Melburnian1
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Posts
- 25,393
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.
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.
Last edited: