Royal Brunei Airlines and LGBTI travellers

[Melburnian1]

The short answer is don't fly RBA and don't go to Brunei if their laws will adversely affect you or you simply don't want to support their economy as such. Noteworthy that the Sharia lobby in Australia is treated as a sacred cow though and celebrated for contributing to 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'!

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.

 

[joeymelb]

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.

You are correct. Brunei's Syariah Penal Code applies to ALL including non-Muslims. Also, if an openly Homosexual Person visit Brunei, he/she can be accused of Homosexual Attempt (no need for actual sexual act) with few witnesses and evidences and then jailed (or worse executed). Evidence can be from social media. If you are the "T" or "I" in LGBTI, you can be arrested on the spot. As you can only be either Male or Female as assigned at Birth.
Source: http://www.agc.gov.bn/AGC Images/LAWS/Gazette_PDF/2013/EN/syariah penal code order2013.pdf
Read under Zina Li'wat. Zina = Sexual Act, Li'wat = Sodomy.

Furthermore, for those people believe in Freedom of Religion, they should note that under Sharia Law that denouncing Islamic Belief is punishable by death. So, once you are a Muslim, you have no way out of the religion except death. Source: Quran and Shariah Penal Code under Declaring Oneself as Non-Muslim (Saudi, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Qatar just to name a few).

Lastly, by talking about Facts here. I am totally in violation of Burnei's Syariah Law in criticising and quoting certain aspect of Islam. If I am in Brunei, I will definitely be Stoned to Death.

 

[Melburnian1]

...Furthermore, for those people believe in Freedom of Religion, they should note that under Sharia Law that denouncing Islamic Belief is punishable by death. So, once you are a Muslim, you have no way out of the religion except death. Source: Quran and Shariah Penal Code (Saudi, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Qatar just to name a few)....

I wasn't 'correct' as I didn't know whether these new Bruneian laws apply to non Muslims.

Apostasy is a big issue in Muslim nations. Shocking!

Yet another reason to avoid visiting the Middle East (exceptions: Israel and possibly Jordan) or Brunei (which I no longer do) and not to patronise BI, EK, EY and QR, which I now don't (although have previously been on all except QR). I also minimise patronage of QF, given its links to EK.

I don't have the same objection to airlines in more 'liberal' Muslim majority nations (although Malaysia shows some worrying signs), and its state airline is on the brink of folding.

 

[Quickstatus]

BI operates BWN-MEL (BI 5/6)
Anyone going to protest against MEL?

Anyone going to protest VA as the codeshare agreement with BI is still operational?. VA tries to virtue signal with an agreement that does not risk any revenue.

Islamic countries and LGBTI activities don't agree. Its strange that very few are accused of homophobia.

 

[Steady]

The airlines, hotels and tourism are only little fish compared to the oil and gas we all use

 

[joeymelb]

Its strange that very few are accused of homophobia.

Not really, if anyone in the media dared to mention such thing, that person would be called nasty names like Anning.

And if you even dare to quote passage of Qu'ran as evidence, Australian HR Commissioner will be charging you for Hate Crime - see https://www.theage.com.au/national/pastors-vow-to-go-to-jail-on-hate-case-20050623-ge0e77.html

As far as I am aware, we already have Islamic Blasphemy Law here in Australia.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not really, if anyone in the media dared to mention such thing, that person would be called nasty names like Anning.

And if you even dare to quote passage of Qu'ran as evidence, Australian HR Commissioner will be charging you for Hate Crime - see https://www.theage.com.au/national/pastors-vow-to-go-to-jail-on-hate-case-20050623-ge0e77.html

This is an incorrect assessment of the environment.

Firstly, it is very hard to argue against religious ideology. It is a belief system and facts don’t come in to play.

You are however free to say how you agree or disagree with the ideology without fear of transgressing any laws.

The article you linked contains makes no mention of any wrongdoing in quoting the Quran.

What it does say is that you can’t vilify.

Two very different concepts.

 

[JohnK]

The line was drawn with Hitler when he invaded other countries. Who knows how the rest of the world would have reacted if he had killed German Jews/gypsies/homosexuals etc and stayed within his borders. One would like to think they would have reacted but I'm not so sure

As mentioned there have been quite a few over the years where the world/UN has not reacted because it did not suit us to interfere.

As mentioned by @Quickstatus, Stalin and Mao were pretty much given free reign. Pol pot, Gaddafi, Amin, Noriega, Hussein, Mugabe.

The list goes on.

 

[theblank]

As a country we can start by looking at Australia And next level down, our religious and charitable institutions.

In Australia, its ok to execute unborn children. < Yes thats my definition of what abortion is, but in some of the countries being criticised here, they would concur that abortion is an abhorrent thing to do.

There are some people groups, that wouldnt have any moral issue eating any one of us.

No person should be impoising their own Subjective Morality on any others, to do so makes themselves a hypocrite, because as many have already commented, who gets to decided what is right and what is wrong. Mankind has proven over several milennia that we are incapable of determing any Absolote moral standard.
-

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In Australia, its ok to execute unborn children. < Yes thats my definition of what abortion is, but in some of the countries being criticised here, they would concur that abortion is an abhorrent thing to do.

There are some people groups, that wouldnt have any moral issue eating any one of us.

No person should be impoising their own Subjective Morality on any others, to do so makes themselves a hypocrite, because as many have already commented, who gets to decided what is right and what is wrong. Mankind has proven over several milennia that we are incapable of determing any Absolote moral standard.
-

Exactly. No ‘person’. But collectively - either at community, state, or international level - we set standards.

 

[dajop]

Was just reading about a female couple booked to travel to Japan on BI this weekend, but were fearful for their lives during their flights and transit so have raised money on GoFundMe to make alternative arrangements.

Can’t help but think there is a lot of fearmongering going on. I think the likelihood for two females being accused of the act of Liwat during flights or short transit, that leads to their stoning to death is less likely than having a fatal accident on the way to the airport.

I’d be marginally more concerned travelling as a gay man with my partner but still would not do anything that would give anybody any cause to think my partner is my partner than I would if travelling with my brother, a male friend or colleague.

 

[andyhui01]

Am I the only one who thinks this got completely out of hand? Australians have supported the ME3 in large numbers for almost 2 decades now. Inc our openly gay CEO of Qantas partnering with EK and nothing was said. I know some on this forum were concerned and voting with their wallets but in general, no one ever said anything even though you would end up behind bars if you tried anything gay in the ME.

Yes. The penalties are much harsher but are these people saying it is OK for countries to imprison LGBTI but not OK to murder them which is why we should boycott Royal Brunei but not ME3? I mean if someone really cared about the rights of LGBTI, shouldn't we also include the ME3 into the mix?

 

[burmans]

As a country we can start by looking at Australia And next level down, our religious and charitable institutions.

I agree, we dont need to look far from home on Human Right violations, Australia has been criticised by the UN Human Rights Council in quite strong terms recently. And the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council last year largely as they got very sensitive about some of the criticism coming their way.

Not that I'm suggesting Australia is in any way the worst in this regards. But in my view, principle are principles, you can't "sort of believe" in Human Rights but only do so when they suit you. That's just a race to the bottom.

 

[dajop]

I also minimise patronage of QF, given its links to EK.

On this basis, I also hope you minimise patronage of VA, given its links to EY! Well I guess, there's always Rex, AirNorth, FlyPelican and FlyCorporate to hop around the country ......

 

[theblank]

Exactly. No ‘person’. But collectively - either at community, state, or international level - we set standards.

sorry, as communities and states, setting standards has always resulted in disagreements over that standard.
anyone can 'set' a standard, but if its defined by humans, its only ever subjective.

therefore if any one person (community/state) decides for themselves whats morally right or wrong - then that person should logically realise that they must respect every single other person (or community or state) to also decide for themselves.

 

[drron]

I agree, we dont need to look far from home on Human Right violations, Australia has been criticised by the UN Human Rights Council in quite strong terms recently. And the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council last year largely as they got very sensitive about some of the criticism coming their way.

Not that I'm suggesting Australia is in any way the worst in this regards. But in my view, principle are principles, you can't "sort of believe" in Human Rights but only do so when they suit you. That's just a race to the bottom.

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

 

[Quickstatus]

Government setting standards or groups of people setting standards?. The world has been there before.
Oh we can now do better? I think not.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... then that person should logically realise that they must respect every single other person (or community or state) to also decide for themselves.

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

nope.

 

[Steady]

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

nope.

Add murdering unborn children....

 

[Isochronous]

This is an incorrect assessment of the environment.

Firstly, it is very hard to argue against religious ideology. It is a belief system and facts don’t come in to play.

You are however free to say how you agree or disagree with the ideology without fear of transgressing any laws.

The article you linked contains makes no mention of any wrongdoing in quoting the Quran.

What it does say is that you can’t vilify.

Two very different concepts.

The Catch the Fire case showed the lack of free speech in Australia - the fact that you can be dragged through the courts for simply laughing at the Koran is chilling.

I agree, we dont need to look far from home on Human Right violations, Australia has been criticised by the UN Human Rights Council in quite strong terms recently. And the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council last year largely as they got very sensitive about some of the criticism coming their way.

Not that I'm suggesting Australia is in any way the worst in this regards. But in my view, principle are principles, you can't "sort of believe" in Human Rights but only do so when they suit you. That's just a race to the bottom.

The UN Human Rights Council has no credibility whatsoever.