Our work in Indonesia has focused on the abuse of the country’s controversial Information and Electronic Transactions Law (“the ITE Law”), which the authorities and other powerful actors have used to silence criticism.
In two cases that the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch initiative monitored, a journalist was convicted of “cyber defamation” and a dermatology patient was likewise prosecuted for cyber defamation for Instagram posts criticizing a beauty clinic (she was eventually acquitted). To support the journalist’s appeal of his conviction, TrialWatch submitted an amicus brief to the Indonesian Supreme Court, urging it to improve protections for journalists.
TrialWatch has also covered Indonesia’s blasphemy law—another way in which the criminal law is being used to insulate the majority from “‘subjective feelings of offensiveness.’”
Yet Indonesia is discussing expanding its blasphemy law, posing a further threat to the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.
TrialWatch
TrialWatch is now monitoring developments on the ground in light of the passage of a new criminal code that undercuts core human rights, including speech offenses and blasphemy offenses. Our monitoring in Indonesia is part of broader work to combat cybercrime laws in the region, including in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Malaysia.
In Indonesia, TrialWatch reporting helped secure the acquittal of a Catholic woman unfairly targeted by the State. Suzethe Margaret, who had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was charged with blasphemy after she ‘heard voices’ telling her that her husband was getting married at a mosque and, under this delusion, entered the mosque with her shoes on and with her...
Indonesia: Unfair Targeting of Vulnerable Woman
In Indonesia, TrialWatch reporting helped secure the acquittal of a Catholic woman unfairly targeted by the State. Suzethe Margaret, who had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was charged with blasphemy after she ‘heard voices’ telling her that her husband was getting married at a mosque and, under this delusion, entered the mosque with her shoes on and with her dog—conduct prohibited by Islam.
The report on the case found that the blasphemy law was applied in a discriminatory manner: in particular, the authorities brought charges in the wake of calls from hardline groups that Ms. Margaret be punished and “[d]espite overwhelming evidence that Ms. Margaret’s diagnosed psychosocial disability was the cause of the incident.”
International pressure, including TrialWatch monitoring and reporting, contributed to her acquittal and the upholding of this decision on appeal, meaning that she did not have to serve jail time.
The court’s failure to adequately assess the supports Ms. Margaret needed and the absence of reasonable accommodations made her a spectator at her own trial.
TrialWatch Expert
News
Read more
