Royal Brunei Airlines and LGBTI travellers

[jase05]

That logic breaks down at a certain point. For example, Apartheid was once law in South Africa and I don't respect that.

You might not respect it and I certainly didn’t but you generally know these things before you go there so it’s your choice to visit or not.

 

[Berlin]

That logic breaks down at a certain point. For example, Apartheid was once law in South Africa and I don't respect that.

Very well put!

 

[woodborer]

That logic breaks down at a certain point. For example, Apartheid was once law in South Africa and I don't respect that.

Not so much about respecting specific laws - but you do need to respect each countries rights to set their own laws. And if you do go there, respect that it is the law, even if it's not a good one.

 

[33kft]

All I read in this article is pretentious pair mock DFAT official's attempt to explain the paradox of millennia of religious orthodoxy, rather than working it out for themselves.

Yeah, it's a bad situation to get in to, but what do they want to hear? Good news, we called Brunei and educated them? You can do as you like because you're from a more enlightened society and they respect that?

 

[dajop]

Maybe there is confusion between different definitions of respect ? One definition is about “admire someone or something deeply ...” which is I am sure is not the case here, and a second is about “have due regard for ... including “agree to recognise and abide by ...” ... which is the case.

Maybe a better way is to say “comply with the laws” when you visit a country , rather than “respect the laws”.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yeah, it's a bad situation to get in to...

Even that's being generous! hardly a 'bad' situation to refrain from having sex for 21 hours while you fly from Melbourne to London

 

[33kft]

Even that's being generous! hardly a 'bad' situation to refrain from having sex for 21 hours while you fly from Melbourne to London

Well the bad situation was more having booked travel to a country that previously did not enforce Sharia Law which in this case is directly opposed to their lifestyle. If it had existed at the time of booking there would be zero sympathy from my side since this would have been known to them, but it was retrospectively introduced afterward and I have my doubts that this particular situation would even be covered by travel insurance.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well the bad situation was more having booked travel to a country that previously did not enforce Sharia Law which in this case is directly opposed to their lifestyle. If it had existed at the time of booking there would be zero sympathy from my side since this would have been known to them, but it was retrospectively introduced afterward and I have my doubts that this particular situation would even be covered by travel insurance.

This situation would hopefully not be covered by travel insurance (there is no danger or risk to life).

The introduction of sharia law was all over the news from four years ago when it was first proposed. And it made all the papers back then IIRC. So they really have little excuse. A one minute google search would ave revealed it. (And, presumably, had the newspapers not reported it now, the pax would have been none the wiser and enjoyed their trip stress free.)

 

[33kft]

I don't disagree with you, I recall discussion about it years ago when I was living in Singapore, but we all have differing levels of understanding/awareness of these things and as long as there's doubt that the ST website specifically warned of this at the time they booked, I'd have a hard time holding them fully accountable.

Let's at least remember there was some doubt at the time that Brunei would go all in on Phase 2 based on potential economic impacts, and they did only announce it on Dec 29 coming into effect April 3 (today!), there is some room for sympathy here, but it's not a great deal of room.

 

[JohnK]

Not so much about respecting specific laws - but you do need to respect each countries rights to set their own laws. And if you do go there, respect that it is the law, even if it's not a good one.

Who determines whether a law is a good law or not? Australia? USA? Canada? UK? Germany?

We cannot expect that each country will have the same values as us and we cannot expect them to change for our benefit. We also cannot be critical of their behaviour or their beliefs including religion and other local customs.

 

[woodborer]

Who determines whether a law is a good law or not? Australia? USA? Canada? UK? Germany?

We cannot expect that each country will have the same values as us and we cannot expect them to change for our benefit. We also cannot be critical of their behaviour or their beliefs including religion and other local customs.

The individual making their own decisions based on their own viewpoints as to whether it is good or bad - in their view. It is about being informed, then, as an individual, you make your decisions. Individuals are free not to go to particular countries, or fly particular airlines.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Who determines whether a law is a good law or not? Australia? USA? Canada? UK? Germany?

Actually it's a combination of everyone. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a (non-binding) international document adopted by the United Nations back in 1948. It sets out the basic fundamentals in respect of human rights... liberty, free speech, privacy (and so on).

There are a number of international conventions which derive from the Charter.

 

[Deleted member]

With all these places to boycott I think I'll just stay home.

Good, this possibly means more Barossa wine tours

 

[joeymelb]

he Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a (non-binding) international document adopted by the United Nations back in 1948.

Exactly. It is great to see UN HR Council members such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq... just to name a few of the 18 members honour, respect, embrace and enforce UN HR Charter.

 

[theblank]

Here's a good reason not to give them your money

Do you fly ever fly Qantas who is in bed with Emirates?

 

[JohnK]

If I started boycotting every business and country that does things I don't agree with then I'd be a lonely person.

Thailand for example is full of corruption and is run by a military dictatorship.

 

[JohnK]

There are a number of international conventions which derive from the Charter.

Ah the UN Human Rights Charter.

I wonder what those living in fear in Africa and Central/South America think about the protection of their human rights. Not very much at all.

We're a society that focuses on the needs of vocal minorities neglecting the abuse and slaughter going on everywhere. Living in fear in your own home is not a pleasant experience. My parents went through it around WW II but I thought that we've evolved as a society since then and would do something about it, but we do nothing because it's too difficult.

 

[burmans]

Exactly. It is great to see UN HR Council members such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq... just to name a few of the 18 members honour, respect, embrace and enforce UN HR Charter.

Maybe you are trying to be ironic but the fact is that it is non-binding. There are plenty of countries around the world, including Australia, who have the same non-binding approach to the UN HR Charter.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ah the UN Human Rights Charter.

I wonder what those living in fear in Africa and Central/South America think about the protection of their human rights. Not very much at all.

That’s not what you asked

You asked ‘who decides?’, and that answer is semi easy. In the aftermath of the atrocities of WW II the charter was drafted.

Whether or not some countries today choose to ignore those fundamental principles is what we’re having the discussion about in this thread

 

[Berlin]

We also cannot be critical of their behaviour or their beliefs including religion and other local customs.

This statement is either coming across the wrong way or it is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a long time (and I follow Breitbart on Twitter, just to know the enemy).

We cannot be critical of someone’s behaviour or their beliefs? Wtf? We certainly HAVE to watch these with a critical eye if only to defend basic humanity. I’m really struggling with your comment here John so maybe I’m just not understanding you properly?