Royal Brunei Airlines and LGBTI travellers

[MEL_Traveller]

Although politically incorrect to say so, millions of Australians (and arguably a large majority in many Asian nations) oppose homosexuality and lesbianism for many and varied reasons. Very few of us - hopefully no one - would agree that stoning to death is acceptable. These activities are legal in Australia, even though many say they are morally wrong.

But we live in a democracy in Australia. And everything is decided by the majority of people. You might be correct that 'millions' oppose [insert issue], but they are in the minority. And the majority does not hold the same view.

 

[drron]

What you're suggesting is that no one shou'd take up any cause unless they can take up every cause? People are taking a stand against this particular country and airline because they feel it directly affects them.

There's 'selective' and there's 'effective'.

So you pick on the smallest country and let the big boys get away with it.
As pointed out there are many countries that their law says same sex relations are illegal with airlines that many more Australians and AFFers fly.

 

[Buzzard]

So you pick on the smallest country and let the big boys get away with it.
As pointed out there are many countries that their law says same sex relations are illegal with airlines that many more Australians and AFFers fly.

Don't bullies always pick on the small guy??

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So you pick on the smallest country and let the big boys get away with it.
As pointed out there are many countries that their law says same sex relations are illegal with airlines that many more Australians and AFFers fly.

Maybe some people think you have to pick your causes. Brunei's laws are, as others have pointed out, more draconian than most. But if you start with Royal Brunei, perhaps Qatar is next. That's often the way movements grow. It doesn't usually happen overnight.

The alternative is saying that because you can't go to the top first, you might as well do nothing about anything.

 

[amaroo]

What you're suggesting is that no one shou'd take up any cause unless they can take up every cause? People are taking a stand against this particular country and airline because they feel it directly affects them.

There's 'selective' and there's 'effective'.

I'm not suggesting that at all. The selective picking and choosing to seek adulation from the tweeter audience is sickening. Sadly, it's just the way things are these days.

Ignorance mixed with a healthy dose of arrogance is an awful concoction.

 

[sjk]

Ignorance mixed with a healthy dose of arrogance is an awful concoction.

Proved empirically by you.

 

[amaroo]

Proved empirically by you.

You could put that confected outrage to better use.... just like George and his selective friends

Here's where Saudi Arabia has invested around the world - CNN

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund’s Development & Investment Entertainment Company Signs Agreement with AMC - Celluloid Junkie

 

[drron]

Maybe some people think you have to pick your causes. Brunei's laws are, as others have pointed out, more draconian than most. But if you start with Royal Brunei, perhaps Qatar is next. That's often the way movements grow. It doesn't usually happen overnight.

The alternative is saying that because you can't go to the top first, you might as well do nothing about anything.

But Saudi laws are just as draconian and have been around for many years yet there is very little outrage from the folks such as George Clooney and Ellen Degeneres.Why?
So when you look at Saudi investments shouldn't people be thinking of boycotting such companies as Uber and Accor?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But Saudi laws are just as draconian and have been around for many years yet there is very little outrage from the folks such as George Clooney and Ellen Degeneres.Why?
So when you look at Saudi investments shouldn't people be thinking of boycotting such companies as Uber and Accor?

This is a puzzling statement. Given your years of life expereince I have no doubt you understand why some issues get more attention than others.

So that opens the question of why you are taking a stand to invalidate the current public reaction to Brunei? Most people would agree you have to start somewhere, but you would rather nothing happens unless every country gets the same treatment?

 

[amaroo]

Definition of Ironic / hypocritical / ignorant / etc / etc/ etc.....

Using twitter to lobby for a boycott on businesses owned by Brunei..... big, early and current investor in twitter = Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud

How funny is that! George needs to do his homework better ..... like many on here.

So who's going to start #tagboycotttwitter ????

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Definition of Ironic / hypocritical / ignorant / etc / etc/ etc.....

Using twitter to lobby for a boycott on businesses owned by Brunei..... big, early and current investor in twitter = Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud

How funny is that! George needs to do his homework better ..... like many on here.

So who's going to start #tagboycotttwitter ????

So your sole opposition to the current 'boycott' is that it is being applied selectively and in principle you would otherwise not be opposed to it?

In that case, why not embrace it as a 'good start'?

 

[drron]

This is a puzzling statement. Given your years of life expereince I have no doubt you understand why some issues get more attention than others.

So that opens the question of why you are taking a stand to invalidate the current public reaction to Brunei? Most people would agree you have to start somewhere, but you would rather nothing happens unless every country gets the same treatment?

Most of the public have very interest in this subject.Very few fly with Brunei or have visited there compared to those who have used Uber or Accor.
Certainly I do understand why some issues get more attention than others.it used to be because of the media and now increasingly social media.These do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the public.

I know from experience in the 60s and 70s when actively involved in the conservation movement that it was nearly impossible to get the media,with the exception of the Australian,to give more than a passing mention of issues.
Also in the early 70s I was very much involved in the conditions for junior medical staff.Again the only place that gave that issue any space was the Australian.

So instead I take my own actions.i do not fly ME airlines and will no longer visit apart from possible visits to Jordan and Israel.I will not fly Chinese airlines with the exception of CX.I have never felt like visiting Brunei so making a stand now would be the epitomy of virtue signalling.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Most of the public have very interest in this subject.Very few fly with Brunei or have visited there compared to those who have used Uber or Accor.
Certainly I do understand why some issues get more attention than others.it used to be because of the media and now increasingly social media.These do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the public.

I know from experience in the 60s and 70s when actively involved in the conservation movement that it was nearly impossible to get the media,with the exception of the Australian,to give more than a passing mention of issues.
Also in the early 70s I was very much involved in the conditions for junior medical staff.Again the only place that gave that issue any space was the Australian.

So instead I take my own actions.i do not fly ME airlines and will no longer visit apart from possible visits to Jordan and Israel.I will not fly Chinese airlines with the exception of CX.I have never felt like visiting Brunei so making a stand now would be the epitomy of virtue signalling.

All of this lends to the view that you may not actually be opposed to a campaign of this type. If that is so, why not let those who want to take part, take part? And if you feel inclined, why not offer your experience from the 60s and 70s to give helpful advice to those who might want it?

 

[amaroo]

So your sole opposition to the current 'boycott' is that it is being applied selectively and in principle you would otherwise not be opposed to it?

In that case, why not embrace it as a 'good start'?

This boycott is a pointless act of popular stupidity. What I'm calling out is the hypocrisy of calling for a boycott of businesses that services the "one percenters" of the world whilst completing ignoring the same issue in businesses like: twitter, uber, Hollywood, tesla, aviation, etc that services the other 99% of the population.

Whipping up a frenzy that will do nothing is not a start. It's a "look at me" self-inflating post on a platform that has similar investors that enraged you to make the post in the first place. That's pure ignorance...

Now if George and his mates used their considerable pulling power to start targeting these others companies..... that would be a great start.

Ask yourself - how many of the twitter brigade would actively support a boycott of Twitter, Uber, Tesla ?

Then ask yourself - why haven't these businesses been targeted ?

 

[drron]

All of this lends to the view that you may not actually be opposed to a campaign of this type. If that is so, why not let those who want to take part, take part? And if you feel inclined, why not offer your experience from the 60s and 70s to give helpful advice to those who might want it?

Because I believe everyone has the right to their own opinions including the people of Brunei.So it is up to everyone to do things they feel are right such as my personal boycotts.It is not up to me to tell others what to think though I will tell them when I think they are wrong.

As to my experiences in the 60s with the conservation movement I would now get howled down for my views.Like the majority in the movement at that time I was in favour of nuclear energy.In Australia after a lot of discussion we came out in favour of hazard reduction burns including in National Parks.

 

[tgh]

The top Dubai dog is, and continues to be , personally responsible for the torture and premature death and many thousands of healthy young horses , many of them Australian.
The continuing brutality is well documented and could stop with a word.
From an Australian perspective , the brutal meat trade in young horses could easily be truncated with even a small amount of interest from the populace.
The populace is uninterested, and so the killing continues.
Form my perspective self serving rabble rousing about sexual freedom in another culture is amoral in the light of the national tolerance and indeed support for Institutional abuse of voiceless animals in Australia

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because I believe everyone has the right to their own opinions including the people of Brunei.

Is it their view? Or only the view of a single man who is the sultan? If it was a free and open democracy that argument might have a little more weight? Do the women of the country have a say in the laws?

This boycott is a pointless act of popular stupidity.

I read this morning that the social media accounts of those hotels targetted have now been closed because of public backlash (to the laws). So that's a partial result?

 

[amaroo]

I read this morning that the social media accounts of those hotels targetted have now been closed because of public backlash (to the laws). So that's a partial result?

I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that achievement.

Closing a platform for the ugly mob to vent their ill-informed and ignorant confected outrage is the real achievement IMO.

 

[drron]

Is it their view? Or only the view of a single man who is the sultan? If it was a free and open democracy that argument might have a little more weight? Do the women of the country have a say in the laws?
Yes I believe it is the view of the majority.
There is also a segment of the Australian population calling for the introduction of Sharia here.


I read this morning that the social media accounts of those hotels targetted have now been closed because of public backlash (to the laws). So that's a partial result?

More proof of the populists imposing their will on the general population.
The staff of the hotels have put their side of the story.They don't hold the same views as the Sultan.
The suggestion I like the most was from a fellow writing to the LA Times-all LGBTI folk should stay at the Beverley Hills hotel and post their stays on Social media so it becomes known as the gay hotel.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would need to see the evidence that the majority of people in Brunei, with free will, accept sharia law, and do not believe in equality for women. If that can be shown, then good on them. And indeed the current campaign might be misplaced.