Organizations Protecting Former FPI Members and Public Provocateurs Are Next In Line.

On December 30, 2020, the good people of Indonesia felt relieved, because they received the gift of being free from a bothersome gripping fear.

The activities of the Defenders of Islam Front (FPI) were banned by the government, because they were growing increasingly far from the life of our Pancasila-based society which is tolerant of differences.
The public can now hope to live more peaceful life, in the democratic environment which has been growing since the reformation period began in 1998.
There will be no more disruptions of people who are worshipping or holding weddings, no banning of saluting the national flag, no more raids of cafes, mini-markets, drugstores, eateries, shopping malls and other activities where that group had taken the law into their own hands.
Organized criminal activity hiding behind a religious front has been curtailed by the government in order to uphold the law, as well as for the benefit of social discipline.
It is only with such discipline that we can achieve stability, and only through stability can we work effectively to achieve mutual security and prosperity.
The FPI, which has been around since 1998, has long been a source of public concern due to its exploits. In 2008, (President) Gus Dur planned to disband that organization, in the wake of a decade of committing unsettling controversial actions.
The Joint Decree of Three Cabinet Ministers issued today, together with the National Police, Attorney General’s Office, and National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT), named FPI a forbidden organization.
The essence of the decree refers to the evidence of 37 of its members engaged in terrorist activity. This means that if any other organizations take in former FPI members, then they can be equally penalized.
If there are any authorities whose statements or writings are filled with public incitement, in violation of Law Number 5 of 2018, then they can be penalized for committing criminal acts of terrorism.
Any shady tendencies on the part of such authorities can be brought out and exposed to the light of the legal system. Democratic life must be secured by the government, by cleaning out any parasites.
These parasites of democracy are those provocateurs and demagogues who are a part of organized crime.

A.M. Hendropriyono
Professor at the State Intelligence College (STIN) and the Military Law College (STHM)

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
Excited we finally have a draft of this paper, which attempts to provide a 'unifying theory' of the long economic divergence between the Middle East & Western Europe

As we see it, there are 3 recent theories that hit on important aspects of the divergence...

1/


One set of theories focus on the legitimating power of Islam (Rubin, @prof_ahmetkuru, Platteau). This gave religious clerics greater power, which pulled political resources away form those encouraging economic development

But these theories leave some questions unanswered...
2/

Religious legitimacy is only effective if people
care what religious authorities dictate. Given the economic consequences, why do people remain religious, and thereby render religious legitimacy effective? Is religiosity a cause or a consequence of institutional arrangements?

3/

Another set of theories focus on the religious proscriptions of Islam, particular those associated with Islamic law (@timurkuran). These laws were appropriate for the setting they formed but had unforeseeable consequences and failed to change as economic circumstances changed

4/

There are unaddressed questions here, too

Muslim rulers must have understood that Islamic law carried proscriptions that hampered economic development. Why, then, did they continue to use Islamic institutions (like courts) that promoted inefficiencies?

5/

You May Also Like