A young couple in Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province was publicly caned on Thursday after an Islamic Shariah court convicted them of violating Islamic law by kissing during a TikTok livestream. The 22-year-old man and 25-year-old woman each received 21 lashes, reduced from an initial sentence of 25 due to time already served in prison.
The couple was arrested in April after a February 27 livestream in which they kissed in a car in Banda Aceh went viral, prompting reports to local Sharia authorities. The caning was carried out in Bustanussalatin City Park, witnessed by at least a hundred people. Aceh is the only province in Muslim-majority Indonesia that enforces Islamic law, which prohibits physical intimacy between unmarried men and women.
The court also seized a cellphone and a USB flash drive containing the TikTok video as evidence, which authorities promised to destroy. Four other individuals were publicly caned on the same day for online gambling and adultery.
Legal and Social Context
Aceh’s Sharia law, implemented in 2006 as part of a peace deal, allows up to 100 lashes for morality offenses, including adultery and gay sex. The law was expanded in 2015 to apply to non-Muslims, though they make up only about 1% of the province’s population. Punishments also extend to gambling, drinking, and women wearing tight clothing or men skipping Friday prayers.
Public and Human Rights Response
Some residents, like 22-year-old Aini Nadhirah, supported the punishment, stating it served as a warning to others. However, Amnesty International Indonesia condemned the caning as a human rights violation, describing it as cruel, inhumane, and degrading to human dignity. The organization noted that Indonesia has ratified conventions mandating the abolition of inhumane punishments.
Broader Implications
The case highlights the ongoing enforcement of Sharia law in Aceh, which remains a point of contention between religious conservatives and human rights advocates. While supporters argue such punishments uphold moral standards, critics view them as violations of fundamental rights and dignity.