Local residents nix sharia-based bylaws

Headlines Thu, 07/01/2010 7:51 AM

Local residents nix sharia-based bylaws

Hasyim Widhiarto, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Residents, politicians, activists — and at least one actor — in Depok and Tangerang urged their cities to reject sharia-based bylaws.

Implementation of such regulations will make the regions prone to inter-religious conflicts, agreed several residents and activists.

The Depok municipal administration must seek approval from both the Muslim majority and local minorities if they want to implement sharia-based bylaws or policies in the city, said Mangaranap Sinaga, the coordinator of the Depok-based Inter-religious Youth Forum.

“All residents, especially minorities, need assurances that such bylaws will guarantee their rights to religious freedom and also give no leeway for [Muslims] hard-liners to outlaw the existence of the country’s beneficial laws,” Mangaranap told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday.

Mangaranap said it was also important for the city’s moderate religious organizations to unite and support each other so that they could take a strong position when discussing sharia with hard-line organizations and local political elites.

“Dialogue alone is not enough, sometimes we also need to be more political,” he said.

The forum, which was launched earlier this month, gathered six religious-based organizations in Depok to discuss and respond to threats to pluralism in the city.

The organizations include Nahdlatul Ulama’s Ansor Youth Movement, Indonesian Christian Youth Force Movement, Catholic Youth, Buddhist Youth Generation, Persada Hindu Dharma and Konghucu Youth Generation.

Actor-cum-politician Derry Dradjat, who wants to run for deputy mayor in Depok’s next election, said there was no urgent need to implement sharia-based bylaws in the city.

“Instead of creating a new conflict, why don’t we just refer to the existing laws,” he said.

Depok, a city on Jakarta’s southern border, is currently governed by Nurmahmudi Ismail, who was supported by the Islamic-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in 2005.

Nurmahmudi has faced strong criticism from many non-Muslim residents who claim that they have been unable to obtain permits to build churches under his administration.

The mayor has been criticized for allowing hard-line organizations, such as the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) to pressure minorities, such as members of the Ahmadiyah sect and the transgender community.

In 2006, the Depok city council planned to deliberate a draft ordinance banning prostitution but has made no progress after several years.

Implementation of sharia-based bylaws started even earlier in neighboring Tangerang,

A number of women have been arrested when returning home from work after authorities began enforcing a 2005 bylaw banning prostitution in the city. Human rights activists have called for the bylaw to be revised.

Immanuel Malirafin, 43, a Catholic living in Kotabumi, said that although he heard of the bylaw, he never learned about it in detail.

“Some of my Muslims neighbors told me that the bylaw imposed a curfew on women, but I never understood why it was implemented,” he said.

Sharia bylaws are only allowed only in Aceh province, as a conditions of its special autonomy following a 2005 international agreement that ended decades of war.

After the introduction of regional autonomy in 1999, bylaws regulating private conduct and morality have sprouted in dozens of regencies and municipalities in the coutnry.

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/07/01/local-residents-nix-shariabased-bylaws.html

Discourse: Blasphemy law ‘has not prevented conflict’

---The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Headlines | Wed, 04/21/2010 9:03 AM

Discourse: Blasphemy law ‘has not prevented conflict’
Todung Mulya Lubis

The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled Monday to uphold the 45-year-old Blasphemy law after a judicial review request was filed last October by human rights groups and backers of pluralism who said the law violated religious freedom. The Jakarta Post talks to renowned lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, who said the Court tends to lean “to the right” in certain issues.

Question: What is your comment on the Constitutional Court’s ruling which rejected the judicial review request on the Blasphemy Law?

Answer: I regret the decision because it disregards the diversity and plurality of our nation. We have to respect the court’s authority to conduct a judicial review, but this decision has distorted freedom of worship which is acknowledged as a basic human right.

The law allows ample room for misuse. The court said this law is needed to prevent horizontal and vertical conflicts. Conflicts occur when there are coercive actions (to prohibit someone or a group) from worshipping according to their religion and belief.

If there was no intimdiation against the Ahmadiyah congregation, for instance, they would be free to worship. So the law has been disturbing this and has not prevented conflict.

Coercion which disregards diversity and people’s religious rights cause conflicts. The logic of the court is misleading when it says that the law prevents conflicts.

On the contrary, conflicts happen when there repressive actions by groups which believe that only the state-sanctioned religions (the “standard” forms of Islam, Christianity, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism) are legal while the others have to be eradicated. Such actions are a source of conflict.

Doesn’t the Blasphemy Law contradict the 2008 Law Prohibiting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination which says nobody can be discriminated against due to his or her religion and belief?

It’s against that law. It’s also against the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So the Blasphemy Law has fundamentally violated international and national laws.

The Constitutional Court’s ideology tends to the right. Many have expressed concerns about this. When the court faces issues of religion and freedom of speech and expression, it becomes conservative and fundamentalist.

This disregards human rights, pluralism and reform efforts. So we must face the fact that the court is dominated by conservatives and fundamentalists.

We are forced to acknowledged formal religions while we actually have freedom of choice.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling is final but it doesn’t mean we can tolerate its excessive implementation.

However, we don’t know yet how far the implementation will go. But this is obviously a setback.

What are the possible implications of the court’s ruling?

Groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) will be happy with this.

When new religious groups or thoughts emerge, they can be considered as defaming formal (forms of) religions. FPI and HTI will have legal justification for their coercive actions violating human rights. They act as if they are the private religious police.

What are the further plans of human rights groups to anticipate the impact of the ruling?

We will arrange a meeting to look at the Constitutional Court’s ruling because it potentially could cause divisions. We are going to try to limit its divisive impacts while continuing to promote diversity and pluralism. (rdf)

URL: www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/21/disc...E2%80%99.html