Brunei to become barbaric on April 3, allowing stoning to death for adultery and homosexual acts

Only one religion on Earth—and I’ll give you this paragraph to guess—would, in this day and age, suddenly sanction stoning to death for “crimes” like homosexual behavior and adultery. The punishment statue starts on April 3 in Brunei and is described in several places, including the New York Times (click on screenshot below).

Six years ago Brunei announced that it was going to impose a harsh form of sharia law, for the country’s official religion is Sunni Islam. In the past few years it banned alcohol and celebrations of Christmas (even by non-Muslims). Now the vise is being squeezed even harder. As the NYT reports:

Brunei has had the death penalty on the books since it was a British protectorate, but in practice executions are not typically carried out.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Brunei, with a punishment of up to 10 years in prison, but the new laws allow for penalties including whipping and stoning. The new laws also introduce amputation of hands or feet as a punishment for robbery.

. . . Under the laws about to come into effect, a person can be convicted of adultery or having gay sex only if there are multiple Muslim witnesses. The law will apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, although some offenses, such as apostasy, apply specifically to Muslims, who make up about two-thirds of Brunei’s population.

The “multiple Muslim witnesses” mitigates the punishment a bit, but not much. Stoning and amputation are signs of barbarism, and should not be on the books anywhere.

Although not mentioned in the Qur’an, stoning is repeatedly mentioned in the hadith and has been adopted as punishment by several branches of Islam, though this is a first for Muslim countries in Southeast Asia. And the requisites for stoning, according to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, are that the stones used in the punishment should be about hand-size, so as not to cause death too quickly but big enough to do cumulative fatal damage.

Stoning is a horrible punishment which often takes a long time to cause death. The preliminaries—wrapping the victim in cloth and buying him/her up to their chest in the ground—are cruel and terror-inducing. No civilized people could mandate or participate in such a crime. If the U.S. had any guts, we’d break off relations with oil-rich Brunei immediately.

109 Comments

  1. KD
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    “It’s an English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture, it’s got to change”

    -Joe Biden

    • Jonathan Dore
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Can you give us some context for that quote please?

      • Posted March 29, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

        I tried googling the quote. Apparently he is talking in the context of how the US justice system is skewed against women who are victims of violence. In particular, he was discussing his role in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, in which an African American woman alleged that Thomas sexually harassed her.

        I think he is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the US legal system has its problems with gender and race bias, but they are as noting compared to being executed just for being gay.

  2. Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    True, there is one religion currently that condones this horrific ‘justice.”

    But it was not always the only one. Before Islam was even a thing, in 415 AD, a Christian mob incited by Cyril, the bishopric of Alexandria, dragged the philosopher Hypatia to the ground, stripped her naked, and beat or stoned her to death. Just because.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      Yes, of course; I am not stupid. That’s why I said “in this day and age.”

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

        My intent was not to correct you in any way. Unfortunately, you took it that way.

        The intent was a general widening of the horror of theocracy.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

      How is this relevant to this subject?

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        Concur
        Like the reference to Christian world

        There are stalwarts of many a faith hombeli ve they aremgiven was ightntomstone

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      Oh, hell, we were three years into the current millennium before the United States Supreme Court finally struck down as unconstitutional criminal statutes proscribing homosexual sodomy — and it had to be done over the vociferous dissent of the Court’s three most conservative justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas). Their chorus of outrage was joined by the Religious Right and soi-disant “constitutional conservatives” across the land who screamed bloody murder that the Court’s ruling represented a usurpation of “states’ rights” and a symptom of the decline of western civilization. “Homosexual sodomy” would still likely be a crime, punishable by imprisonment, in several states across the Bible Belt had our widely accursed “activist, liberal” High Court not intervened.

      There are also 20 states in our Union that have criminal statutes proscribing adultery, and many more that repealed such statutes only recently.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        Are you intending whataboutery? None of what you say approaches the brutality of stoning some poor soul to death for supposed “moral crimes.”

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

          I’ve said nothing that approaches justification for the abomination taking place in Brunei — indeed, what’s occurring there represents the intersection of the two things I loathe most in the world: authoritarianism and enforced sexual puritanism. I abhor it to my core, and should think it a matter on which every bien pensant westerner can declaim his or her agreement.

          My point, which you seem to have missed, is simply that we our not so distant from our own dreadful history of repressive Christian puritanism as we might like to suppose. It lingers among us still.

          • rickflick
            Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

            A point well made.

            • Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

              I agree.
              In some places it doesn’t linger much below the surface either.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted March 31, 2019 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

                No it doesn’t. At CPAC, they hand out pamphlets about introducing the death penalty for homosexuality.

                (My source? Rachel Maddow, whom I judge unlikely to have talked about it on her show if it weren’t true.)

          • Tom B
            Posted March 29, 2019 at 1:10 am | Permalink

            I am curious if you can say when the last instance of adulatory was actually prosecuted and what the punishment was.
            My point is that there are many laws still on the books that are no longer enforced and so are irrelevant to legislators who have much more meaningful issues to address in limited time.
            For example, there are laws which allow husbands to beat their wives with sticks smaller than broom handles. However, this is ignored and people a routinely prosecuted for far less. Legislators simply do not have time to deal with all the arcane (and often bizarre) laws from the past that are no longer relevant and/or enforced.
            We further from our puritanical past than our laws suggest.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        “There are also 20 states in our Union that have criminal statutes proscribing adultery.”

        And unless I’m mistaken, there are still states—even some that allow same-sex marriage (Connecticut? New York?)—in which only heterosexuals are capable of meeting the legal requirement for “consummating” a marriage, thus leaving same-sex marriages vulnerable to annulment—that is, to being declared non-marriages in the first place. In such states, IMO, the legal definition of “consummation” needs to be changed.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted March 31, 2019 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

          There are still multiple US states that allow child marriage too, and it occurs. There are still literally hundreds of thousands of children, mostly girls, getting married in the US.

          Having said that, I don’t want to take anything from the horror of Jerry’s post, which we’re all getting away from a bit. Brunei isn’t the only Muslim country with the death penalty for homosexuality. Saudi Arabia in particular kills hundreds each year for this “crime”. Another reason not to cosy up with them so much.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      At this point, it’s inevitable that in response to any criticism of Islam, someone will make tu quoque and false equivalencies.

      Yes, there are a few references to legal stoning in the Pentateuch, but none (favorably) in the NT. In any case, Christianity by foundational doctrine is not bound by Mosaic law.

      In contrast, the koran and haditha are chock-full of exhortations to mutilate, behead, or stone various offenders. Further, unlike the ‘inspired’ bible, which even hard-core apologists can admit is polluted by redaction, the koran is held to be the perfect, final, inalterable revelation of God.

      Finally, a majority of moslems today believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that honor killings can be justified.

      So maybe that’s why you needed to reach back 1,600 years for an example of a christian stoning, but we are talking about moslem atrocities in the here and now.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

        I’m half way through the comments and yours is the first one that isn’t ‘But Christians did this too!’ I’ll be very surprised if I reach the bottom of the page before a ‘But Trump and bathrooms is just as bad!’

        • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

          +1 Unbelievable whataboutery from people who should know better.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted March 28, 2019 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

            I think not, Darwinwins. The implicit premise of Jerry’s post is that what Brunei has undertaken here is beyond the pale of what should be considered acceptable in a civilized society. That seems to me to invite, at least, some consideration of how ostensibly civilized societies, including our own, address these matters.

            • rickflick
              Posted March 28, 2019 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

              Indubitably.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted March 31, 2019 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

              Yeah. My comments weren’t intended as whataboutery. I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned it below, but George Clooney has called for a boycott of all the hotels around the world owned by the Sultan of Brunei. Good on him. It will mostly be others as wealthy as Clooney who can even afford to stay in the Sultan’s hotels, so he may be able to have direct personal influence amongst his friends too.

        • Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

          LOL. trump is the gift of tu quoque that keeps on giving.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        I don’t read any of the above comments as intended to justify or diminish the horror of Brunei’s new law. So they are not “tu quoque” fallacies.

        • Posted March 29, 2019 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

          I believe the sentiment behind at least some of those comments is to somehow give Islam a pass.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:31 am | Permalink

        “the koran and haditha are chock-full of exhortations to mutilate, behead, or stone various offenders.”

        According to PCC’s post, stoning isn’t mentioned in the Koran.

        So one of you is wrong.

        But if you’re going to quote the horrors of the hadiths, it just invites comparison with the shit in the Bible and probably the Talmud too.

        cr

        • Posted March 29, 2019 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

          That would be the “or” part of “or”.

          Everything pales in comparison to the sadism of the haditha.

    • max blancke
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

      I think the past is very interesting, but I am not in any way worried about past events or practices.
      Time so far being linear and all.

      What I am worried about is current momentum towards future barbaric practices.

      I was no going to comment on this one, but I came back to it after reading a review of children’s current textbooks in modern Qatar.
      https://www.memri.org/reports/review-qatari-islamic-education-school-textbooks-first-half-2018-2019-school-year

      Taken with similar developments in Pakistan recently discussed here, it does not seem that Islam is headed for a reformation.

      I am no scholar of Islam, but my understanding is that the best chance for moderate enlightened Islam vanished with the siege of Baghdad in 1258.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted March 31, 2019 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        It’s Saudi Arabia that’s the biggest problem. The House of Saud made a pact with a brutal tribe that practiced a very conservative brand of Islam in order to gain power in that country. When Saudi Arabia grew wealthy via oil money, it began to export that conservative religion throughout the Sunni world via the funding of madrassas. Give me the child and all that.

        Sunni Islam went more conservative when Shah Reza was got rid of as a reaction against Western interference in their government.

        You can find clips from the 1950s where Muslim leaders are laughing about the idea of compulsory hijab in Egypt. e.g. https://www.heatherhastie.com/egypt-1958-mockery-idea-compulsory-hijab/

        In the Middle Ages, though very, very far from ideal, Islam was relatively enlightened. They still did some pretty horrific things of course, but it has gone backward more recently. A lot of that is due to the idea of the Qur’an being perfect and a big focus on that.

        • rickflick
          Posted March 31, 2019 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

          I’m afraid the grim truth is that SA’s horrific abuses stem from it’s oil wealth. It is largely insulated from restraint since purchasers of oil are reluctant to rock the boat. Only when the transition to alternative energy sources happens – wait another 50 years – will the kingdoms be reduced to aligning with normal codes of decency.

  3. Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Agree we should break off relation. And put a ban on entrance to the US . These are not the kind of people we want moving here.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      But the orange one would explain how they have oyl, you see, and how we should put our trade with them first.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

        And the Woke will for once agree with his decision, because they are against anything that would diminish Muslim immigration.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 1:26 am | Permalink

      “And put a ban on entrance to the US . These are not the kind of people we want moving here.”

      Even if they’re refugees from the totalitarian sharia regime?

      cr

  4. Derek Freyberg
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Of course there are a nontrivial number of countries that regard the US as barbaric for retaining capital punishment at all. Not that this excuses Brunei in any way.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      Yes, and I think they are right (as a USian). And (barbaric) for many other things in the US as well.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      Whataboutus?

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      Then why mention it?

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        I suppose because the topic about adoption of barbaric judicial codes in Brunei quite reasonably invites comparison to other countries.
        I think there’s a lot of over-sensitivity to this in the thread, labeling it whataboutery etc. That, in itself might invite psychoanalysis.

        • Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

          I take it that you consider capital punishment “barbaric”. That, of course, is highly contested at least in the US, where a solid majority favor the death penalty.

          In contrast, I’d venture that, outside of the moslem world, floggings, amputations, and beheadings for thoughts and behaviors that, outside of the moslem world, are not even crimes, is universally considered truly depraved.

          I welcome an ongoing debate on capital punishment. But to equate it with these new laws in Brunei is, frankly, outrageous.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted March 28, 2019 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

          It matters not, Richard, that a solid majority of Americans may favor the death penalty. At one time or another (and for many even right now), a solid majority of Americans have favored hate-speech legislation, or prohibiting flag-burning, or banning Joyce’s Ulysses, or prohibiting Nazis from marching in Skokie, or outlawing the Communist Party, or prohibiting atheists from holding public office, or requiring students to pray in the classroom or to pledge allegiance to the flag, or prohibiting newspapers from criticizing clergy, or prohibiting the guilty from “hiding” behind their self-incrimination privilege, or barring the use of the “exclusionary rule” to remedy illegal searches, or preventing single women from gaining access to contraception, or banning black children from attending the same schools as white.

          It is the genius of our constitutional scheme that certain inalienable rights of individuals and minorities are placed beyond the purview of the will of the majority. That is the difference between a functioning, thriving democracy and mere tyranny of the majority. And that applies as much to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments,” as it does to the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, free Press, and freedom of religion, as it does to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, as it does to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and prohibition on compelled self-incrimination, as it does to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.

          And make no mistake about it, the death penalty is cruel and unusual — cruel both inherently under any modern conception of just punishment, and cruel as applied given that this nation has never found a means for implementing it that hasn’t resulted in botched executions inflicting torturous pain and suffering. And “unusual,” in that we are alone among the modern, advanced, civilized democracies of the world in employing capital punishment, and in that 20 of our more forward-looking states have abandoned it outright all ready, while the rest have either consigned it to moratorium status or have at least cut it down to a trickle, out of chariness to commence the carnage that would ensue were they to empty their death rows of those awaiting execution.

          • rickflick
            Posted March 28, 2019 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

            Hear, hear! Ken for president!
            Seriously…I agree. Full-on democracy would be a moral nighttime mare. There is a reason the US constitution has served as a model.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted March 29, 2019 at 8:20 am | Permalink

              Thanks, Rick. But like William Tecumseh Sherman, the man who marched to the sea, “if drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; and if elected, I will not serve.” 🙂

              • rickflick
                Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

                I don’t s’pose you’d be willing to endorse anyone this early?

          • Taz
            Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

            I know is kind of dumb, but I’ve always been proud of my state on this score. Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846 – before almost any government entity – and has never had an execution since becoming a state in 1837.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

            Well said.

          • Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:09 am | Permalink

            To Ken …+1

            To Matt… I certainly do regard the death penalty as barbaric. I might add the USA should look at the company they keep in this regard.
            As to its “solid majority” of support in the USA, I think Ken’s response deals to that.

            Finally it’s legit to compare US death penalty to the death penalty in Brunei. The outcome is the same, condemned always end up dead. I’ve long found it bizarre that people manage to legitimise some forms of murder (judicial) and forms of combat casualties whilst condemning others.

  5. Randall Schenck
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I am sure that Trump will get advice from Saudi Arabia on what to do. Is it worse or better than assassinating a journalist who was working in the U.S.?

    • Filippo
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

      It may occur to Saudi Arabia to advise Brunei to wave some oil money under Trump’s nose in offering to buy U.S.-manufactured arms.

    • Davide Spinello
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      Speaker To Animals was right.

  6. Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Wish it were only isolated Muslim places where violent acts to “ others” happen. There are enough heremwho would hang or crucify homosexuals on an Old Testament religious rite. I doubt those with true beliefs would,hesitate from stoning. Not long ago when lynchings in U.S. drew throngs of viewers

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      Not long ago at all. 1981 – Michael Donald, Alabama, KKK

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

        In Alabama maybe, but not by the State of Alabama.

        Invariably, when a nation becomes an ‘Islamic state’, the sadistic punishments of the koran & haditha — for ‘crimes’ like apostasy, adultery/getting raped, & homosexuality — become part of the official penal code, approved by a majority of the populace.

        Equating that with rare, extra-judicial killings by a radical fringe in the US, is outrageous.

  7. Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    I guess Brunei has put aside the idea of becoming a top tourist destination.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

      And the “Brunei is for Lovers” ad campaign was doing so well!

    • Steven Hill
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:07 am | Permalink

      It’s not an attractive tourist destination given the many great alternative locations in the region. Brunei is dry (no alcohol) and capital, Bandar Seri Begawan, despite the enormous oil wealth of the country is a dump.

      A friend who used to visit Brunei regularly for work told of how a stoning pit had been built in the capital for executions.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 1:02 am | Permalink

      Which makes me wonder, is North Korea still the ‘worst place in the world’? Or might it be Brunei or Saudi Arabia?

      Apparently marijuana is not illegal in NK. So it might be a shithole but at least you can get stoned[1] without some asshole trying to stone you[2] for it…

      [1] The right sort of ‘stoned’
      [2] The wrong sort of ‘stoned’

      cr

  8. Mark R.
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know what’s more horrific- a government that sanctions barbaric punishment like this or a populace willing to administer said punishment.

  9. Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  10. Geoff Toscano
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    But whoa, Islam is a religion of peace!

    • darrelle
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      Even more ironic, Brunei is officially named “Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace.”

      Is irony dead? I can’t tell.

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        Abode of peace (piece), or else.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:37 am | Permalink

        Not so long ago the Colt 45 was named the ‘Peacemaker’…

        Everybody claims to be in favour of ‘peace’

        cr

  11. Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    It us time to eliminate capital punishment in the US. Some states have already done that and their murder rates are lower than those in the states that still have capital punishment.

    Doing that would set an example to other countries that use both actual punishment as well as those with cruel and unusual pinishment.

    The only way I know to change the behavior and religion other people is through example and persuasion.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      “Some states have already done that and their murder rates are lower than those in the states that still have capital punishment.”

      Sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc–either that or just questionable stats. I’m perfectly willing to accept that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder, but that eliminating capital punishment is a deterrent to murder–i.e., that people are less likely to commit murder if they know they won’t be executed for it–makes no sense at all.

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        Did I say there was a casual connection. I thought I just mentioned a correlation.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted March 28, 2019 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        The mere elimination of a punishment alone can have no deterrent effect, self-evidently. But employment of an anachronistic and barbaric form of punishment that has proved itself — despite centuries of experimentation — to be utterly capricious in its application and dehumanizing in its implementation itself breeds a general disrespect for any legal system that allows it.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted March 29, 2019 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

          I vote we bring back crucifixion as a punishment for theft (or any more serious offence). If it was good enough in Jesus’ day…

          Just think of the deterrent effect. Crime would drop to zero. Without a doubt.

          cr

          • rickflick
            Posted March 30, 2019 at 8:59 am | Permalink

            Why not? As long as resurrection goes along with it.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      Doing that would set an example to other countries….

      Seriously? ‘Oh wow, the US no longer executes mass murderers and necrophagous cannibals, so I guess we shouldn’t behead homosexuals, either.’

      • Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Yes, seriously.

        It eliminates “Oh wow, the US is telling us who we can execute and to how to go about it when reserving the right to make those determinations itself.

        Hypocrisy is never a good persuader.

        • Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

          I am sick and tired of hearing how horrible the West is. Ethically & morally, we are miles above these vile theocracies and dictatorships. There is no hypocrisy whatsoever in us enacting diplomatic and economic sanctions against monster states like Brunei.

          There is no persuading unthinking, amoral zealots. The only course is to contain and undermine them. We should use our power to bring Brunei to its knees.

  12. rickflick
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    As Steven Pinker might say, even if we gradually make moral advances, that doesn’t mean there can’t be backsliding.

  13. Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    But, but, but: Islam is a peaceful, loving religion!

  14. Posted March 28, 2019 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Rattling around in my head, clunk! I find this a more organized, institutionalized a couple of steps short of ISIS. I just hope they dont fuck with the orangutan programme.

  15. Steve Pollard
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Brunei is a member of the Commonwealth, and the UK MOD maintains a military base and jungle training centre there. We have some clout, and we should use it. To do it justice, the Government has reacted pretty quickly to this medieval barbarity; the International Development Secretary has condemned it in no uncertain terms (see eg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/brunei-brings-in-death-by-stoning-as-punishment-for-gay-sex ). But we could be doing much more, and so could other Commonwealth members, especially Brunei’s neighbours such as Malaysia. Let’s hope so.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

      The UK didn’t have the balls to grant Asia Bibi asylum for fear of upsetting local moslems; I doubt they’ll touch this one.

      • Steve Pollard
        Posted March 28, 2019 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

        There are some differences. Aasiya Noreen was (eventually, and of course far too late) exonerated, and her Government did at least make some effort to protect her against the mob. She has no connection whatsoever with the UK, and I doubt that any British Government, no matter how benevolent, would be prepared to offer asylum to any and all foreign nationals, no matter how ill-treated they are.

        The Brunei case is different. Commonwealth member states are expected to adhere to contemporary human rights standards. We can, should, and I expect will do our best to hold Brunei to those standards.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted March 28, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

          Of course Britain has a connection to Pakistan, it is it’s former colonial master , within living memory at that. Therefore indirectly Ms Noreen has a connection too. And would she have been a Christian to start with had it not been for the UK? (I do not know, I’m just wondering there).

        • Posted March 29, 2019 at 6:58 am | Permalink

          I doubt that any British Government, no matter how benevolent, would be prepared to offer asylum to any and all foreign nationals, no matter how ill-treated they are.

          I don’t think that is policy. Any foreign national he gets here and claims asylum legitimately (i.e. they are in danger if they return to their own country) should be offered asylum. Yes there was that case let week highlighted by Jerry where somebody’s application was rejected because their religion (Christianity) was too violent, but I think that was a mistake.

    • Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      New Zealand is also a member of the (British) Commonwealth (I’m unsure if the term British is still applicable).
      I doubt that our government will raise this with Brunei through diplomatic channels.
      I also doubt if Brunei’s changes will even be mentioned in the media here. Regrettably only brave souls would raise such topics here at the moment, given the recent massacre.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:53 am | Permalink

        Agreed. There is a time for everything and this is, quite definitely, not the time.

        I do hope the cretinous gun-toting idiot has it borne in upon him, how much he has done to promote Islamic influence and interests in New Zealand.

        cr

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted March 30, 2019 at 12:33 am | Permalink

          Well it did make TVNZ news. As a minor news item, (right after one about some of our Muslims encouraging NZers to know more about Islam – that would be Islam-as-practised-in-New-Zealand, obviously!), there was a short item featuring George Clooney’s call for a boycott of Brunei-owned hotels and it gave the reason.

          cr

  16. Rich Sanderson
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    In the UK, Islamist groups are trying to make any sort of criticism of Islam, Islamism, and Islamic regimes, “Islamophobic”.

    Jerry’s reasonable article would fall foul.

    But Humanists, Liberals, and Progressives need to stay strong, keep their voices loud, and keep the criticism going. Brunei is the just the latest evidence that we are not critical enough.

  17. Mike Anderson
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Boycott Brunei and the sultan’s businesses.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/436374-george-clooney-calls-for-brunei-hotel-chain-boycott-over-new

    The sultan owns the Dorchester Collection:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester_Collection

    • Steve Pollard
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      Yes…and the Dorch is not exactly renowned for its adherence to Islamic orthodoxy. Still, the Sultan is happy enough to stay there during his frequent visits to London.

      He’s a real family man, though. Why, he even allowed his brother Jefri back into the country, despite Jefri blowing about £21bn of the national wealth on his own lifestyle, including his luxury yacht, Tits, (with its two tenders, Left Nipple and Right Nipple). What a bunch of hypocrites.

      Maybe we should re-colonise the place and make them start again.

      • Steven Hill
        Posted March 29, 2019 at 12:13 am | Permalink

        They did not want to be de-colonised in the first place! The then His Royal Highness, now the Sultan, was said to have wanted to remain a colony and was reluctant to discuss independence which is why the country only finally became fully independent as late as 1/1/1984.

      • Posted March 29, 2019 at 7:03 am | Permalink

        I had to look up the yacht thing, because I couldn’t believe it was true. I was right: this is an outrageous slur! The tenders are actually named “Nipple 1” and “Nipple 2”.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      That thar Sul-tan is a real charmer, the apotheosis of Islamofascism.

      I hope female protesters congregate at The Beverly Hills Hotel and protest topless.

      I hope he gets so enraged in response that he has to wear an adult diaper.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 30, 2019 at 12:39 am | Permalink

        His brother would certainly appreciate the protest.

        ‘Tits’ indeed.

        cr

  18. pablo
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Whenever I see a post like this, before I delve into the comments I like to guess how many comments in before I see a ” but Christans…”, Or, “this is what Christans want to do ” it’s a game I play. I guessed under 5 and the first “but Christans” was #3!

    • aljones909
      Posted March 28, 2019 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

      What I didn’t expect was “but Christians were doing it 1,700 years ago”

  19. Steven Magellan
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t Vice President Mike Pence Vacation in Brunei? He always comes back with a ice pad on his shoulder and empty tubes of notbengay

    • Filippo
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      In the last few days I see from the NY Times that Pence has been haranguing NASA about what he views as insufficient progress in getting the U.S. back to the moon. I’d like to lock Pence in a high school classroom until he derived the quadratic formula from ax^2 + bx + c = y. He strikes me as another Romneyesque English major/MBA/JD type.

      If bloviation could power a rocket to the moon and beyond, Pence would be the go-to guy.

  20. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted March 28, 2019 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    “The punishment statue starts on April 3 in Brunei and…”

    Should statue be statute?

    I wonder how this will play out in the current climate of almost zero criticism of Islam. Especially after the most recent western event.

  21. Posted March 28, 2019 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Well, I know where not to go for my next trip.

    The “multiple Muslim witnesses” mitigates the punishment a bit, but not much.

    Multiple Muslims decide that someone should die, so they accuse them of homosexuality. Doesn’t sound like a mitigation to me.

    -Ryan

    • Posted March 29, 2019 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      It means there have to have been people watching and more than one.

      It means you can’t find yourself being stoned on the say so of just one person, which is a bonus I guess.

  22. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 29, 2019 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    “The sharia law would apply only to Muslims, who make up about two-thirds of the population.” – Guardian

    “The law will apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike,” – NYT

    There seems to be some confusion here.

    I would like to think that Christians, atheists and satanists could bonk, booze and rock’n’roll with impunity, but I’m not sure I’d be willing to try it and find out.

    cr

    • Filippo
      Posted March 29, 2019 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

      ‘“The sharia law would apply only to Muslims, who make up about two-thirds of the population.” – Guardian’

      I trust that (the Guardian would support the view that) it would not apply to Muslim apostates who wish to leave Islam and who do not wish to be subject to Sharia.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 30, 2019 at 12:28 am | Permalink

        I have a nasty suspicion it would especially apply to Muslim apostates.

        Moral is, just don’t become a Muslim, ever, if you have the choice. It’s like the Hotel California – you can never leave.

        cr

  23. JB
    Posted March 29, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    C’mon… this isn’t related to Islam. It’s because of… err, climate change.

  24. Rob Dielenberg
    Posted April 3, 2019 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    In all these comments, I haven’t encountered the core question that we should all be asking: Where is the moderate Muslim response to all this? I’m not hearing it, or finding it anywhere on the web. I suspect moderate Muslim’s by their silence tacitly agree with Sharia/Hadith law as promulgated in Brunei. Or am I reaching here?


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: