indonesia
How public a speech be so that it&#39;s in range of Indonesian anti blasphemy laws?
<p><a href="http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/why-is-ahok-in-prison-a-legal-analysis-of-the-decision/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/why-is-ahok-in-prison-a-legal-analysis-of-the-decision/</a></p>

<p>Ahok is convicted of insulting religion by saying people may use certain quranic verses for dishonest goals.</p>

<p>The thing is, not one people that hear his speech claims that he is offended by Ahok's speech.</p>

<p>However, his speech is videotaped. Some people claimed they are offended after watching the video.</p>

<p>That leads to the question.</p>

<p>How public your speech can be for Indonesian anti blasphemy laws to kick in? Say you talk in private to someone about religion. Say that someone record that. Say someone that watch the recording get offended. Does that count?</p>

<p>And if so, where in the law is that written?</p>

<p><strong>A little background:</strong></p>

<p><a href="https://steemit.com/ahok/@freeross/who-is-ahok-and-what-is-his-problems-in-indonesia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://steemit.com/ahok/@freeross/who-is-ahok-and-what-is-his-problems-in-indonesia</a></p>

<p>Ahok is a very effective governor. With much less budget he can make rivers clean, fix all roads, give universal healthcare, and funds the poor's education. Oh, he also eliminates corruption due to his ebudgeting. And he is very popular. Duh.</p>

<p>So, his political opponent use anti blasphemy laws to bring him down. Whether he blasphemes or not is very politically controversial. Not one that listen to him. So someone would seek his video, pretend to get offended, and sue him in court.</p>

<p>Hence, the current question. How public your speech should be to get jailed by this rubber flexible law. If you say something privately, and someone record it, and publicly show it, will you be jailed? If so, should you not talk bad about religion anywhere privately?</p>

<hr>

<p>My concern is a hypothetical case. Say I talk something about religion. And I talk to a few people. Yet the talk is recorded and then latter people that want me death for totally unrelated reason use a youtube video and claim they are offended. If this is the case, then the law effectively prevent people from talking about religion in any place even when it's not public.</p>

<p>The English version of the law says </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>By a maximum imprisonment of five years shall be punished for
  whosoever in  public deliberately expresses their feelings or engages
  in actions that: a. in principle is hostile and considered as abuse or
  defamation of a religion embraced in Indonesia; b. has the intention
  that a person should not practice any religion at all that is  based
  on belief in Almighty God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>from the Bahasa Indonesia law</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Dipidana dengan pidana penjara selama-lamanya lima tahun barangsiapa
  dengan sengaja di muka umum mengeluarkan perasaan atau  melakukan
  perbuatan: a. yang pada pokoknya bersifat permusuhan, penyalahgunaan
  atau penodaan terhadap suatu agama yang  dianut di Indonesia; b.
  dengan maksud agar supaya orang tidak menganut agama apapun juga, yang
  bersendikan ke-Tuhanan Yang Maha Esa</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The law does not define "public", so it would normally mean what it means in ordinary language (and that is not at all easy to figure out: it might be considered "public" if the expression was made to a single person). However, in this case, it was clearly in public (at a speech with about 100 people) that the statement was made.</p>

<p>The law does not say that those people who constituted "the public" that heard the statement have to have been offended. Rather, (first) the statement has to be made in public (it was), and second, it is "in principle is hostile and considered as abuse or defamation of a religion embraced in Indonesia". That's a matter for the court to sort out. It appears, for example, that <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/files/_index-_asa_210182014.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shi'a teachings</a> are legally blasphemous (case of Tajul Muluk). Unfortunately, there aren't any accessible resources here pertaining to the court decisions, so it's not clear if there are any concrete limits on what could be found to be blasphemous. However, it is established law that deviant teachings are legaly blasphemous, see the 39 case synopsis and the end <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/files/_index-_asa_210182014.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
