Friday, 16 May 2014

Brunei: Star Wars 2

The celebrity boycott of Dorchester hotels over anti-gay laws in Brunei will be ineffective and “most rewarding to the individuals taking part”, the charity Stonewall has claimed.

Stephen Fry, Richard Branson and several A-list US stars have forsaken the luxury chain over its ties to the Sultan of Brunei, who plans to make homosexuality punishable in his country with death by stoning.

But they will not be joined by Stonewall, the gay, lesbian and bisexual rights charity, because it risks “turning the issue into a battle between gay people and the Sultan”.

Writing in The Telegraph Ruth Hunt, the charity’s chief executive, described the Sultan’s plans to introduce a strict Sharia code in his country as “an abomination” but said the charity would “only implement actions that we can calculate will have an impact”.

She said: “We’re renowned for our pragmatism and our belief that talking is usually more effective than protests – however satisfying protests may be, in the short term they’re often most rewarding to the individuals taking part.

“The crucial questions for Stonewall are whether there is a mandate for the boycott and would such a boycott work? We believe the answer is no, on both counts.”

The Dorchester Collection is owned by the Brunei Investment Agency and comprises 10 properties including the Beverly Hills Hotel, Hotel Bel-Air, and The Dorchester in London.

But Ms Hunt questioned the logic of targeting the hotel group, saying it was doubtful what influence Christopher Cowdray, its “somewhat beleaguered” chief executive, could realistically have on Brunei’s legal system.

“By turning the issue into a battle between gay people and the Sultan… we limit the opportunity for dialogue and put the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people of Brunei at far greater risk,” she said.

Stonewall prefers to encourage change by working with groups such as the Dorchester Collection to ensure all their employees have fundamental rights at work, while supporting human rights groups with their work around the world, she added.

“The change we’ve seen here in the UK did not happen because of boycotts. It happened because a constellation of campaigners, individuals and companies committed changing the country.”



Well said - couldn't have put it better my own fantastic self.

Though Scott Long has - here he is on how many have got it wrong about Brunei and boycotts

Now I'm not a professional psychic, but something tells Fagburn all Teh Gays who prefer knee-jerk self-serving posturing, media stunts and celebactivism to rational and effective campaigning won't like this one bit.

Maybe we should concentrate on things that might actually affect change, not just silly stuff that makes us feel good?

PS Admittedly, I'll look pretty silly if it turns out the Dorchester group are a major Stonewall donor. 

They're not are they...

8 comments:

  1. It's where Stonewall have their big champagne dinner events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops!

      Slight conflict of interest there.

      It's a shame as all her arguments are valid.

      Delete
  2. "talking is usually more effective than protests". Yes, that is what history teaches us from the Tolpuddle Martyrs to Sinn Fein. Holding expensive charity events at the Dorchester and paying for some posters on London buses will right all the wrongs in the world. Why anyone gives any credence to this middle class, London based, self serving charity is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said - couldn't have put it better myself.
    x

    PS You're quite right - thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. She isn't refusing to boycott the hotel, according to Queerty, it's the gay death camps she's refusing to boycott!!!

    http://www.queerty.com/the-lgbt-leader-who-refuses-to-boycott-the-sultan-of-bruneis-death-sentence-for-gays-20140516

    ReplyDelete
  5. Glad to see that you're supporting cosy chats in the leather chairs of gentleman's clubs over any sort of direct action. You are Ben Summerskill and I claim my five pounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not supporting any group or individual here.

      Just interested in boring old stuff like rational debate and facts, over...

      Delete
  6. If she had opposed the boycott because it's success can only be measured in terms of low paid workers being thrown out of work, or because the LGBT people of Brunei hadn't been asked their opinion then I might have had some respect. However, airily declaring it might put Brunei LGBT people at greater risk is very patronising and arguing the boycott will not directly affect change misses the point. The boycott is symbolic.

    What Stonewall has done is give a free pass to organisations or individuals who use the Dorchester and other hotels. If challenged, they can claim they are following Stonewall's advice. So Prince Harry, who likes to pose as gay friendly, doesn't need to justify his attendance at the Dorchester or silence on the subject of stoning women and gays. Perhaps he intends to mention it the next time the Sultan of Brunei comes to tea. (The Sultan is of course a big family friend). Maybe Ruth Hunt will get an invite and they can all have a nice chat...

    ReplyDelete