia is one of only a few countries that pioneer the promotion of dialogue between different religious groups.
Concerned about widespread anger and disturbances across the Muslim world following the publication of the prophet Muhammad’s illustrations on Sept. 30, 2005, in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the then-Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, initiated an interfaith dialogue.
Since the mid-2000s, interfaith dialogues have become one of Indonesia’s flagship diplomatic initiatives. Many countries request to partner with Indonesia in this endeavor, with hopes of narrowing the gap of understanding between different religious groups.
Indonesia also collaborated with Norway to hold the Global Intermedia Dialogue (GIMD) in 2007 and 2008. The GIMD served as a precursor for more robust engagement among news editors on the issues of freedom of expression vis-a-vis respect for religious norms and cultural identities.
Indonesia has pursued these diplomatic paths, but there are variables that can dampen the initiatives, like the absence of national legislation to prevent individuals from desecrating religious scriptures in countries like Sweden and Denmark.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, provides references for countries on the issue of freedom of expression in the context of special duties and responsibilities.
Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR states that “[any] advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This provided a call for countries to promulgate the relevant laws and regulations, consonant with the Human Rights Council Resolution 53/1.
There are many references for any country that is willing to work toward tolerance. One of these points of reference is Professor Eric Bleich in his seminal book, The Freedom to Be Racist?.
The book provides an in-depth comparative analysis of how some liberal democracies have found the right balance between freedom of expression and efforts to combat racism.
Promoting tolerance in today’s complex world is a delicate subject and often resembles patching up torn clothes that have been neglected for too long. We must try our best to avoid repeating the horrors of history. Too many atrocities have been committed because of hatred.
Finally, we must commit ourselves to working together across cultural divisions to prevent the transmutation of religious intolerance into hatred, a phenomenon that appeared in the desecration of the Quran in Sweden and Denmark.
***
The writer is a former Indonesian ambassador to Canada. The views expressed are his own.
