The HRW analysis linked above isn’t crystal clear on how that would interact with the “bonk ban” but the suggestion is that the couple would be in trouble (SSM not recognised - period). (Probably no-one knows and who would want to be the test case?)
Let’s make it a bit easier … the couple is a de facto straight couple.
The real point was that you can’t safely accept the idea that one province is extreme traditionalist (would enforce the law rigorously) and another is more laid back (accepting of tourists) because in aviation … things happen.
It’s not clear that there is any point, unless one is making a political statement about how it is in another country, and judging that country as being like or not like Australia.
It’s not a unique circumstance. Visit any foreign country. If there is a desire to encourage this discussion let’s open it up to raising awareness of every other nation where the laws impose penalties or could that our own citizens would not face in Australia.
Say in public you think the leadership or Crown ruler of the nation one is visiting is out of touch and should abdicate for a better system. Freedom of speech has many limits. Not a hypothetical if visiting Thailand, also popular with Australian travellers.
It’s an interesting observation
Yes it took a plebiscite to remove the grooves out of the backsides of our own political leadership to even dare to vote on changing Australian law. Fortunately the votes in parliament agreed with the plebiscite outcome. Also fortunate the legislative changes followed despite more than a handful of members voting differently to the majority of their constituents.
Is this relevant to what the laws in Indonesia, Malaysia, HongKong, Thailand etc demand? It’s relevant to point out Australia makes laws for Australia, hopefully for the benefit of all Australians. Our laws still make demands on our citizens.
EG Polygamous marriage is not recognised in Australia, although it is in other nations.
Australian travellers will always face the challenge when visiting foreign places not only for their cultural differences, the laws also differ. It’s a choice each nation has made. As Australian’s we may not agree with how those other nations are governed, or accept many of the cultural differences.
How many nations should Australian tourists avoid? All because we might be tempted or intending to transgress their customs or laws. Just one years tally.
A great many countries we should avoid when looking for a good time abroad?
I don’t look at it in binary terms (no pun intended) i.e. avoid v. don’t avoid - but rather in terms of level of risk: very low all the way through to very high.
In the case of de facto couples, gay married couples and lesbian married couples it is not a question of temptation. The mere act of visiting Indonesia will be a crime (even if it won’t be reported to the authorities, and even if, in Bali, common sense dictates that the locals would turn a blind eye). In my opinion, that is high risk.
Still, it’s a reminder that things change. What was a good choice becomes a bad choice.
You wonder whether BG would have been sentenced to 9 years hard labour if Russia had not invaded Ukraine. It pays to be aware of changing circumstances and geopolitics around the world.
As such let’s see what actual law comes into force in Indonesia in 3 year’s time.
It is probably a government ploy to increase tourism now before the sex ban applies in 3 years’ time. Then they could impose a “nookie tax” to get more money from tourists?
… supporting my assertion that you cannot rely on Hindu-majority Bali province being chill (not enforcing the bonk ban, and hence safe to visit if the bonk ban is a problem for you as a couple) while the rest of Indonesia is up-tight.
(We still haven’t seen any hard definition of who can really make a report but let’s take the above as gospel…)
A man and a woman marry in Australia and have kids. Then they separate (for whatever reason). During the lengthy and bitter custody and family court battle, the man goes on holiday to Bali with his new girlfriend.
Aware of this dodgy law, he tells his kids not to tell his serpentine estranged wife where the new couple have gone for holidays - but said wife manages to wheedle it out of the young kids.
Report ensues - meeting the required definition under Indonesian law.
Man and that trollop **** *****, Corona, are thrown in jail, pending the legal process in Indonesia. After some years of legal struggle, including intervention by Australia’s foreign minister, the case in Indonesia is “resolved” - but in the meantime the wife’s family court case has been helped immensely.
Realistic? Well anyone with some experience of observing life will recognise the elements of truth.
Realistic, possibly if they were Indonesian nationals (possibly with dual citizenship) living permanently outside Indonesia and the children/family who were also Indonesia nationals lived in Indonesia. If the laws are limited to Indonesian nationals, which seems the likely case from what the Indonesian government has indicated, such scenarios where a tourist may be caught by the laws are limited to a very small number of travellers to Bali/Indonesia.
Any other scenarios are speculation as they are inconsistent with government messages and since regulations which deal with the law’s implement are yet to be drafted.
Surely that isn’t accurate though? If that were the case, it wouldn’t even rate a mention in this forum.
I most certainly have suggested that it should only apply to citizens and permanent residents of Indonesia (or something similar to that) but needless to say the Indonesian government pays no attention to what I say.
The history of learned discourse is full of debates about the properties and characteristics of things whose existence has not been proven. Are you saying the members here are unlearned?
That would be a pretty standard political playbook though, wouldn’t it?
The law contains the ugly truth.
The government messaging is designed to downplay the reality of the law.
I can almost guarantee you that the law itself contains no exemptions for people who are not “Indonesian nationals” nor any similar exemption.
I can clarify one thing about who can report “adultery”.
If a person is married then the spouse can report the adultery (not children or parents). (So in the event that two people who are both married but not to each other have sex then either one of the other spouses can make a complaint - and then the criminal justice system is off and running.)
If a person is not married (such as would occur with pre-marital sex but also after divorce) then parents or children can complain.
