Celebrities boycott Brunei-owned hotels over sharia law

[Jeffreyake]

This isn't about dictating. It's about protesting extremely barbaric policies and not economically supporting the man behind them.

ahah you read what I say but discard it, because of your stereotypes.

why American actors protest against something happening on the other side of the globe? why don't they mind their own business?

because since their childhood they were indoctrinated that they, as Americans, are in charge of all other world

here lies an idea of America's claim to world domination. the idea of so called "pax americana"

thats why all progressive humanity should unite to resist this new evil empire.

What's your nationality? You seem fixated on Americans. Do you think it's only Americans who are interested in taking action against this stoning leader?

I just red an article which mentions only Americans who "have called for boycott" + British, such as Richard Branson and Stephen Fry - but UK is a satellite of US for the last 50 years.

Why there is no any "celebrities" from other countries who give a shit about Brunei's internal affairs?

I wrote the answer already...

sorry you can't accept it

PS you want to use my nationality for ad hominem arguments. I won't give you this possibility

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jeffreyake

[a99az]

Great news, we should all boycott these people then they might go home and blow each other up.

[Jingthing]

This isn't about dictating. It's about protesting extremely barbaric policies and not economically supporting the man behind them.

ahah you read what I say but discard it, because of your stereotypes.

why American actors protest against something happening on the other side of the globe? why don't they mind their own business?

because since their childhood they were indoctrinated that they, as Americans, are in charge of all other world

here lies an idea of America's claim to world domination. the idea of so called "pax americana"

thats why all progressive humanity should unite to resist this new evil empire.

What's your nationality? You seem fixated on Americans. Do you think it's only Americans who are interested in taking action against this stoning leader?

I just red an article which mentions only Americans who "have called for boycott" + British, such as Richard Branson and Stephen Fry - but UK is a satellite of US for the last 50 years.

Why there is no any "celebrities" from other countries who give a shit about Brunei's internal affairs?

I wrote the answer already...

sorry you can't accept it

PS you want to use my nationality for ad hominem arguments. I won't give you this possibility

Sure thing, "the Americans" ordered Richard Branson to be a leader in this boycott. It's real interesting how you twisted this news story about a barbaric evil development happening in Brunei to be about anti-Americanism.

[partington]

who is me to think for other people what they should no. neither me nor anybody else have a right to dictate his moral values to other people.

Yet you believe the Sultan of Brunei does have this right: to impose what he thinks is morally right on ALL people who live in Brunei, for example?

How does this work then?

Either you believe moraity is a personal choice, or it is imposed by a Sultan.

Which is it?

[Jeffreyake]

please don't primitivize what I say. For sure nobody gave order to Branson, it's just carefully manipulated media mainstream which forms people's outlook. Try to speak something against it on American or British TV and you will be ostracized and stigmatized as "fascist" "racist" "sexist" "ageist" or something. Amercian discourse mongers developed dozens of terms to neutralize any ideological opponent...

for people like you interference in internal affairs of independent nations became normal, that's why you don't see anything weird in this article...

[Jeffreyake]

who is me to think for other people what they should no. neither me nor anybody else have a right to dictate his moral values to other people.

Yet you believe the Sultan of Brunei does have this right: to impose what he thinks is morally right on ALL people who live in Brunei, for example?

How does this work then?

Either you believe moraity is a personal choice, or it is imposed by a Sultan.

Which is it?

ok, again: this is not a business of foreigners to decide what is morally right and wrong in Brunei. this is the business of people of Brunei and their Sultan only.

I believe that Brunei has quite good system of ruling, that Sultan is very successful in making the maximum percentage of his subjects as happy as possible.

And I believe that neither me nor any other outsider can come with his moral values and ideas to people of Brunei to teach them how they should live.

it's left liberal approach: democracy is always good, absolute monarchy is always bad

but reality is much more complicated: Equatorial Guinea has democracy and a plenty of oil but lives in poverty and conflicts, but Brunei does not have a democracy (but has plenty of resources) and lives happily.

it means that nothing is good or bad by itself but all according to specific circumstances

this simple idea is what left-wing dogmatists hate most of all

[partington]

I believe that Brunei has quite good system of ruling, that Sultan is very successful in making the maximum percentage of his subjects as happy as possible.

Yet I believe Brunei has a very bad system of ruling, and the Sultan of Brunei is a petty despot.

What makes your opinion more correct than mine, and why?

[Jeffreyake]

I believe that Brunei has quite good system of ruling, that Sultan is very successful in making the maximum percentage of his subjects as happy as possible.

Yet I believe Brunei has a very bad system of ruling, and the Sultan of Brunei is a petty despot.

What makes your opinion more correct than mine, and why?

do you really not understand what I am saying or pretending?

we can have a long discussion about if Brunei's ruling system is good or bad. I can show you statistic data for overall welfare, availability of medical service, education, infrastructure, wages, level of crimes, you will deny it, say that freedom in poverty is better, but

my opinion is nothing more than my personal opinion. I don't think neither me nor anybody else opinion should be imposed on the people of Brunei. THEY KNOW IT BETTER. just leave them alone

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jeffreyake

[Jingthing]

The civilized world has a moral and ethical obligation to protest and resist this kind of BARBARISM occurring in any country.

This isn't a grey area.

Stoning people to death for these kinds of "crimes" is just WRONG WRONG WRONG.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (German nationality)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jeffreyake]

The civilized world has a moral and ethical obligation to protest and resist this kind of BARBARISM occurring in any country.

This isn't a grey area.

Stoning people to death for these kinds of "crimes" is just WRONG WRONG WRONG.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (German nationality)

who told you your moral is universal? your God? but these nations have different God, let them listen to him.

if independent nation is disagree with your self-proclaimed "obligation" you will impose it by force? by "humanitarian intervention"?

didn't lessons of Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan taught you that all the time when you try to implant your morality on foreign soil it ends up a disaster? Yeah I know that for leftists there ideological dogmas are more important than reality. so they will keep banging their heads against the wall

this is what we call "liberal fascism"

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jeffreyake

[Jingthing]

Who is this "we" that calls this liberal fascism?

Stop trying to spin this into an endless anti-American rant. Nobody is talking about invading Brunei and forcing out this horrible stoning master. But for the civilized world to give him a strong message ... sure. Will it stop him? Probably not. The majority are not getting stoned to death. That's how leaders like this operate ... many examples.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jeffreyake]

we = people of good will who wish to protect the right of independent nations for truly independent internal and external policy.

the problem is there is only one step between "strong message" and intervention. especially, as modern history teaches us, if the country has plenty of oil but doesn't have thermo-nuclear weapon to protect it...

[partington]

I don't think neither me nor anybody else opinion should be imposed on the people of Brunei. THEY KNOW IT BETTER. just leave them alone

What you seem to misunderstand is that the people of Brunei have not decided this. What the people of Brunei know, or know better, has not been consulted at all.

The system of government in Brunei pays no attention at all to what the people of Brunei think, because they have no power to make decisions about their own lives.

In any case, what people on this thread are saying is: because we think the Sultan of Brunei is a dick, we are not going to give him any of our money.

This is the complete right of everyone in the world to decide (except the people of Brunei who have to give the Sultan money whether they want to or not).

[Jingthing]

we = people of good will who wish to protect the right of independent nations for truly independent internal and external policy.

the problem is there is only one step between "strong message" and intervention. especially, as modern history teaches us, if the country has plenty of oil but doesn't have thermo-nuclear weapon to protect it...

Again, this is a protest and a boycott. Nobody is suggesting intervention. That isn't going to happen.

[Jeffreyake]

I don't think neither me nor anybody else opinion should be imposed on the people of Brunei. THEY KNOW IT BETTER. just leave them alone

What you seem to misunderstand is that the people of Brunei have not decided this. What the people of Brunei know, or know better, has not been consulted at all.

The system of government in Brunei pays no attention at all to what the people of Brunei think, because they have no power to make decisions about their own lives.

In any case, what people on this thread are saying is: because we think the Sultan of Brunei is a dick, we are not going to give him any of our money.

This is the complete right of everyone in the world to decide (except the people of Brunei who have to give the Sultan money whether they want to or not).

for my opinion, people of Brunei got lucky to get such a good ruler as Sultan. Full universal suffrage leads to socialism. More than 80% of any society consists of losers who will always vote for the one who promise them take away and divide. Democracy is the perfect instrument for a populist to gain power by manipulating masses. It was known even in Ancient Greece, where democracy was invented.

So nobody has a right to intervene in the symphony of the monarch and his subjects. This way of ruling was created during centuries in Brunei and works nicely. So leave them alone.

there is a big difference between just avoiding to stay in Sultan's hotel or abuse media to manipulate the public opinion against your ideological opponents - and this is what left wing lobby learned to do perfectly. this is why I condemn them.

PS and, by the way, people of Brunei don't pay taxes, can you imagine this, ambassador of free world?

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jeffreyake

[Jingthing]

The issue is about this flavor of Islamic Shia law. The kind that stones people to death for the kinds of "morality" offenses as now in Brunei.

The civilized world opposes that and SHOULD oppose that. It's not of the modern world. It doesn't belong in the modern world. Religion is not a good enough excuse -- it's a human rights issue.

A good movie about this issue: The Stoning of Soraya M.

BTW, Brunei's new policy has also been condemned by the UNITED NATIONS which sees stoning as torture and against standards of international human rights. Also because women are more likely to be victims of this barbarism. Somehow, I don't think the UN can be called a US puppet.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[ChoakMyDee]

Reading the comments here I see many of the members don't really know what Sharia law is.

AND, if it is real Sharia it is only applied to Muslims who, by the fact of calling themselves Muslim, accept it.

That said there is a lot of practice going around certain parts of the world that is being called Sharia which isn't even close to real Sharia law.

It will be interesting to see if real Sharia will be implemented or something of a more political and extremist nature.

I can see a certain number of "celebrities" calling for a boycott are lesbian/homosexual. Although these acts can be punished with death in real Sharia it is only if the act is displayed in public can anyone even be accused of a crime. In real Sharia no one has the right to invade a private dwelling so there is no way to check if anyone is homosexual or lesbian and the same applies about extra-marital sex. In other words it is only a crime if it is done in public.

I hope they don't do a perverted form as is the case in parts of Iran or the Sudan.

Is this a joke? Are you trying to explain why Sharia law is OK? <deleted>?

[opalred]

what about malaysia inuhuman laws its ok for old men to take a child as fith bride or kill all the inocent people

including children on thai border the pm and heads of islamic council malaysia and thai should be on trail for

crimes against humanity they could have stopped the barbaric killing yrs ago cheers

[ppmacready]

What about the UK bringing in Shira law? They are starting small but do you honestly believe that they won't up the ante?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

They can try.

But the UN human rights court of appeal will over turn it.

If it diminish's their human rights.

[Damai]

Good! Sharia laws are over a thousand years old and anyone who wants to use them in the 21st century should F off. You may not be able to boycott Brunei's oil but you sure as hell can boycott their businesses.

Elementary, when ASEAN should take immediate steps to ban them from the association.

yeah right! and the ban supported by the two dominant islamic countries Malaysia and Thailand.

Thailand a dominant Islamic country? Are you serious? Have you ever been there? Astonishing ignorance.

[healthbkkbkk]

It is their country. They are free to exercise whatever religion they want. However backwards it may seem to normal people. Well done to the Sultan and his subjects. Enjoy !

Coma.

Who do you mean by "they" when you wrote "They are free to exercise whatever religion ...?" There was no "they" ... the sultan decreed it and so thus it will be.

Do you think the Taliban are "free to exercise whatever religion they want?" They have made education of girls illegal. And outlawed music in any form, including punishing mothers who sing a lullaby to comfort a sick child? This is not hyperbole ... it's fact and it's going on right now in the Taliban controlled areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan. "Well done" to them also?

Firstly, how do you know anything about the Taliban?

I remember when they were fighting the Soviets and the Americans (and all her lackeys) called them great freedom fighters and broadcast reports of how human, loving and just they were. I saw a report of how they were always laughing and making jokes.

Once they became the enemy the same media who betrayed them as great fellows began betraying them as horrid creatures who do the things you wrote in your post.

Which version is true? Have you been there to see yourself?

As for any of the acts you claim in your post none of them are Sharia.

Oh ... I see ... you're the only one with credible information here. The Taliban consider it Sharia law under their particular brand of Muslim religion. And you did say "They are free to exercise whatever religion they want." So I ask again, do you also think the Taliban are also "free to exercise whatever religion they want." Or will your "answer" again be that I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do?

No, I never said they are free to paractice whaterver......... you can't even understand this forum so please, stop trying to understand the world. Now finish your beer, pat your belly and let the big boys ponder politics.

[razer]

"But the sultan has defended the implementation of the law, meant to shore up Islam and guard the Southeast Asian country against outside influences."

But ... the greatest outside influence and greatest evil, foreign MONEY, is OK. Same old story ... heh?

Apartheid in South Africa did not come about because of international pressure, the UN, sanctions, blah, blah, blah. Apartheid was killed by citizens in Europe and The USA boycotting products of companies like Coca Cola, operating in South Africa. Eventually the companies figured the SA market wasn't worth it and pulled out. Congrats to the celebs and Mr. Branson for doing the right thing.

[healthbkkbkk]

Reading the comments here I see many of the members don't really know what Sharia law is.

AND, if it is real Sharia it is only applied to Muslims who, by the fact of calling themselves Muslim, accept it.

That said there is a lot of practice going around certain parts of the world that is being called Sharia which isn't even close to real Sharia law.

It will be interesting to see if real Sharia will be implemented or something of a more political and extremist nature.

I can see a certain number of "celebrities" calling for a boycott are lesbian/homosexual. Although these acts can be punished with death in real Sharia it is only if the act is displayed in public can anyone even be accused of a crime. In real Sharia no one has the right to invade a private dwelling so there is no way to check if anyone is homosexual or lesbian and the same applies about extra-marital sex. In other words it is only a crime if it is done in public.

I hope they don't do a perverted form as is the case in parts of Iran or the Sudan.

Is this a joke? Are you trying to explain why Sharia law is OK? <deleted>?

I guess you are either intoxicated or don't know how to read yet I intentionally kept my vocabulary at a primary school level. Now do all the <deletes> you want but please get some education.

Are you really just trying to pick a fight because you like fighting as many members here apparently do or can you really not understand what I wrote?

[outsider]

Good! Sharia laws are over a thousand years old and anyone who wants to use them in the 21st century should F off. You may not be able to boycott Brunei's oil but you sure as hell can boycott their businesses.

Elementary, when ASEAN should take immediate steps to ban them from the association.

yeah right! and the ban supported by the two dominant islamic countries Malaysia and Thailand.

The two Islamic countries in Southeast Asia are Indonesia and Malaysia. Thailand is a predominantly Buddhist country.

[outsider]

This is an honest question - Does anyone here know, can Brunei's citizens (regardless of religion) seek asylum in another country, citing oppression, persecution or violation of human rights brought forth by the introduction of Syariah laws?

Edited May 6, 2014 by outsider

[healthbkkbkk]

This is an honest question - Does anyone here know, can Brunei's citizens (regardless of religion) seek asylum in another country, citing oppression, persecution or violation of human rights brought forth by the introduction of Syariah laws?

You must be kidding. Most Occidentals would be much better off as Brunei Citizens than in their own countries. Free everything and no worries.

Please, explain to me what you know of Sharia and Brunei on an academic level.

[boomerangutang]

So nobody has a right to intervene in the symphony of the monarch and his subjects. This way of ruling was created during centuries in Brunei and works nicely. So leave them alone.

'Works nicely' eh? Works nicely, unless your son come home one day with a hand missing for stealing a yogurt. Works nicely until your daughter gets publicly stoned to death for having a romance before she's married. How nicely does it work for the Muslim couple who convert to another religion, and then have their children forcibly taken away?

Sharia is all about forcing cruel rules on a populace. Allah is a cruel and vindictive God, as shown by His manifestations.

[boomerangutang]

This is an honest question - Does anyone here know, can Brunei's citizens (regardless of religion) seek asylum in another country, citing oppression, persecution or violation of human rights brought forth by the introduction of Syariah laws?

You must be kidding. Most Occidentals would be much better off as Brunei Citizens than in their own countries. Free everything and no worries.

Please, explain to me what you know of Sharia and Brunei on an academic level.

It's a good question from Outsider. Money is not all that matters in this life. Quality of life ranks high with some people. For some folks, 'quality of life' encompasses more than things that money can buy, like; freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to write whatever a person chooses. The things some of us are writing on this blog would criminalize us in Brunei. Some people also like the freedom to have sex the way we like, and to date whom we want, and to have our kids watched by whom we want. Sharia forbids many things, and imposes barbaric penalties for some very benign actions and words.

[Gandtee]

So you think gays and "adulterers" should be stoned to death as well, mate?

no, I don't think so. But I don't consider my opinion the ultimate truth. if people of Brunei or there ruler think differently - its up to them to enforce the law they believe.

who is me to think for other people what they should no. neither me nor anybody else have a right to dictate his moral values to other people.

Is it the people who want sharia law or their leaders? Is this another way for dictators and religious despots to control their subjects, by fear? Did the Christians not do similar things to their followers in days not so long in the past? But then the Christians have attempted to drag themselves out of ignorance, so most of those punishments are a thing of the past. Oh yes.We still execute convicted criminals, guilty or not.

[jinners]

It is their country. They are free to exercise whatever religion they want. However backwards it may seem to normal people. Well done to the Sultan and his subjects. Enjoy !

Coma.

Coma, how apt. You have to be in one to feel that a move taking the rights of individuals back to the 12th century is a positive step. Stoning for adultery, amputations for theft, flogging for not going to Friday prayer. Just the kind of example any right minded society wants to set eh? What next? A call for the return of the Spanish inquisition? A national "Hitler was misunderstood" day? Sheeeesh

Edited May 6, 2014 by jinners