The rate of posts has slowed considerably over the last few days. I have two assessment tasks due this week. I have just finished off a 2,500 word essay on teaching English to Indigenous students. I am having a quick break before getting back to polishing it up in preparation for submission at 5:00PM Tuesday.
Now, on with the show!
This article from The Jakarta Globe caught my eye for no other reason than the "Sleep-Deprived American Takes On Indonesian Mosque, Loses". I figured that what was to follow was some crazy old American dude pulling the plug on his local mosque in an attempt to get some quiet time. I also figured that the only way this could end was badly. So, I was not surprised to find out that I was pretty much on the money.
On a personal note. I lived in Indonesia for a good many years, and quite often I resided pretty close to my local mosque. To be honest, I cannot remember being disturbed by the call to prayer, even early in the morning. I do kind of remember that I might have been at first, but then I guess I must of just got used to it and accepted that that was par for the course. I suppose I was immune to it.
Anyways, it would seem that Luke Gregory Lloyd (64 - old dude) could not take the noise anymore. He apparently shuck around the back of the mosque and quite literally pulled the plug, right out of the offending speakers. As you can imagine, the local worshippers did not take too kindly to this intrusion into the practice of their faith and set out to teach "old man" Luke a lesson. Those interviewed seemed to intimate that some form of retribution beating was on the cards and death possible.
Now, I get it that what the old fella did was rude, it was disrespectful and, as it turns out, stupid. But, I really do not see the need to beat the fella senseless or even to death. I thought Islam was a religion of peace, tolerance and harmony? There is nothing real peaceful, tolerant or harmonious in beating a bloke because he turned down the volume on your speakers, is there?
Cool-Hand Luke managed to escape the clutches of his pursuers into the safety of a neighbouring village. However, his house was not so lucky. When it was decided that lucky Luke was not going to be the victim of today's bashing, his pursuers decided they would bash the next best thing, his house. Subsequently, his house was trashed. Knowing the Indonesian propensity for trashing stuff, I can just imagine what his house must have looked like once the unhappy mosque goers were done.
Funnily enough, in that truly sad kind of a way, it turns out that Lukey boy is an "overstayer". His residency permit expired way back in April 2006. Oops! I wonder how he managed to live in the small town environment of Mataram, Lombok, without ever being noticed. Maybe the same coppers that have now arrested him and placed him in 'protective' custody were facilitating his ongoing presence in Lombok over the last four years. Then again, it might have been the local immigration officers, as it seems that they are not so willing to comment on what happens next to the Luke-meister.
Aside from putting himself in a position to be busted for overstaying his visa and getting his house trashed, it appears that the local constabulary are now investigating the old fella with a view to charging him with blasphemy. Yes, if you are shaking your head, I understand. How does a bloke who pulls the plug on a mosque speaker system find himself looking down the barrel of a five-year stretch in the slammer for blasphemy.
To be honest, disrespecting Islam is one thing, but turning down the volume on a speaker system is hardly blasphemy. The idea that it has even been suggested let alone the fact that an investigation is being considered or undertaken highlights how silly some people can be. Any self-respecting Indonesian, irrespective of religion, must be shaking their head in bewilderment at this one. Or, then again, it might just be a simple case of "here we go again!"
No matter what happens, it would seem that Lukey's stay in Indonesia is all but over.
Showing posts with label Blasphemy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blasphemy. Show all posts
30 August 2010
08 September 2009
Afghanistan, Blasphemy, and Women's Rights...
It is difficult to imagine what it must be like to work as a journalist in a country that does not respect the important role that journalists play in covering events and reporting them. It is even harder to fathom how downloading an article on women's rights can land one with a 20-year prison sentence for blasphemy. This is what happened in Afghanistan.
An Afghani journalist, Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, was imprisoned for 20 years for committing an act of blasphemy and has recently been released after Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, signed the release papers, according to Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders).
Kambakhsh, who reported for the New World (Jahan-e-Naw) newspaper, downloaded an article from a website based in Iran that discussed how the Al-Qur'an views women. This seemingly innocuous indiscretion resulted in a sentence of death being handed down by a court in Mazar-i-Sharif. This sentence was reduced on appeal to 20 years.
One hopes that this is a first step in a much more democratic and freer Afghanistan, and one that will see the release of other people imprisoned for similar offenses to this one. And, also one that will see Afghanis revisit the definition of blasphemy as it is in their constitution.
In many ways I have been fortunate to have been born and raised in a country where there is a rich tradition of freedom of thought, speech, and expression. I am sure that there are arguments to be made that these freedoms are not absolute in Australia. However, I am unlikely to go to prison for 20 years, let alone be sentenced to death, for downloading an article on women's rights. So, it would be a difficult task to convince me that I have not been fortunate.
03 August 2009
Blasphemy In Indonesia...
The Indonesian Criminal Code defines blasphemy in Article 156. The article is often used to control "deviant" sects and cults. Generally, deviant is any practices that do not conform to an accepted norm. Some of these sects or cults are just plain bizarre, but the more interesting part is probably that they attract followers or believers.
One such cult is the Satria Piningit Weteng Buwono or the Chosen Warriors from the Belly of the Earth. Agus Noro (aka Agus Imam Solihin) was found guilty of blasphemy by the South Jakarta District Court. The gist of the charges set out that the Noro led sermons in his underwear and required all his followers to participate in orgies. Noro had managed to gather some 35 people as followers of his faith.
However, the blasphemy charges related to his blaspheming of Islam. It seems that the biggest crime that Noro committed was to instruct his Muslim followers not to fast and pray at the times required under the tenets of the Islamic faith.
Ultimately, Noro was sentenced to two years and six months in jail. The presiding judge in the case, Judge Haryanto, said that the sentence was less than the five years demanded by public prosecutors because Noro had retracted his statement that he was the incarnation of God (or refused to accept the charge as laid out by the public prosecutors). This knowledge, or spiritual guidance, allegedly came to him in a dream. The dream or vision was provided by Indonesia's first president, Soekarno, back in 1999.
A meagre 35 followers hardly seems like a threat to the established base of Islam in Indonesia. The fact that in one of the world's largest democracies that people are still being jailed for their beliefs and the manner in which they believe in their god or gods shows that Indonesia still has some way to go. The expectation is not perfection, there are no states in the world that are perfect in this regard. However, considering the myriad of other problems afflicting Indonesia, it just seems that the resources dedicated to putting Noro in jail could be better used elsewhere.
Where the religious practices of organizing orgies and allowing minors to either participate or watch are breaches of the law, then it would have been possible to arrest, prosecute, and ultimately, jail, Noro without having to resort to the blasphemy card.
Interestingly, Noro chose to represent himself and without the assistance of counsel.
14 December 2008
Blasphemy in Indonesia
Blasphemy is an issue that is always interesting to write about as the possibilities are endless, at least in terms of the hypotheticals - the what ifs? This is even more so the case in Indonesia where even the slightest hint of blasphemy leads to violence and the destruction of private property and the desecration of religious property in some instances, it is fair to say there is nothing funny about blasphemy in Indonesia.
Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.
Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.
The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.
The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.
This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.
Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.
I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.
I leave you with these random thoughts.
If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?
Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?
Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?
Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!
Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.
Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.
The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.
The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.
This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.
Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.
I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.
I leave you with these random thoughts.
If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?
Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?
Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?
Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!
05 October 2008
Combating the Defamation of Religion
The UN General Assembly will soon vote on a non-binding resolution that restricts speech that offends religion and in particular offends Islam. Originally, the resolution was introduced by Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference via the Human Rights Council in 1999. The resolution only referred to Islam but was amended to include other religions in order that it pass and it has passed the Human Rights Council every year since 1999.
Having successfully negotiated the Human Rights Council, Yemen was sufficiently emboldened to introduce it to the General Assembly in 2005. The General Assembly will now have to vote on Resolution 62/145. Interestingly, the reason for the resolution is that there has been a campaign of defamation of religions and to address the issues of religious and ethnic profiling in the post September 11 world.
The resolution, if passed, will significantly impact upon free speech everywhere. This is in spite of the resolution being non-binding. The threat is significant enough that the US felt the need to make a submission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The US statement simply noted that defamation related laws have been regularly abused by governments in order to restrict the freedom of speech and other human rights.
The resolution is being colloquially referred to as the blasphemy resolution. A quick survey of the recent news on this paints a picture of the likely effect that the passage of this resolution might have of it were to be applied uniformly throughout member states.
Although it is more likely a boon for those governments that head up non-democratic states as a blasphemy resolution could certainly be used to stifle debate. In nations with a much longer, albeit not perfect democratic tradition, there are generally protections for the freedom of speech in place. In some countries like the US this protection is enshrined in the Constitution.
For example:
* Random House's decision not to publish a book, The Jewel of Medina, that used as a plot base the marriage of Aisha and Muhammad because it was deemed to be offensive to Muslims;
* A British teacher working in Sudan was sentenced to 15 days in jail because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad;
* An Egyptian blogger that was sentenced to four years jail for a critique of Islam; and
* The murder of Theo van Gogh who released a film on the abuse of Muslim women.
It needs to be pointed out that this is an issue that has its roots in a much more distant past. In times prior to the thought that the UN might pass a resolution on this, Islamic countries took care of business themselves and issued fatwas such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses.
In many ways this is a resolution about creating a world full of fear and intimidation where people cannot speak their minds without fear of running afoul of a resolution such as this one. If anything it is going to increase the tension and stress on the pursuit of religious harmony, perhaps so much so that minority religions in majority Muslim countries will be victimized based on perceived slights.
What I wonder about is how you defame a religion. A religion is an idea or a set of ideas. Is it possible for an idea to have rights?
I am an advocate of free speech and the open and frank discussion and exchange of ideas. This resolution bothers me because it seems designed to provide the framework for the establishment for religious intolerance. Peace and tolerance go hand-in-hand but peace and intolerance do not.
Here's hoping that the resolution does not get the numbers to pass.
Having successfully negotiated the Human Rights Council, Yemen was sufficiently emboldened to introduce it to the General Assembly in 2005. The General Assembly will now have to vote on Resolution 62/145. Interestingly, the reason for the resolution is that there has been a campaign of defamation of religions and to address the issues of religious and ethnic profiling in the post September 11 world.
The resolution, if passed, will significantly impact upon free speech everywhere. This is in spite of the resolution being non-binding. The threat is significant enough that the US felt the need to make a submission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The US statement simply noted that defamation related laws have been regularly abused by governments in order to restrict the freedom of speech and other human rights.
The resolution is being colloquially referred to as the blasphemy resolution. A quick survey of the recent news on this paints a picture of the likely effect that the passage of this resolution might have of it were to be applied uniformly throughout member states.
Although it is more likely a boon for those governments that head up non-democratic states as a blasphemy resolution could certainly be used to stifle debate. In nations with a much longer, albeit not perfect democratic tradition, there are generally protections for the freedom of speech in place. In some countries like the US this protection is enshrined in the Constitution.
For example:
* Random House's decision not to publish a book, The Jewel of Medina, that used as a plot base the marriage of Aisha and Muhammad because it was deemed to be offensive to Muslims;
* A British teacher working in Sudan was sentenced to 15 days in jail because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad;
* An Egyptian blogger that was sentenced to four years jail for a critique of Islam; and
* The murder of Theo van Gogh who released a film on the abuse of Muslim women.
It needs to be pointed out that this is an issue that has its roots in a much more distant past. In times prior to the thought that the UN might pass a resolution on this, Islamic countries took care of business themselves and issued fatwas such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses.
In many ways this is a resolution about creating a world full of fear and intimidation where people cannot speak their minds without fear of running afoul of a resolution such as this one. If anything it is going to increase the tension and stress on the pursuit of religious harmony, perhaps so much so that minority religions in majority Muslim countries will be victimized based on perceived slights.
What I wonder about is how you defame a religion. A religion is an idea or a set of ideas. Is it possible for an idea to have rights?
I am an advocate of free speech and the open and frank discussion and exchange of ideas. This resolution bothers me because it seems designed to provide the framework for the establishment for religious intolerance. Peace and tolerance go hand-in-hand but peace and intolerance do not.
Here's hoping that the resolution does not get the numbers to pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)