VA Cancel Staff Travel Agreement with BI: it is correct in one aspect?

[Melburnian1]

With the further step in sharia law introduction in Brunei, VA has cancelled its discounted staff travel agreement with BI (the latter at present has only one daily flight BWN - MEL and return, and none to other Australian cities).

The ban is selective (after all, a number of countries have capital punishment for drug possession above a particular quantity, Singapore among them, or for other offences). Saudi Arabia routinely beheads foreigners (Muslim or non-Muslim, it appears), yet there's no sanctions by Western airlines as far as I'm aware.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/bu...-brunei-over-sharia-move-20190403-p51afg.html

In the report it states that VA contends that Brunei's sharia law applies to non-Muslims and foreigners (not mutually exclusive categories).

Yet elsewhere I've always read it doesn't.

My belief, buttressed by articles I've read on the topic, is that if some Australian atheist bogan steals a handbag from a department store and is caught, he may be punished with (say) imprisonment or a fine, but he won't have his right hand cut off or later (second offence) left foot also being removed.

Nor would an agnostic homosexual be stoned to death, or face the threat of that, while a Catholic or Anglican thief similarly wouldn't face loss of a hand.

Who is correct? VA or me?

I won't be going again to that country (yes, selective) but others who do may find this information useful, not that anyone would encourage lawbreaking in such an autocratic nation.

 

[33kft]

Honestly? I think they did it to push QF into a difficult position, because VA only offered a one way interline to customers (BI to VA) whilst QF offers two way interlining, and VA have now publicly taken action against BI, which sets an expectation with the traveling public.

A bit of public PR at the cost of cheap staff flights? That's my first impression anyway. Do you think they would refuse BI ticketing of VA flights? That was suspiciously not part of the action taken.

 

[odysseus]

Alternatively, it's just a responsible part of duty of care. They're only doing it on products they sell, so given the worst case of a staff member being killed for homosexual activity on one of their flights, there would be fingers pointed back at Virgin saying why did they sanction it by selling the product?

OTOH, if a Brunei passenger travels here on their code share they're not going to be subjected to that greater risk so there was no need for them to withdraw that.

The difference with the other comparisons (Singapore, middle east) is there are no reported cases of capital punishment for what would be legal activity here. While the punishment is more severe it is still a crime, whereas the homosexuality is the difference with Brunei.

 

[Melburnian1]

...The difference with the other comparisons (Singapore, middle east) is there are no reported cases of capital punishment for what would be legal activity here. While the punishment is more severe it is still a crime, whereas the homosexuality is the difference with Brunei.

Also the difference is that in Singapore, Japan, United States, Malaysia etc. that have capital punishment for some activities that are also illegal in Australia, there's no amputation of a hand or foot for theft.

But neither of you answered my question: do this Sharia law severe penalties apply to non-Muslims?

 

[33kft]

Alternatively, it's just a responsible part of duty of care. They're only doing it on products they sell, so given the worst case of a staff member being killed for homosexual activity on one of their flights, there would be fingers pointed back at Virgin saying why did they sanction it by selling the product?

Could be. My cynicism comes from the fact that the inbound interline (which brings in revenue) is untouched and also my doubt that a simple travel policy change for staff would get much airtime, it is not a particularly significant change and yet has made the headlines which means either the airline or staff found it worth sharing with media, but occam's razor would indeed suggest you are correct.

But neither of you answered my question: do this Sharia law severe penalties apply to non-Muslims?

Looks like it was answered in the other thread that yes, all are subject to Brunei's Sharia laws.