Rights Watchdog Says Man Who Filmed Ahmadiyah Attack Under Protection

NEWS

Rights Watchdog Says Man Who Filmed Ahmadiyah Attack Under Protection

Ulma Haryanto | February 11, 2011

Police officers inspecting the damaged house of an Ahmadi after it was attacked by a Muslim mob in Pandeglang, Banten, on Sunday. The National Commission on Human Rights say the man who filmed the attack is under protection because of fears for his life. (AP Photo)

The Ahmadi who captured on film the deadly attack on an Ahmadiyah community in Banten is currently under protection because of fears his life may be in danger, the National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM) said on Friday.

One of the commissioners, Ridha Saleh, said in a press conference that the man, identified only as A, is both under the protection of the commission known as Komnas HAM and the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK).

“He was one of the victims, because he is an Ahmadi. That is why we put him under protection. We also ask the media to blur his face in future documentations because we believe he is going to be targeted,” Ridha said.

A is also being questioned by the National Police’s crime unit as a witness.

Yoseph Adi Suryo, another commission member, told the Jakarta Globe that A managed to save himself from being attacked by claiming to be a contributor for a media organization as he documented the event.

Nurkholis Hidayat, chairman of Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH), said that A came to their office seeking protection two days ago.

“He provided us with the video evidence and his testimony of the incident. We believe his life is in danger and so we took him to Komnas HAM,” he said.

In the 30-minute video, only about 30 police officers can be seen guarding the home of Ahmadiyah cleric Ismail Suparman. They offer little resistance to a mob of about 1,500 people carrying bamboo planks and machetes, and are quickly overwhelmed.

The video shows police attempting to persuade the Ahmadi to leave the house, with one plain-clothed officer filmed warning the group that a mob was headed for the village.

The mob subsequently stormed the village. There were no police barricades erected to prevent clashes.

“Police get out. Burn these Ahmadiyah people!” one man shouted.

The mob immediately attacked the house with rocks and the people inside were forced to flee.

The footage also shows the mob swarming around two lifeless bodies covered in mud. The Ahmadiyah man said the pair were chased to a nearby rice field where they were killed with bamboo and stone strikes to their heads.

The crowd then dragged the bodies along the road. Others were filmed attacking the corpses.

Edited excerpts of the video have begun airing on local TV stations, but the most graphic violence has been left off the air, perhaps to avoid stirring up further religious hatred.

Choirul Anam, deputy chairman of the Human Rights Working Group, said the video showed how the police were inadequately equipped to face the lynch mob.

“There were two trucks [of police officers] but they all ran away when the mob came. Furthermore, the video also showed that it was not the 17 Ahmadis who caused the conflict, as several media reported,” he said.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/indonesi...protection/422080

The Thinker: Losing the Faith

COLUMN

The Thinker: Losing the Faith

Robin Lee Santoso | November 02, 2010

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speech against the persecution of minorities last month received much acclaim. Speaking with an eye to the recent string of clashes between Islamic extremists and members of the Ahmadiyah sect, he voiced his strongest statement on religious extremism to date, saying mosques should provide “comfort and peace to everyone, and not encourage provocation.”

But how can we reconcile Yudhoyono’s condemnation with the many laws that condone the oppression of Ahmadiyahs?

A 2008 joint ministerial decree still prohibits Ahmadiyah mosque leaders from preaching in public.

When a West Java Ahmadiyah mosque was attacked in August, government officials shut it down for weeks and even entertained the idea of relocating it.

With only 100,000 members in a country of 240 million, Ahmadiyahs are virtually unable to build new mosques, as a 2006 joint ministerial decree requires the approval of 60 households before such construction can take place.

And the list of restrictions goes on and on.

This indicates that Yudhoyono is preaching to the wrong audience.

Aside from the fact that Ahmadiyah’s violent attackers are Islamic extremists and not members of the mainstream Baiturrahim Mosque, Yudhoyono overlooks the laws that sanction oppression.

If Yudhoyono wants to eliminate the persecution of minorities, he must revise our discriminatory religious ideology.

Indonesia’s religious ideology singles out and protects five religions — Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism — above others.

The perks of being approved includes protection by the 1965 Blasphemy Law, which bans religious groups that “distort” or “misrepresent” the central tenets of the official faiths.

In practice, the Blasphemy Law is distorted to preserve the Islamic status quo.

Without an official definition of what constitutes “orthodox Islamic beliefs,” lawmakers have filled the void with their own definition, to the exclusion of the Ahmadiyahs.

This took place despite the fact that Ahmadiyah members consider themselves part of the Sunni tradition of Islam.

When I spoke to one Ahmadiyah spokesman this summer, he explained in detail how all their claims were based on verses of the Koran.

Although the Ahmadiyahs differ in their interpretation of some Koranic verses, these differences are secondary to the faith’s central tenets.

Yet they are still being stripped of their basic rights.

There was a time when the Catholic Church persecuted the believers of Protestantism.

Need there be a repeat of history?

The intolerance bred by the nation’s religious ideology goes against the country’s democratic aspirations.

Lawmakers should not have the freedom to choose what beliefs are orthodox, or who gets to keep their rights.

The Constitution mandates the government to uphold the basic rights of every citizen, regardless of gender, race or religion.

What’s more, Indonesia also protects approved religions from proselytizers, and this law often becomes a pretext for persecution.

It is used to silence minorities.

Ahmadiyah leaders, for example, have been instructed not to preach in public, and their members are prohibited from sharing their faith with others.

This is unacceptable, given our country’s democratic aspirations.

True, believers need some protection from the government.

After all, one cannot have religious freedom if one constantly faces physical or intellectual threat.

But the government needs to make sure that it does not give some people rights at the expense of others.

It rather should focus on protecting the basic human rights of all people, in order to create a safe environment for self-expression.

Indonesia’s religious ideology flies in the face of other parts of the Constitution, which grants every person the right to choose and practice his or her chosen religion.

The recognition of five religions came at a time when communism threatened the very integrity of the Constitution.

With that threat behind it, the country needs to recover its spirit of giving the people equal freedom to believe what they please.

To achieve this, Yudhoyono needs to revise the Constitution’s biggest barrier — a religious ideology that fuels persecution.

Just hours after the president’s comments last month, an Ahmadiyah mosque in Bogor was torched — again, to the surprise of no one.

If Indonesia maintains its current religious ideology, these events will continue to be the norm, and eloquent speeches won’t change a thing.

Robin Lee Santoso is an American graduate student focusing on religion and human rights.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/columns/the-thinker-losing-the-faith/404572

Editorial: Our Next Police Chief Must Restore Order

EDITORIAL

Editorial: Our Next Police Chief Must Restore Order

October 06, 2010

The sole candidate to take the helm of the National Police, Comr. Gen. Timur Pradopo, has a tough job ahead if he is appointed to the post. He must restore public trust in the police, maintain law and order and inject some discipline on Jakarta’s often chaotic roads.

Timur, until earlier this week the capital’s chief of police, has strongly suggested that he would uphold the law at any cost.

This is a welcome statement given the rising public concern over thuggery and the use of violence by certain organizations to force their views on others.

His commitment to the law will be closely scrutinized, especially given his supposed links to the radical Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).

Pradopo told the media that he intended to include all segments of society, including the hard-line Islamic group, in efforts to maintain security. But he also added that he would not hesitate to act if any group violated the laws of the land.

Involving local communities to provide security in neighborhoods across Jakarta is nothing new.

Local neighborhood watch groups were established in the wake of the 1998 riots to be on the lookout for outsiders or strangers who might be bent on mischief.

While most of these watch groups have disbanded, many communities still police their own neighborhoods.

Such civic groups may play an important role in maintaining security but they cannot not replace the police, which not only have to provide security but also maintain law and order.

This is where the next commander of the National Police will have to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy given the breakdown of order in the capital city in recent months, including a deadly brawl between street gangs outside a courthouse last week.

There can be no excuse for the police to allow militant groups to continue to run roughshod over minorities.

Acts of violence such as attacks on Christians in Bekasi and the burning of an Ahmadiyah mosque must not be tolerated.

Individuals cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands, under any circumstance.

We cannot, as a civilized and law abiding society sanction paramilitary organizations to operate on behalf of the police.

If named to lead the police, Timur must provide better training for officers and strive toward building a professional and highly motivated force.

Following the separation of the police from the military a decade ago, the police have made great strides in improving professionalism and providing better public service.

This must continue, along with rooting out the widespread corruption that dishonors the badge.

The recent raids and arrest of terrorists are a shining example of excellent police work. The longer-term goal, however, must be to serve the public in the best manner possible.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/editorial-our-next-p...store-order/400026

Proposed New Indonesian Police Chief Defends ‘Closeness’ to Islamic Defenders Front

INDONESIA

Proposed New Indonesian Police Chief Defends ‘Closeness’ to Islamic Defenders Front

Anita Rachman | October 06, 2010

Indonesia’s controversial proposed new National Police chief Comr. Gen. Timur Pradopo, pictured, says the police should be close to all groups, including Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), to maintain security. (Antara Photo)

Jakarta. Indonesia’s proposed new National Police chief Comr. Gen. Timur Pradopo has defended his links to the radical Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).

Responding to questions from reporters at the House of Representatives (DPR) on Wednesday, the former Jakarta Police chief said “we should be close to all” groups, including the FPI.

The militant organization, which comprises a small but vocal group of radicals, often resorts to violence to further its conservative aims, including ransacking bars and attacking peaceful demonstrators. Allegations also persist that the group is closely linked to Indonesian security forces.

“We should be close to all [groups] to maintain security in this country,” Timur said.

The comments could provoke controversy, with many secular Indonesian Muslims opposed to the FPI’s antisecular views and ongoing criticisms against the police for failing to act against the hard-line group.

Timur met with five House leaders, including House Speaker Marzuki Alie, at 9 a.m.

Deputy House Speaker Priyo Budi Santoso told the press they wanted to discuss a number of items, including the fit-and-proper test that is expected to be held on Monday.

“We wanted an explanation, including what people at large have been talking about, that there are internal divisions within National Police, which he said there aren’t,” Priyo said. “This is a kind of warning from us: Don’t let the factions within the Police grow.”

Priyo was referring to allegations that police had split into camps supporting National Police Chief Gen. Bambang Hendarso Danuri’s two initial recommendations to the president, namely Comr. Gen. Nanan Soekarna, the police’s Internal Affairs head, and Comr. Gen. Imam Sudjarwo, the chief of the police’s Training and Education Division.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s surprise nomination of Timur, according to some speculation, was an attempt to head off divisions with National Police over the appointment.

Priyo said the House leaders also told Timur that he should continue to reform the police, which continues to be perceived as resistant to reform, with allegations of high-level corruption, human rights abuses and a lack of professionalism persisting.

Human rights activists on Tuesday urged the House to reject Timur’s nomination, saying he had a questionable track record, including his refusal to answer three summonses from the National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas Ham) to clarify his involvement in the shooting of students in the Semanggi area of Jakarta in November 1998, when he was still active as chief of Central Jakarta Police.

Priyo said they did not specifically ask Timur about the Semanggi incidents but would do so.

“Our message to him, if he finally sits in the top position in the National Police, is if he wants to be successful he should never get tempted by politics, political practices,” Priyo said.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe

URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/proposed-new-i...fenders-front/399873

INDONESIA: Freedom of religion not protected

---Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Asian Human Rights Commission — Statement
 
INDONESIA: Freedom of religion not protected

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-032-2010
February 23, 2010
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

INDONESIA: Freedom of religion not protected

U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Indonesia, the place of his childhood, in March. It is important that the President does not waste this opportunity and uses his good relations with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to raise the issue of religious tolerance in Indonesia.

Late last year Obama External Link - Opens new browser window stated that “Indonesia is important… as one of the world’s largest democracies, as one of the world’s largest Islamic nations… it has enormous influence and really is… a potential model for the kind of development strategies, democracy strategies, as well as interfaith strategies that are going to be so important moving forward.”

(Photo source: Carolincik, 2008, Yogyakarta, flickr)While his statement is no doubt true in some respects, the essence of Obama’s remark is at odds with the current situation in Indonesia.

In recent years the United Nations has expressed disquiet at religious discrimination and intolerance in the country. There is continuing concern at the distinctions made in legal documents between the six recognized religions of Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism, and the adverse impact on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of people belonging to minorities, ethnic groups and indigenous peoples in Indonesia.

In 2007 the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern that mixed-faith couples – in which the man and woman hold different recognized beliefs – faced difficulties in officially registering their marriages and that their children were not provided with birth certificates, as they were not the products of “lawful” marriage. Paradoxically, people that change their religion in order to marry their partner can face stigmatization.

Furthermore, there is no provision for individuals with no religious belief to enter into a civil marriage contract, and no legal documentation for those without such a belief. This results in people keeping their atheist beliefs secret and when the time comes to marry, they make the choice of either marrying in a religious ceremony that is devoid of meaning for them, or not marrying at all, which can leave their family and offspring without legal protection.

Moreover, under Indonesian Law No. 23 of 2006 on Civic Administration, individuals are required to record their faith on legal documents such as identity cards and birth certificates. Atheists who ascribe to no religion or those who wish to leave the column blank or to register under one of the “non-recognized” religions face discrimination and harassment - including refusal of employment.

Forcing an Indonesian to adopt a religion as part of her identity grossly undermines his right to freedom of thought and religion under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Concern has been expressed in Indonesia and internationally about religious minorities such as the Ahmadiya – followers of a disputed branch of Islam – being targeted by fundamentalists that have branded them members of heretical cults. The Asian Human Rights Commission External Link - Opens new browser window and other human rights organizations have highlighted violent attacks and intimidation against the Ahmadiya people and other religious groups, and their places of religious worship. But so far there has been no concerted effort to protect the rights of these groups.

To the contrary, religious intolerance and discrimination is effectively condoned under Law No.1/1965 on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and Blasphemy, which amends the Indonesian Penal Code (Article 156 (a)) to allow the state to prosecute people deemed to commit blasphemous acts which “principally have the character of being at enmity with, abusing or staining a religion adhered to in Indonesia”. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment.

To combat this law and the issues of state-authorized religious intolerance within it, human rights groups have gone to the Constitutional Court to seek a judicial review of the law, in the hope that it will be struck down as incompatible with human rights and freedom of religion.

However, state officials have reacted against the review. They claim that if the court were to uphold freedom of religion and expression, as guaranteed in international and domestic law, as well as in the principles of Pancasila External Link - Opens new browser window, the official philosophical foundation of the Indonesian state, it would create “unlimited religious freedom.” They fear this could lead to social upheaval, with people worshiping in ways not authorized by the state. Such intolerance is clearly a breach of the Indonesian Constitution under Articles 28 and 29 External Link - Opens new browser window.

The state, by only recognising six religions and enforcing a blasphemy law which alienates and criminalises those that hold beliefs outside of those six, is in effect, giving Indonesians a choice between one of six religions. The right to choose between one religion or another is a false choice and only creates the illusion of freedom.

Both President Obama and President Yudhoyono should understand very well that tolerance and acceptance of varying beliefs, including atheist belief, are vital for a peaceful, democratic society. Practices and laws requiring people to adopt a faith that they do not actually hold is not in accordance with the principles of tolerance, equal rights and non-discrimination, which are the cornerstones of democracy and human rights.

Any blasphemy law should be struck down as unconstitutional. The religions that Indonesia’s blasphemy law seeks to protect can withstand criticism and do not need the full force of the criminal law to ensure adherence. No state should interfere in the practice of religion or belief other than to protect the rights of individuals to freedom of expression, assembly and thought including the right to be free from religious thought.

In a diverse democratic society that prides itself on being multicultural, multi-religious and multi-racial, the Indonesian government should welcome this judicial review and enforce laws to prohibit discrimination based on faith.

In a democratic Indonesia which seeks to adhere to the rule of law and the supreme law of its Constitution, the state should seek to protect the rights of religious minorities from the tyranny of those that wish to foster intolerance and discrimination.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

URL: www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2009statements/2430/

Court Chief Refuses Blasphemy Law Petition From Muslim Schools, Leaders

--- Jakarta Globe, Indonesia

February 23, 2010
Camelia Pasandaran

Court Chief Refuses Blasphemy Law Petition From Muslim Schools, Leaders

Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD on Tuesday refused to accept a petition against annulling a blasphemy law because the petition’s organizers — several Islamic boarding schools and a forum of Muslim leaders from Madura — had not followed proper procedures.

“They arrived as a delegation,” Mahfud said. “I received them and spoke with them. However, such aspirations must be conveyed during court proceedings, inside a courtroom, and not directly to a judge,” he said.

The 1965 Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion is currently the subject of a judicial review after it was challenged by the late President Abdurrahman Wahid last year on the grounds it was being misused to intimidate minority religions.

Mahfud told representatives of the schools and the Muslim leaders that their aspirations must be conveyed via organizations legally involved in the review.

“Please hand over your thoughts and aspirations to organizations involved in the case. If you are in favor of the law, hand it over to the government or official groups that are in favor of the law,” Mahfud said.

He also said the court would never invite expert witnesses to give testimony in regard to the review.

“We do not invite. It is requested by applicants and we oblige. If expert witnesses from Mecca are presented, we will accept them. Even if expert witnesses from hell are presented, we cannot refuse,” he said.

The review applicants have requested that the court hear testimony from W Cole Durham Jr, a human rights and religious freedom advocate from Brigham Young University in the United States, Mahfud said.

He said the petition organizers had argued the law should not be annulled because matters of religious blasphemy would fail to be legally regulated.

“The public would then resort to using their own version of the law [street justice], which would be chaotic. Actually, this opinion has been presented in previous hearings,” Mahfud said.

The judicial review was filed by several people and organizations, including Wahid.

According to Choirul Anam, a lawyer representing the applicants, the law is unconstitutional because it only recognizes six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

The law bans people from publicly espousing other religious views or following non-mainstream interpretations of one of the state-sanctioned religions, he said.

The Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace recently expressed concern over the use of the law to justify violent acts against minority groups that interpret religious tenets differently, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority sect.

Mahfud said the petition organizers had also asked him to hold a theological meeting to discuss the law.

“We are not theologians. The conclusions taken in court are about law and will be based on legal conclusions, not theological ones,” he said. “We hold on to the truth, based on the law.”

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/court-chie...lim-schools-leaders/360410

FPI Hard-Liners Heckle Scholar Over Religion Law

--- Jakarta Globe, Indonesia

February 17, 2010
Ulma Haryanto

FPI Hard-Liners Heckle Scholar Over Religion Law

An Islamic scholar and lecturer from Jakarta’s Paramadina University was jeered by members of a hard-line Islamic group at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday when he dared to draw a comparison between the Prophet Muhammad and the leader of a sect who claimed to be the bride of the Archangel Gabriel.

Luthfi Assyaukanie, who is also cofounder of the Jakarta-based Liberal Islam Network, told the court, which is reviewing the controversial blasphemy law, that the Prophet had initially been persecuted when he first started preaching his faith.

He then compared this to the treatment of Lia Aminuddin, the leader of the Kingdom of Eden sect who was jailed last year for blasphemy. “Some people think she is crazy and even persecute her, just like the Prophet Muhammad in the beginning,” Luthfi said.

His statement immediately provoked vocal protest and abuse from members of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), who had filled up more than half of the courtroom.

The court hearing comes during the fifth phase of the judicial review into the 1965 Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion. Dating back to the last years of President Sukarno, the law was challenged by the late President Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid last year for being misused to intimidate minority religions.

Undeterred by the jeers, Luthfi said the state should never side with a particular religion or criminalize worshipers who held different beliefs.

“What if the majority of the country’s population followed Ahmadiyah?” he asked, once again inviting shouts of anger from the crowd. He was referring to the controversial minority Islamic sect that for years has suffered from discrimination and had their mosques burned down by hard-line Islamic groups.

“I’m sure that both Sunni and Shia followers each believe that they are the most correct and true,” Luthfi added, referring to the two main branches of Islam.

“The problem with our Constitution is that it allows the religious majority power to do anything in the name of defending their religious rights. We have seen, during violent attacks, it’s usually started by the majority who think they have the right to do it.”

Toward the end of Luthfi’s testimony, presiding judge Mahfud MD had to reprimand the court spectators for their continuous shouting.

Ifdhal Kasim, chairman of the National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM), who also appeared as a witness at the hearing, said the state needed to limit itself from interfering in religious matters.

“The right to be religious and to practice one’s religion is a Constitutional right,” he said, adding that the government should draw the line only when it came to four issues: public safety, public order, morality and if human rights are threatened.

The government, Ifdhal said, was obligated to protect the rights of its citizens through the legal system.

“We argue that Article 1 of the 1965 Law crosses the line on the right to religious belief because it prohibits people from having their own interpretations of religion,” he said.

Lutfi Hakim, legal counsel for the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI), said Ifdhal’s testimony was unconvincing.

“And furthermore, the four things that you mentioned, were more or less the same with what is written in the judicial review request,” he added.

Copyright 2010 The Jakarta Globe
URL: www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/fpi-h...er-religion-law/359299