ABSTRACT
Approximately one year ago, former Governor of DKI Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok), by a decision of the judges of the State Court of North Jakarta, Number 1537/Pid.B/2016/PN JKT.UTR, was declared to be proven to have legally and convincingly committed “religious desecration”, by intentionally relating Surah Al-Maidah verse 51 in the Al-Qur’an with the word “lied” at Kepulauan Seribu. This decision of the judges raised various conflicting opinions, even among legal experts themselves. In reality, there is a significant difference between blasphemy and hate speech. Blasphemy in general is an act of insulting a religion or belief of individuals or other groups, while hate speech is the statement of opinions that reject the human rights principles of dignity and equality and attempt to humiliate individuals and groups in light of popular perceptions of them. The Ahok case has caught the attention of the international community, including legal institutions in other countries. The Dutch Parliament has stated that punishment for Ahok is an error, and freedom of opinion in Indonesia will be lost because of the case. OHCHR of Southeast Asia and Amnesty International have stated that the law of “religious desecration” in Indonesia is an injustice. Further, Amnesty International have stated that the application of “religious desecration” charges against Ahok has been misused to punish people who are simply and actually stating their opinions. The true nature of the Ahok case – whether it constitutes blasphemy or “simply” a case of hate speech – in the perspective of international law becomes something interesting to be discussed.
