By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Islamic court in Indonesia’s Aceh province sentenced two men to 80 public canings each for engaging in sexual acts, specifically hugging and kissing. The men, aged 20 and 21, were arrested in April after being caught by religious police in a park bathroom. The court, applying Islamic law, determined their actions violated regulations against acts that lead to gay sexual relations. While the prosecutor sought 85 lashes, the judges reduced the sentence due to the men’s cooperation and lack of prior convictions.
Read the original article here
The sentencing of two men to public caning in Indonesia for the “crime” of kissing and hugging is, frankly, appalling. The sheer cruelty of the situation is hard to ignore: 80 lashes each is a substantial punishment, and while some say the intention is humiliation, the reality is it’s an inhumane practice. The fact that this occurred in Aceh, a province governed by Sharia law, essentially a mini-Taliban state, should come as no surprise. This isn’t the norm for all of Indonesia, but it reflects a disturbing strain of religious fundamentalism that has taken root in this particular region. It’s a stark reminder that while the world progresses, some places remain firmly entrenched in antiquated practices.
The immediate response, as one might expect, is a mixture of outrage and disbelief. The arrest itself, with residents reporting the men to police for entering the same bathroom, feels like an invasion of privacy and a chilling example of how religious dogma can dictate the most intimate aspects of life. The subsequent breaking into the bathroom by police and the court’s judgment of a simple embrace as a “sexual act” underscores the oppressive nature of the law. The reduction in lashes, supposedly as a sign of leniency, feels insulting when the punishment itself is so barbaric.
The conversation quickly veers into the broader implications. The idea of public caning as a form of punishment in 2025 is simply unacceptable. It’s a backward practice that reflects a society out of touch with modern values of human rights and personal freedom. The separation of church and state is brought up, a crucial tenet that is ignored in Aceh. It’s a fundamental principle that’s constantly under attack, and the need for it is clear in this case. The injustice is repeated endlessly, as religion is used as a justification to restrict human rights.
The discussion then rightly acknowledges the specific context of Aceh. Some are quick to point out that while the situation in Aceh is extreme, it doesn’t represent the entire country of Indonesia. The contrast with the rest of Indonesia, where homosexuality is legal, is a powerful one. The issue of the West’s relationship with Islam is brought up, and the hypocrisy some feel when condemning actions like these, while sometimes supporting other problematic groups, is noted. The “it’s their culture” argument quickly gets a well-deserved slamming, as it is an excuse used to shield abusive practices.
Concerns about the potential for permanent harm from the caning are also raised, alongside observations about the type of caning used. Apparently, the caning in Aceh aims for public humiliation, not necessarily physical harm, with medical safeguards in place. But even if it’s “less severe” than the harsher judicial caning practiced elsewhere, the argument that it is “not life-threatening” offers little comfort. Regardless of the physical impact, the practice is a violation of human dignity and freedom.
The reactions also include thoughts on intervention. Some express the sentiment that the Australian government, as a geographically close and safe country, should offer refuge to those targeted by these laws. There’s a feeling that the international community has a responsibility to work to ensure human rights for everyone, even if it means providing assistance to those fleeing persecution. This is an incredibly important aspect of the conversation: what can be done to help these individuals?
The conversation also touches on how it relates to other religions, with people quick to point out hypocrisy and the historical wrongdoings of all religions. The focus, however, remains on what’s happening now, not what happened in the past.
Finally, the overall sentiment is clear: the situation in Aceh is an injustice, a violation of human rights, and a consequence of a particular brand of religious extremism. It’s a stark reminder that progress isn’t uniform, and that vigilance is needed to protect human dignity and freedom. The case underscores the importance of secular governance, the separation of church and state, and the need for a world where a simple kiss and hug are not considered crimes worthy of public humiliation and potential life-altering physical harm.