Althouse: "Brunei's interpretation of Islamic law now imposes death by stoning as a punishment for sex between men and adultery, as well as amputation of limbs for theft."

April 4, 2019

"Brunei's interpretation of Islamic law now imposes death by stoning as a punishment for sex between men and adultery, as well as amputation of limbs for theft."

"Lesbian sex can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in jail, the BBC reports... The new laws stipulate the death penalty for offenses such as rape, adultery and the defamation of the Prophet Muhammad, though the death penalty was already on the books in Brunei and the country has not carried out an execution since 1957.... Ellen DeGeneres, George Clooney and other high-profile celebrities have called for a boycott of Brunei-owned hotels in protest of these additions to the penal code. Brunei Investment Agency, a government-owned corporation founded by 72-year-old Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, owns luxury hotels across the U.S., U.K. and Europe, including both the Beverly Hills Hotel and Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles, The Dorchester in London and Hotel Principe di Savoia in Milan.... Brunei released a statement on Saturday defending the laws, saying the penal code criminalizes and deters acts against the teaching of Islam and 'aims to educate, respect and protect the legitimate rights of all individuals, society or nationality of any faiths and race.'"

From "Death By Stoning Among Punishments In New Brunei Anti-LGBT, Criminal Laws" (NPR).

There's a phrase, "legitimate rights."

258 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258

gahrie said...: Because that worked out so well for the French.

It worked out well for us. The problem with the French revolution was the insistence that rights came from the government.; 4/4/19, 1:42 PM
David Duffy said...: If it wasn't for British colonialism these good people wouldn't do stupid stuff like this. Damn Brits!; 4/4/19, 1:43 PM
gahrie said...: It’s the natural right of the bear to eat you.

Bears don't have rights. A main reason is their inability to respect your rights.; 4/4/19, 1:45 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Bears don't have rights.”

Ohhhhhh tell that to the bear who is chewing your face off.; 4/4/19, 1:49 PM
effinayright said...: Inga...Allie Oop said...
Someone: “Your rights cannot be taken away from you, they can only be violated. This is the entire point of calling them inalienable.”

>>>>>But that's obviously not true. Your inalienable rights are yours as long as you do not attempt to deprive others of *their* inalienable rights. But it is YOUR action, not the state's, that creates that situation.

Inga: So “inalienable rights” is a fallacy, because they most certainly can be alienated. A lesbian female is born in Brunei, she has sexual relations with another woman, she is sent to jail for 10 years. It was her inalienable right not to be jailed for her biological sexual drives. Or maybe only Americans have inalienable rights?

>>>>>our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, says we do. Brunei has no such concept. Neither did the British Crown when we broke away. In any case, the right to have sex with anyone you want to is obviously not an inalienable right, and never has been in any society.

Inga: Gotta shake one’s head.

>>>> I bet you hear loud clicking sounds when you do.; 4/4/19, 1:54 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Rusty:

You can if they first violate someone elses rights.

Whose rights am I violating if I decide to grow an acre of marijuana plants? Or open a casino? Or a whorehouse? Or if I want to build my home contrary to local building codes?; 4/4/19, 1:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Gahrie:

It worked out well for us. The problem with the French revolution was the insistence that rights came from the government.

Our revolution led to massive violence, too. It just took 60 years to get there. When states tried to break away from the union, they were crushed with violence and occupation. Also, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, written in consultation with Jefferson, was similarly based in the principle of natural rights. The first article states, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights."; 4/4/19, 1:59 PM
gahrie said...: Ohhhhhh tell that to the bear who is chewing your face off.

Just because one has the ability to do something doesn't give one the right to do something.; 4/4/19, 2:06 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “That which has no existence cannot be destroyed—that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts.”

Jeremy Bentham; 4/4/19, 2:10 PM
gahrie said...: Also, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, written in consultation with Jefferson, was similarly based in the principle of natural rights

The American revolutionaries believed our rights came from our creator. The French explicitly rejected a creator. I use the term inherent rights instead of natural rights purposefully.; 4/4/19, 2:16 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “ In any case, the right to have sex with anyone you want to is obviously not an inalienable right, and never has been in any society.”

Did God give Locke a list of inalienable rights?

“I bet you hear loud clicking sounds when you do.”

I bet if I shined a light in one of your ears a ray of light would be seen coming out of your other ear.; 4/4/19, 2:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: @gahrie:

The American revolutionaries believed our rights came from our creator. The French explicitly rejected a creator. I use the term inherent rights instead of natural rights purposefully.

Yes, particular form of deism ("nature's god") but whatever verbiage you want to use, the notion is that rights are inherent to human nature. It's a basic principle of the Enlightenment, which inspired the American and French revolutions. The Scottish Enlightenment did differ from the French one in certain instances. But I still see natural, or inherent, rights as mostly a fantasy and hopelessly naive. People cannot even really agree on what these rights are or where they come from, which is part of the problem. I think a focus on rule of law and laws restricting the state are a better tack. It's what we really have anyway.; 4/4/19, 2:37 PM
Birches said...: I feel sorry for people that consistently crave negative attention from an internet blog. It's sad.; 4/4/19, 2:37 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I feel sorry for people that consistently crave negative attention from an internet blog. It's sad.”

I feel sorry for people who are so stupid they can’t add to the discussion (if they were even able to understand what was being argued).

It’s sad.; 4/4/19, 2:43 PM
gahrie said...: The first article states, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights."

Except the French immediately created two classes of citizen, those with political rights and those without.; 4/4/19, 2:43 PM
Ralph L said...: Be Free!
Do whatever you want to do
Be whoever you want to be
Just so long as you don't hurt anybody.; 4/4/19, 2:50 PM
gahrie said...: I think a focus on rule of law and laws restricting the state are a better tack. It's what we really have anyway.

If the only justification for our rights comes from the rule of law, then it is perfectly legitimate to infringe upon those 'rights" through the democratic process. In other words, if the sheep doesn't have an inherent right to life, only a right to life based upon laws, then it's perfectly OK for the wolves to pass a law making the sheep lunch.; 4/4/19, 2:53 PM
tim in vermont said...: Meanwhile the awokened among us explain that the concept of time is racist. Physics is racist, math is racist, it’s all racist!

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/707189797/brittney-cooper-how-has-time-been-stolen-from-people-of-color

If it’s in a TED talk, it must be true and you must be smart if you find it convincing!; 4/4/19, 2:59 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: The leaders of Brunei passed barbaric laws based on what they perceive as their “legitimate (religious, inherent, natural?) rights”. Apparently it all depends on who thinks they know best what natural rights are, that’s pretty scary.; 4/4/19, 3:05 PM
Bilwick said...: "Apparently it all depends on who thinks they know best what natural rights are, that’s pretty scary." I would guess, judging from your myriad comments, that you don't.; 4/4/19, 3:09 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Ahm Inga's quoting Bentham now, like she knows something about Utilitarianism.

"John Stuart Mill sharply criticized Bentham's view of human nature, which failed to recognize conscience as a human motive. Mill considered Bentham's view "to have done and to be doing very serious evil. "

It should not be overlooked that Bentham's "hedonistic" theory (a term from J. J. C. Smart), unlike Mill's, is often criticised for lacking a principle of fairness embodied in a conception of justice. In Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Gerald J. Postema states: "No moral concept suffers more at Bentham's hand than the concept of justice. There is no sustained, mature analysis of the notion.

Bentham's critics have claimed that he undermined the foundation of a free society by rejecting natural rights. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote "The principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number was as inimical to the idea of liberty as to the idea of rights."

Well, we know that Inga really doesn't understand the idea of liberty or value free societies or justice, so I guess maybe Bentham is her homie,; 4/4/19, 3:10 PM
Michael K said...: But I still see natural, or inherent, rights as mostly a fantasy and hopelessly naive.<

Then we're fucked, as the "Law" divorced from some principle, is just another opinion,.; 4/4/19, 3:12 PM
Seeing Red said...: The leaders of Brunei passed barbaric laws based on what they perceive as their “legitimate (religious, inherent, natural?) rights”. Apparently it all depends on who thinks they know best what natural rights are, that’s pretty scary.

What do you mean “what they perceive?”; 4/4/19, 3:12 PM
Krumhorn said...: Men and goats?

I knew a Navy lieutenant who was caught poking a goat. As he was rotting in the brig, a frumpy old bearded guy showed up stating that he had been assigned as his counsel. The Lt was not impressed. He had beard dandruff fluffing down the front of his vest and his shoes looked like he had used a turd from taco night as polish. The Lt. expressed his skepticism about the quality of representation, but the old lawyer said not to worry, he was great reading jurors. The Navy Lt. was certain he was in big trouble.

At the day of trial, the attorney stood up in a cloud of beard dandruff to address the jury with his opening statement. To his horror, the Lt. heard his attorney say: “Yes, folks. My client did indeed fuck a goat out in front of the 3rd St elementary school right by the playground. It was a loving and tender relationship. When he was done, the goat turned around and gently licked the Lt. clean.”

And then to his astonishment, the defendant saw one juror elbow his fellow juror and say “Yep, a good goat’ll do that!”

Those muzzies just don’t know how to have a good time.

- Krumhorn; 4/4/19, 3:22 PM
Rusty said...: Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

You can if they first violate someone elses rights.

"Whose rights am I violating if I decide to grow an acre of marijuana plants?"
You're choice. have fun.

" Or open a casino? Or a whorehouse? Or if I want to build my home contrary to local building codes?"
Again. Don't care. However I hope you planned for parking.
Say you punch somebody in the face for wearing a maga hat, or somebody insults your muslim religion and you cut off their head.
Whose rights are being violated?; 4/4/19, 3:29 PM
Rusty said...: "But I still see natural, or inherent, rights as mostly a fantasy and hopelessly naive.<"
Hence the second amendment.; 4/4/19, 3:29 PM
SDaly said...: Then we're fucked, as the "Law" divorced from some principle, is just another opinion.

That's why a peaceful and functioning society must have a generally understood principles of rights (and wrongs). It's why multi-culturalism is a deathtrap.; 4/4/19, 3:31 PM
gerry said...: True. But then again, lots of straight people engage in anal sex as well. And the mouth is similarly not designed for sex, so I suppose straight men will be foregoing blowjobs in the interest of nature/god. And come to think of it, nature/god has designed human beings to reproduced around age 12 or 13. How good of an idea is that?

And your point is that you agree with me, I think, although I did not assert anything about the God's interests, just that good anus health is more easily achieved when hard things having significant girth are not forced into it and withdrawn from it repeatedly and frequently.

I think you meant it in jest, but natural selection has no interests at all in anything. It has no consciousness.

Best regards.; 4/4/19, 3:41 PM
Michael said...: Inga found Bentham via Google. Before today she had never heard of him.; 4/4/19, 3:44 PM
Fernandinande said...: Peter Hitchens wrote an interesting blog item on the topic back in 2008, which you can read here.

That was too complicated and wordy.

I don't believe rights exist for two simple reasons:
- Humans are animals. That's probably the only reason you need, but ....
- What is generally considered the most fundamental human right? Life. Well, everyone dies, so everyone always has their most fundamental right violated. What "they" really mean is the "right to not be killed by another person unless they have a good reason", but adding those qualifiers renders the idea of a "right to life" a pretty wimpy idea. And of course if you're dead you don't have any property and can't pursue happiness...

I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who said something like "The only right you have is the right to do as you please and take the consequences." An efficient society would minimize the consequences.; 4/4/19, 3:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @gahrie:

If the only justification for our rights comes from the rule of law, then it is perfectly legitimate to infringe upon those 'rights" through the democratic process

We already have that. Precisely which rights do you believe we have that are inherent?; 4/4/19, 3:48 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: And from the BBC:

"Trans woman was accosted and attacked when she accidentally walked through an Algerian protest in Paris. She was blocked by protesters who taunted her in Arabic & then hit her."

When worlds collide....

Hey, Inga, let's bring even more people from Islamic countries here! It will work out wonderfully, I'm sure.; 4/4/19, 3:49 PM
J. Farmer said...: @gerry:

And your point is that you agree with me, I think...

Well, the first word of my comment was "true." The anus was not designed for sex. I am not sure I know anyone who disagrees with that. I just wasn't sure what that had to do with anything.; 4/4/19, 3:51 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Countries that stone / execute #gay people:

#Brunei
Afghanistan
Iran
Mauritania
Sudan
Nigeria
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Somalia

Lashings (insanely cruel):

Indonesia
Qatar (@AlJazeera)
Malaysia
UAE (+forced hormones)

I wonder, what is the common thread here? Perhaps we can ask Rep. Omar.; 4/4/19, 3:52 PM
James K said...: The unique beauty of the Constitution and amendments is that it enumerates rights taken as absolute.

No, the unique beauty of the Constitution is that it enumerates powers, not rights. The use of the term "enumeration" in the 9th Amendment is only to disavow explicitly the idea that there is a certain number of rights.

The usual definition of enumerate is to "ascertain the number of." I would read the 9th Amendment as saying that in this case, it's just listing a few out of a much larger number.; 4/4/19, 3:52 PM
gahrie said...: Precisely which rights do you believe we have that are inherent?

Life, liberty and property.; 4/4/19, 3:52 PM
buwaya said...: What matters in Brunei, or any other very foreign place, hasn't got much to do with American philosophical arguments about rights. Its a very American thing to go back to the favorite American game of, effectively, arguing over angels on pinheads, with respect to the nature of rights.

Forcing the world into the American philosophical box is a very typical, parochial thing to do, engaged in by both left and right. It seems to be very difficult, even in reality, even if one has physically traveled there, to stand on a distant shore and see things from the natives point of view.

Perhaps this is because when these come to your attention they come as mere fodder for local ideological battles. Its a pity because the whole world, every bit, is inherently interesting, and not just a source of ammunition for internecine warfare.; 4/4/19, 3:53 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Fernandistein:

I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who said something like "The only right you have is the right to do as you please and take the consequences." An efficient society would minimize the consequences.

Pretty close paraphrase. It's, "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." It's not in any of his books but I believe came from a speech he gave.; 4/4/19, 3:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @gahrie:

Life, liberty and property.

And of course people people can legally be denied all of those things, so long as it is not "without due process of law."; 4/4/19, 4:00 PM
J. Farmer said...: @buwaya:

Forcing the world into the American philosophical box is a very typical, parochial thing to do, engaged in by both left and right. It seems to be very difficult, even in reality, even if one has physically traveled there, to stand on a distant shore and see things from the natives point of view.

I agree, but it's also a result of grounding our conception of rights in universalism. See the difficulties over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.; 4/4/19, 4:01 PM
buwaya said...: Its interesting what attracts attention in the US.

How gay people are treated seems to matter especially for some reason, but the treatment of some local ethnic minority in some distant place, however egregious, raises a shrug. Or the particular mistreatment or condition of, say, the poor, or general poverty, or indeed of women in many places, other than through lip service.

There is a vast range of troubles in this world, and endless numbers of people mistreated or in trouble. There is no end to them, if you are going to be justly concerned about this and that. The paying of public attention to this lot or that, while not bothering with the rest, seems an exercise in vanity more than anything.; 4/4/19, 4:03 PM
mockturtle said...: Buwaya observes: Perhaps this is because when these come to your attention they come as mere fodder for local ideological battles. Its a pity because the whole world, every bit, is inherently interesting, and not just a source of ammunition for internecine warfare.

Yes, it is. Spoken from true wisdom. I find other cultures fascinating because they are, in fact, different from my own. If our country was founded on certain principles and values we hold dear, why should others not do the same with theirs? Too much meddling! Meddling with other nations, meddling with wildlife, meddling with climate---people just can't keep their hands to themselves.; 4/4/19, 4:06 PM
J. Farmer said...: @buwaya:

How gay people are treated seems to matter especially for some reason, but the treatment of some local ethnic minority in some distant place, however egregious, raises a shrug

I think gays have disproportionate power in a lot of western societies for a host of reasons. But there is also something uniquely disquieting about making executions of people for their inherent nature a matter of law. Violence against ethnic minorities, say the Rohingya in Burma, does often get shrugged off, but if Burma made it law that Rohingya be rounded up and executed, I suspect it would get more attention.

Also, people are just inconsistent. It's a truism. We have spent the last several years assisting Saudi Arabia in destroying Yemen and trying to starve it into submission. That's far more destructive than anything likely to occur in Bruinei as a result of this.; 4/4/19, 4:12 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Life, liberty and property."

How is "property" an inherent right?; 4/4/19, 4:44 PM
Gahrie said...: How is "property" an inherent right?

I'm not surprised a Marxist can't figure that out.; 4/4/19, 5:10 PM
mockturtle said...: Perhaps 'the right to own property would be more accurate. Plus the right to defend same.; 4/4/19, 5:42 PM
tim in vermont said...: How is "property" an inherent right?

It’s not, it’s only important if you want a prosperous society. There are any number of combinations of “rights” one could dream up that will produce despair and starvation. Communism comes to mind as a great creator of these social ills. But communism and socialism do work very well for their design purpose, which is to take power.; 4/4/19, 6:48 PM
Michael K said...: The paying of public attention to this lot or that, while not bothering with the rest, seems an exercise in vanity more than anything.

An example is the encouraging the immigration of uneducated "brown" people who will be a drain on the rest of us.

Of course those encouraging immigration won't have them live next door. The best comment is that, if the illegal immigrants were lawyers, the Wall would be 100 feet high.; 4/4/19, 6:56 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger Nobody said...
How is "property" an inherent right?

It’s not, it’s only important if you want a prosperous society.

A pretty fair argument is that the Industrial Revolution had to wait for the patent laws and private property.

Cookie wouldn't know about that. Ever sign the front of a paycheck, Cookie ?; 4/4/19, 6:58 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/4/19, 7:53 PM
n.n said...: Property is a natural right, if you can keep it. So is murder, rape, abortion rites, etc. if other people will tolerate termination or corruption of human life for light and casual causes, for cult and state, through conflation of logical domains, etc.; 4/4/19, 7:56 PM
TJM said...: This will become part of the Dem Party Platform - death to the rectum-sex enthusiasts! We support Islam!!!; 4/4/19, 8:50 PM
TJM said...: Hey is Inga out harvesting votes to turn the tide in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election?; 4/4/19, 8:52 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “A pretty fair argument is that the Industrial Revolution had to wait for the patent laws and private property.”

I like hearing that my profession was the reason that we have a prosperous society.; 4/4/19, 9:31 PM
FIDO said...: Why is any of this surprising? Why do Liberals and Atheists always assume that when religious people say things, that they don't really mean them, PARTICULARLY Muslims?

These people may have a few pet Muslims around to stroke their egos or check off a box in their 'Diversity Friend Bingo Card', but they have no idea who or what they are, so they?; 4/4/19, 10:42 PM
Josephbleau said...: This topic reminds me of the difference between the Occupy Wall Street chick and the Islamic chick, the Occupy chick gets stoned BEFORE she gets raped.; 4/5/19, 12:36 AM
stlcdr said...: Yet another reason why the US has the first amendment: once religion becomes established as law, power hungry people will use the darker side of doctrine, or distortions, to oppress and impose punishment on others. Religion becomes (sic) an abomination.

This isn’t to say that laws cannot take guidance from religion beliefs and guidelines (see the 10 commandments). It’s ironic that non-believers like to impose rules that follow their own beliefs, because, specifically, they are not religious in nature.; 4/5/19, 6:14 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger Nobody said...
"How is "property" an inherent right?

It’s not, it’s only important if you want a prosperous society. "

That's striking close to , "You didn't make that." "You didn't achieve that on your own."
Ex government, can I create value out of nothing and am I entitled to it?; 4/5/19, 6:52 AM