ABSTRACT
In the first section of this chapter, I discuss the decision of the North Jakarta State Court to convict Ahok of blasphemy. My discussion focuses on the reasoning adopted by the court and the way in which that reasoning further institutionalised an Islamist majoritarian construction of human rights law, namely one that prioritises the protection of MUI-defined religious orthodoxy from public criticism and doctrinal disagreement over the fundamental human rights of religious minorities and Indonesian citizens being critical of religious orthodoxy more generally.
In the second section, I discuss the court’s apparent refusal to provide due consideration in its judgment to both the human rights-based legal arguments submitted by the defence and the contradictory and prejudicial evidence provided by certain witnesses for the prosecution. I conclude that the court’s findings and reasoning have legitimate ramifications for intellectualism within religion and also have the potential to further encourage totalitarian views on public religion. Indeed, Ahok’s case demonstrates that such views can be exploited for political gain under the guise of apprehended offence and injured religious sensibilities. In a liberal democracy, however, I argue that the protection of religious sensibilities should never be prioritised over the fundamental and procedural rights of any citizen.
