Two men publicly caned for having sex with each other in Indonesia’s conservative Aceh | CNN

CNN - Feb 27th, 2025

In Aceh province, Indonesia, two men were publicly caned after being convicted of having sex with each other under Islamic Shariah law. The caning took place in Banda Aceh's Bustanussalatin city park, witnessed by dozens of people. The men, aged 24 and 18, were sentenced to 85 and 80 strokes respectively, but received slightly fewer due to remission for time spent in prison. This incident marks the fourth time Aceh has enacted such punishment for homosexuality since the introduction of Shariah law in 2006. The event highlights the province's strict adherence to Islamic law, which allows up to 100 lashes for morality offenses such as gay sex and sex between unmarried people.

Aceh's implementation of Shariah law, granted by Indonesia's secular central government, was part of a peace deal to end a long-standing separatist conflict. The province's laws have been expanded to apply to non-Muslims as well, who make up about 1% of the population. While Indonesia's national criminal code does not regulate homosexuality, Aceh's strict enforcement of Shariah law has drawn criticism from human rights groups. These organizations argue that such laws violate international treaties protecting minority rights, although the central government lacks the authority to overturn Aceh's regulations. Despite criticism, Aceh continues to enforce its version of Shariah law, with punishments including caning for offenses like gambling, drinking alcohol, and inappropriate clothing.

Indonesia Human Rights Aceh Shariah Law Caning Homosexuality Islamic Law Public Punishment

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a factual and timely account of a controversial event in Aceh, Indonesia, highlighting the enforcement of Shariah law and its impact on LGBTQ+ individuals. While the story is clear and accessible, it lacks depth in terms of source quality and transparency, as it does not specify the sources of its information or provide direct quotes from affected parties or authorities. The article effectively raises public interest by addressing significant human rights issues, but its potential impact is limited by the absence of a broader range of perspectives and personal narratives. Overall, the story succeeds in drawing attention to important legal and cultural tensions, though it could be strengthened by more comprehensive reporting and source attribution.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of the caning of two men in Aceh, Indonesia, for homosexuality, which aligns with known facts about the implementation of Shariah law in the region. The report accurately states that Aceh is the only province in Indonesia practicing Shariah law, a legal framework established in 2006. The details about the caning process, including the number of strokes and the remission for time spent in prison, are specific and align with typical Shariah law practices. However, the story could improve by providing more direct citations or references to official sources or documents that confirm these details. The story's claim about human rights criticism is also consistent with known international responses to such practices, although it would benefit from direct quotes or statements from human rights organizations.

Balance

The article presents a factual recounting of the events without delving deeply into the perspectives of the individuals involved, the local community, or the authorities enforcing the law. While it mentions human rights criticisms, it does not provide a platform for those voices to be heard directly. Similarly, the story lacks input from local government officials or religious leaders who might defend the practice. This results in a somewhat one-sided narrative that focuses more on the event's occurrence rather than a balanced exploration of the differing viewpoints surrounding it.

Clarity

The article is clearly written, with a straightforward structure that presents the events in a logical sequence. The language is neutral and objective, which aids in reader comprehension. However, the story could benefit from additional context about the broader implications of Shariah law in Aceh and how it fits within Indonesia's national legal framework. Providing more background information would help readers unfamiliar with the topic understand the significance of the events described.

Source quality

The story appears to rely on general knowledge and previously reported facts about Aceh's legal practices, but it does not specify the sources of its information. There is no attribution to specific witnesses, government officials, or human rights organizations, which would enhance the credibility of the report. The lack of direct quotes or named sources makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information provided. Including authoritative voices from both the local government and human rights groups would strengthen the article's foundation.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of its sourcing and the basis for its claims. It does not disclose how the information was gathered or whether any attempts were made to contact relevant parties for comment. There is no explanation of the methodology used to verify the facts presented, such as court records or eyewitness accounts. Greater transparency about the reporting process would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the article's foundation and potential biases.