It turns out that Indonesians are not the only ones paying attention to Basuki Tjahaja Purnamas blasphemy case.
The European Union, through its delegation to Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam, issued statements today regarding therecent ruling that sent Ahok to two years of imprisonment over his remark regarding Quranic verse of Al-Maidah:51.
ALSO READ:
In Photos: The Journey Of Ahok's Trial
The European Union has always praised the leadership of Indonesia as the worldlargest Muslim majority country, a strong democracy and a country with a proudtradition of tolerance and pluralism, the statement said.
We call on the Indonesian government, itsinstitutions and its people to continue this long standing tradition of tolerance andpluralism.
You might think that its going to be another laissez-faire diplomatic note, but EU openly took a position regarding the case through the next statements.
ALSO READ:
What's Next For Jakarta?
While the Union had nothing to say against or for Ahok, it criticized the law on religious blasphemy.
Indonesia and the EU have agreed to promote and protect the rightsenshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights such as the freedom of thought, conscienceand religion and freedom of expression, the statement said. The European Union recalls that those freedoms are interdependent, interrelatedand mutually reinforcing rights, protecting all persons and protecting also the rightto express opinions on any or all religions and beliefs in accordance with theinternational human rights law.
Last but not least, the EU said that the laws that criminalize blasphemy, when applied in a discriminatory manner, can have a serious effect on peoples freedom of expression and belief.
EU statement might not have any effect towards the apparently still ongoing political debacle, but it started a new question that we might need to think about as soon as possible: is ittime to revise the Law on Religious Blasphemy and take it to the Constitutional Court for a judicial review?