Royal Brunei Airlines and LGBTI travellers

[MEL_Traveller]

Add murdering unborn children....

... is getting on to a topic that is probably best discussed elsewhere. It is never as simple as some - on both sides - would like to make out.

 

[Steady]

... is getting on to a topic that is probably best discussed elsewhere.

Fair comment

 

[Wello]

It appears that a number of people on this thread have adopted Trumps tactic of whataboutism. Yes there are terrible things happening both in Australia and elsewhere but it doesn’t change the fact that what is happening in Brunei is wrong.

 

[amaroo]

Sorry but I don't regard the UN Human Rights Council as an authority on human rights.Many of the countries singled out in this thread as violating human rights are members of the council.
OHCHR | HRC Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2019

What a mixed bunch of countries ..... no wonder the UN is a bloated joke.

 

[Pushka]

It appears that a number of people on this thread have adopted Trumps tactic of whataboutism. Yes there are terrible things happening both in Australia and elsewhere but it doesn’t change the fact that what is happening in Brunei is wrong.

Yes. But I’m betting if Brunei didn’t have oil, we’d never know about it.

 

[ozfflyer]

a

Good advice: I'll no longer do either.

Multiculturalism is egregious if it means 'don't put Australia first.' We've benefited hugely from migration but sadly today we have a group of people in favour of Sharia law who don't accept our social mores and customs.

But the News Corp online article is typical of the rubbish seen on its website. (Its printed media: not nearly as bad).

The couple who rang Smart Traveller ought to have the intelligence to know to refrain from any public displays of affection, or if staying overnight (they are not) to not make a fuss when they receive a twin bedded hotel room. Hardly difficult to abide by. Commonsense (and some might say 'common decency').

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.

My biggest objection - because it may eventually be more likely to occur in Brunei than any stoning, although so far the initial introduction of Sharia law seems to have been all talk and little action - is that someone may lose a right hand for an initial proven charge of theft. That's way disproportionate, and harking back to 1380.

DFAT and others assert that these Sharia laws apply to non Muslims but elsewhere I have continually read that in other nations (like Indonesia's Aceh province) that's not necessarily so. Quite confusing.

ahhh what's the difference ........ between

female homosexuality and lesbianism ?

 

[ozfflyer]

Yes. But I’m betting if Brunei didn’t have oil, we’d never know about it.

& they are getting lots of free publicity.

Hell I mentioned the $599 fares MEL/LHR/MEL. Their flights might fill up with loss leader fares (better than going 1/2 empty)

 

[theblank]

... is getting on to a topic that is probably best discussed elsewhere. It is never as simple as some - on both sides - would like to make out.

There is no intention to discuss that as a topic, its just pointing out the hypocrisy of Australia or Australians to point the finger at another countries position on any ethical issue.

 

[theblank]

genocide, chemical weapons, rape, torture and slavery of children? (anyone actually)

nope.

so are you saying that there are some absolutes when it comes to morality? In other words that for any of these acts there is no subjectivity or question or circumstance that these are not wrong.

If thats the case, who gets to decide where the line is between the absolutes and the ones that we just let go and allow people/cultures to determine what they want.
and Who gets to decide on who gets to decide?

Mankind has proven he is incapable of determing what is right and what is wrong.

 

[drron]

And who decides for example what is genocide.Several say Australia is helping the ongoing genocide of our indigenous population despite the numbers of indigenous citizens increasing.
On the other hand Turkey does not acknowledge that their campaigns against the Armenians and Greeks 100 years ago were in fact genocide.

 

[Quickstatus]

So far im hearing crickets from some of the social justice groups who regularly shout "xx_xx_xx_phobia" who should also shout "homophobia" in this case and denounce in the same way as they denounced Anning.

.....

Mankind has proven he is incapable of determing what is right and what is wrong.

"The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." The author who said this experienced the worst of mankind and thought even as a political prisoner he had a propensity for evil which simmers just under his skin. People who say they know the difference are kidding themselves.

Those who take the moral high ground and shout "xx_xxphobia" have in them as part of their human condition a propensity to also commit evil. Marxism was/is a great example of this. And we think that the lessons of history have been learnt.... But I'm diverting....

......

I believe Brunei and BI are being attacked because its a easy target without significant repurcussions. (Remember when Ellen DeGeneres went to Dubai and said how wonderful that place is?). That strict sharia as a feature of Islam is also being conveniently ignored in most discussions.

I can't get past the fact that when a someone in the Western culture vocalises a disagreement with some aspect about LGBTI culture that person is automatically shouted down as being "LGBTI-phobic" but Islam gets away with it...I didnt know there were degrees of homophobia and there is some moveable murky line (depending on which identity group you belong to) beyond which you are labelled as homophobic and within which it is tolerated.

 

[burmans]

Sorry but I don't regard the UN Human Rights Council as an authority on human rights.Many of the countries singled out in this thread as violating human rights are members of the council.
OHCHR | HRC Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2019

Sure, but I have never been someone who subscribes to the belief that because a system is imperfect we should just get rid of the system. I've seen plenty of criticism of the UN and it's bodies but I've yet to see any of those criticisers put up anything close to a viable alternative. And I just can't see any alternative currently to the Human Rights Council, so yes I agree its imperfect but I don't think a world without a UN is better than a world with a UN.

And yes, I agree there are some serial abusers on the current council but I would suggest there are very few countries that are lily-white in this regards. To quote the old joke I think its better they are in the tent, but I do share some cynicism on their participation.

 

[CaptJCool]

st Paul said “Put aside your natural desires and follow Christ”

So even in Biblical times they knew full well what these natural desires included.

The tenets of any faith mean some natural human behaviours are in fact banned by the religious scripts.

Back thousands of years ago, some things eaten killed you, personal hygiene was difficult. And I’m talking no showers nor soap to kill bacteria, no condoms and of course, for the race to advance meN and women had to lay together to procreate so it’s understandable old testaments decreed as they did; keep people alive and keep them proCreating.

Much of the debate has become one of telling the child to “share your favourite toys and thus joys”, when we all know full well, most adults in the Western world won’t. We are too hung up on our personal intellectual and property rights to entertain the idea someone else may well have an opinion different to our own And that there are many different waya and means to Live life to the fullest.

As an aside, Around 60-65% of Australians identify as religious (Christian, Hindu, Buddhism, Muslim, Jewish, orthodox etc) . Around 2/3 are likely to have voted no to marriage for all, but it also means at least 1/3 Voted yes. Gosh aside from the non-Christian faiths, the Sydney Anglicans, Catholics and Pentecostals don’t support marriage equality. Why would they when they don’t support gender equality, might have noticed the blokes run all those shows, and covered up terrible child abuse. And that also means knowing when you go into someone else’s terrain and domain they won’t have the same. Beliefs and laws as where you’re from,

And the main reason why countries with conservstive and dictatorial leaders prevail is because USA simply has not the resources to fight more than two world operations at once. .By selecting Iraq, which the Hawks including Bolton proposed Bill Clinton invade, and he declined, then convinced Bush jnr to go to war.in countries they had no business invading with the hope liberal democracy would happen and it would generate a market of prolifigate consumers just like us. Profiteering

This hasn’t happened as family culture trumps political Influence. and in palaces like Brunei, the vast majority in response would be going, so what ?

EDIT It’s not just Brunei often countries with appalling numbers of terrorist attacks feature in this list at
All the countries that criminalise same-sex activity

 

[33kft]

Here we go... Apparently Flight Centre has been lashed for daring to not refund non-refundable portions of ticket prices to Brunei for those who seemingly did not google the holiday destination they had booked until today:

Fearful customers face hundreds in fees as their flee brutal regime’s airline

Cue the short-term political football.

Edit: Changed the description of what they are being accused of as it was even more silly than my first summary.

 

[Quickstatus]

Im waiting for Qantas to publish a statement.....

 

[dajop]

I note that some celebs are calling for boycotting of a hotel in Hollywood that is owned by the Sultan of Brunei. Isn't that a bit like calling for a boycott of Toyota by calling for people to cancel any Uber rides accepted by a someone who is driving a Toyota?

 

[CaptJCool]

I note that some celebs are calling for boycotting of a hotel in Hollywood that is owned by the Sultan of Brunei. Isn't that a bit like calling for a boycott of Toyota by calling for people to cancel any Uber rides accepted by a someone who is driving a Toyota?

What a great analogy.

Hello n news just in the BeTOOTa Chaser reported

“ Now as a rampant public transport user, I can discriminate against car makes and models

Eg SUV drivers are like religiously leaders. They think they own the road because of the tank they’re drive

Luxury car owners are narcissistic. It’s a proven cheaper the car the more humble the Good Samaritan driver

Besides if you be Toyota you’d more like come out the attention of the Fixated Persons Unit
‘Ingenious’ catfish plan used by alleged car bomber

 

[JohnK]

There is no intention to discuss that as a topic, its just pointing out the hypocrisy of Australia or Australians to point the finger at another countries position on any ethical issue.

Haven't they already fought the battle and won? They think the battle was won on moral grounds but that's not the case.

This whole debate is wrong. There are implications that whatever any advanced society such as Australia considers right then everyone opposed to this view is wrong. Even if they've held that view for thousands of years.

Who decides the age of consent? Around the world it ranges from 11 year old to 21 years old. Many European have the age of consent from 14 years old to 16 years old. Why is 11 years old - 13 years old wrong? Too young? 14 years old is also too young. Some would say 16 years - 18 years old is also too young. Anyone right or is everyone wrong?

We have no right to tell others what they should believe.

 

[woodborer]

We have no right to tell others what they should believe.

I don't think many people would think that stoning people to death is a punishment that should exist.....

 

[JohnK]

I don't think many people would think that stoning people to death is a punishment that should exist.....

I totally agree.

But is that any different to execution via firing squad? Lethal injection? Gas chamber?

Any form of execution is evil but it's not for us to set their laws.