[Veloce]

This is a rather interesting and high profile example of the Muslim/Western clash of cultures that we can only expect to see more often:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/showbiz/ce...st-brunei/

Quote:

(CNN) -- The Beverly Hills Hotel has been a haven for Hollywood's elite since 1912 -- two years before the City of Beverly Hills was even created.
But now some stars are rushing for the exits.
On Monday, a number of celebrities took part in a demonstration across from the famed Sunset Boulevard lodge, protesting not the hotel but its ownership -- an investment group controlled by the Sultan of Brunei.
In late April, the small Muslim nation on the northern coast of the island of Borneo implemented Sharia law, marked by strong punishments for those found guilty of homosexuality or adultery -- including stoning the convicted to death. The law was praised by the sultan, who isn't just the country's ruler but also a major political and cultural figure.
"We're just making people aware," Jay Leno, who was among the demonstrators, told CNN.
"It's not a political issue. This is not something that's debatable. ... It's people being stoned to death," he said.
A number of organizations have moved -- or threatened to move -- events scheduled for the hotel.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the Feminist Majority Foundation moved its Global Women's Rights Awards from the Beverly Hills Hotel to the Hammer Museum in nearby Westwood. The awards, which were held Monday night, are co-chaired by Leno and his wife, Mavis.
The International Women's Media Foundation similarly pulled its Courage in Journalism Awards ceremony from the venue.
"We, the IWMF, can no longer hold an event at a venue whose owner stands for the violation of the very human rights we fight for," Elisa Lees Munoz, executive director of the IWMF, said in a statement.
Ellen DeGeneres is among the celebrities making the Beverly Hills Hotel a focus of their protests.
Ellen DeGeneres is among the celebrities making the Beverly Hills Hotel a focus of their protests.
Also saying they're staying away, according to the Los Angeles Times: The Hollywood Reporter's annual Women in Entertainment breakfast, the Motion Picture & Television Fund's Night Before the Oscars and a fundraising luncheon hosted by Teen Line, a peer helpline.
Moreover, such notables as Ellen DeGeneres and mogul Richard Branson have announced they won't patronize the hotel or other properties in the Dorchester Collection of luxury hotels, which owns and manages the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Hotel Bel-Air.
"I won't be visiting the Hotel Bel-Air or the Beverly Hills Hotel until this is resolved," DeGeneres tweeted to her 28.8 million followers.
Leno said he was well aware of the concerns.
"I know a number of people are canceling events at the hotel, and it's all economics," he told CNN.
But Christopher Cowdray, the Dorchester Collection's CEO, said the celebrities and groups protesting are taking out their anger on the wrong place.
"The actions they're taking are unfounded," he said.
"It's going to hurt our employees and this has nothing to do with them whatsoever," he said. "It's not their fight."

The sultan has owned the Beverly Hills Hotel since 1987. The Dorchester Collection was established in 1996 to oversee that hotel and others in its luxury portfolio, including the Hotel Bel-Air, Paris' Plaza Athenee and London's Dorchester.
Cowdray said that celebrities wanting to influence politics in Brunei would be better off lobbying the U.S. State Department to take action.
At a briefing Monday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "We have very serious concerns."
The City of Beverly Hills is also making its opinion known. Mayor Lili Bosse is introducing a resolution before City Council that would urge the sultan to divest his interest in the hotel that bears the city's name.
"We have a history of standing strong against injustice," she said.
Like Leno, she emphasized that the issue wasn't the hotel, but what was going on in Brunei.
"The resolution is not a call for a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel," she said. "This is really a focus on the government and their laws and not a statement about the hotel."

What's funny is all of these celebrities' mountain of wealth is built on a mountain of bones and misery for the rest of the world, but they've chosen to turn a blind eye until things cross the line into their bullshit progressive politics. How convenient. Sweatshop labor is hunky dory but god forbid someone threaten gay rights.

[TigerMandingo]

[kbell]

The Hollywoodian hamster is a interesting specimen. Its what happens when nobody tells you no and your best friends have shit stains on their nose from brown nosing you so long.

[sylo]

You aren't defending sharia law are you?

[Veloce]

(05-07-2014 03:36 PM)sylo Wrote:  

You aren't defending sharia law are you?

Where in my original post does it remotely hint that I'm defending sharia law?

[Basil Ransom]

Yeah, the smooth move for the Sultan would have been to sell the hotels before passing the law. I'm sure there would be some complaints after the fact, but it would have blown over in due time. Now, if they sell, the selling price could be significantly affected. I don't see how the hotel can continue to operate successfully under its current ownership.

The funny thing is, Saudi Arabia and probably other countries as well have similar laws on the books yet we have cozy relationships with them. It's like dating a golddigger and buying her cars and jewelry because you can't give up that pussy. We can divest ourselves from Brunei assets pretty quickly, but straight up not buying oil is nigh impossible (switching who you buy oil from doesn't make a difference).

[cooledcannon]

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

What's funny is all of these celebrities' mountain of wealth is built on a mountain of bones and misery for the rest of the world

Explain why/how?

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Sweatshop labor is hunky dory but god forbid someone threaten gay rights.

The difference is, sweatshops help people. Workers in poor countries are so poor they would prefer to work in a sweatshop than not work in one.

Whereas if someone wants to stone you, you wouldnt really have a choice in the matter.

I agree though that they are hamstering though.

[Parlay44]

The problem with Muslims is that religious "law" is greater than the law of the land. I call bullshit. This is just the tip of the iceberg that we're seeing.

[kbell]

What's interesting about this clash is is that its leftist and Muslims. In the past Hollywood would gloss over the anti-gay and stoning that goes on in Sharia ruled lands. But I guess its different when it effects them. However its weird that he has owned it since 1987 and they just got around to complaining about it.

[Drazen]

I have an event there in two weeks. Can't cancel it now, we already paid the deposit and everyone involved agreed its too late to try to change/cancel anything.

Don't think this will end anytime soon, and have multiple dinner meetings we've already paid 1/2 of (like 5 grand a pop). My main concern is people not showing up and corporate sponsors unwilling to participate in events, which may make it impossible to have events there until resolved.

[Veloce]

(05-07-2014 04:48 PM)kbell Wrote:  

What's interesting about this clash is is that its leftist and Muslims. In the past Hollywood would gloss over the anti-gay and stoning that goes on in Sharia ruled lands. But I guess its different when it effects them. However its weird that he has owned it since 1987 and they just got around to complaining about it.

Exactly my point, and spend enough time around these nitwits and you begin to understand that they only get up on their soapbox when it becomes fashionable and safe to do so.

[Veloce]

(05-07-2014 04:20 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

What's funny is all of these celebrities' mountain of wealth is built on a mountain of bones and misery for the rest of the world

Explain why/how?

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Sweatshop labor is hunky dory but god forbid someone threaten gay rights.

The difference is, sweatshops help people. Workers in poor countries are so poor they would prefer to work in a sweatshop than not work in one.

You think they have a choice?

[Feisbook Control]

(05-07-2014 05:05 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 04:48 PM)kbell Wrote:  

What's interesting about this clash is is that its leftist and Muslims. In the past Hollywood would gloss over the anti-gay and stoning that goes on in Sharia ruled lands. But I guess its different when it effects them. However its weird that he has owned it since 1987 and they just got around to complaining about it.

Exactly my point, and spend enough time around these nitwits and you begin to understand that they only get up on their soapbox when it becomes fashionable and safe to do so.

Presumably the reason there is a fuss now, and not in 1987 is because:

Quote:

In late April, the small Muslim nation on the northern coast of the island of Borneo implemented Sharia law, marked by strong punishments for those found guilty of homosexuality or adultery -- including stoning the convicted to death. The law was praised by the sultan, who isn't just the country's ruler but also a major political and cultural figure.

I take that to mean that prior to late April, whilst homosexuals and adulterers weren't exactly liked, they also weren't stoned. The protests and boycotts at this particular time do make sense.

[The Lizard of Oz]

@thedude, I think the poster's point was that people in very poor countries would take getting paid for labor in relatively harsh conditions over not having that kind of work available to them at all and not being able to put food on the table as a result. It's a legitimate point.

It's easy to criticize "sweatshops" and forget that companies go into third world countries looking for cheap unskilled labor. You can regulate it out of existence, and all that will happen is that these companies will go somewhere else.

There are no shortcuts to wealth creation is a society and no one has yet shown a better way than the free market. Attempts to regulate it too crudely, ostensibly for the benefit of the poor, usually end up making things worse for everyone.

The way that a number of Asian countries have been able to create enormous wealth in just a few generations was by allowing relatively unfettered capitalism including sweatshops and the like. After a number of generations, the country becomes wealthy enough that it is no longer a supplier of cheap labor, and there are no sweatshops there or a lot fewer because the price of labor rises as the country generates wealth. But you can't short-circuit that process.

A similar example that was described by Milton Friedman is how immigrants to the US (such as his grandparents who came to New York's Lower East Side) were willing to work in quite harsh conditions in garment shops in Chinatown to get a start and make some money. In two generations, their grandchildren were attending Ivy League Schools. But if you closed down the garment shops, suddenly the immigrants who can provide nothing but cheap labor don't even have the opportunity to get ahead and leave the next generation better off.

I'm pretty sure you know all this already, but it is easy to become emotionally moved by people working in relatively harsh conditions, and forget about inexorable economic realities.

[cooledcannon]

(05-07-2014 05:10 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 04:20 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

What's funny is all of these celebrities' mountain of wealth is built on a mountain of bones and misery for the rest of the world

Explain why/how?

(05-07-2014 03:15 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Sweatshop labor is hunky dory but god forbid someone threaten gay rights.

The difference is, sweatshops help people. Workers in poor countries are so poor they would prefer to work in a sweatshop than not work in one.

You think they have a choice?

Generally, sweatshops provide an additional choice(being able to work in one). Your point would only be valid if they actively took other choices away, or forced people to work in them, which afaik is not the case.

Lizard of Oz probably said it better than I did, anyway.

The comparison would be to optional stoning for gays, which no one should really have a problem with.

[Veloce]

You guys are creating a strawman argument about sweatshops. I mention sweatshops because despite their constant push for sustainable, free-range, fair-trade-everything bullshit, celebrities set the model for material good consumption which requires every human rights abuse you can think of, and is additionally the LEAST sustainable, LEAST environmentally-friendly mode of existence there is. So it's funny to watch on the sidelines and see just what it is that gets them fired up in life. Not surprisingly, it happens to be women's rights and gay rights.

Protests against Sharia law DOES make sense, but to watch it come from these individuals is laughable.

[cooledcannon]

I do agree that they[celebs] over emphasize women/gay rights. But there really is nothing morally wrong with sweatshops, unless they coerce/force people to work there, or they take away other opportunists, or they trick them into doing it(fraud/false advertising).

Many companies do horrible things in poor countries like Nestle telling women not to breastfeed, or companies dumping industrial waste or toxic pesticides, etc. I dont think sweatshops is necessarily bad; you have to qualify as to what exactly they are doing wrong. If the only people adversely affected are the workers, who are there voluntarily, its not really morally wrong at all.

[Basil Ransom]

"celebrities set the model for material good consumption which requires every human rights abuse you can think of, and is additionally the LEAST sustainable, LEAST environmentally-friendly mode of existence there is. "

Great point. A life of substantial, conspicuous consumption, complete with jetting across the world and dining out at pricey restaurants, is quite the opposite of 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly. The simplest index of your 'environmental impact' is your cost of living. A higher cost of living means more energy expended keeping you afloat. Hollywood celebs are among the first to draft a class of servants dedicated to their every whim, with an array of personal chefs, nannies, butlers, gardeners, drivers and personal aides. You tell me who is more sustainable, a family of four living out on the prairie, where the mother cooks, cleans, sews, teaches and raises the kids, or a Hollywood family of four with a team of indigent servants tending to their home and children (a very common scenario, I can assure you)? And those servants have several children of their own.

[Samseau]

Regardless of the hypocrisy, let's get to the bottom line:

Islam is a common enemy of both the left and the right. If anything saves the West from utter destruction, it will be the common foe of Islam that brings the people together.

Politics is a strange thing.

[kbell]

I dunno if that will happen though. The left and Islam have been bedfellows for a long time even though they should be enemies. So far they have ignored sharia law, I hope this is a change in that thinking but I'm not that optimistic anything will change.

[Samseau]

(05-07-2014 07:16 PM)kbell Wrote:  

I dunno if that will happen though. The left and Islam have been bedfellows for a long time even though they should be enemies. So far they have ignored sharia law, I hope this is a change in that thinking but I'm not that optimistic anything will change.

Since Hollywood is very gay, and Sharia Law hates homos, I expect to see some very anti-Islamic politics come out of Hollywood in the years to come.

[Veloce]

^^^Agreed.

So far the talking-head commentary in America has been demonization of islam from the right, and a push for multi-culturalism from the left.

Now that we're in a real world situation that forces people to take sides, it will be interesting to watch what happens.

On a somewhat related note, I found this interesting:



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/...ariah-law/

If support for Sharia law is as widespread as that article would have you believe, then Hollywood has a lot of protesting in the years ahead.

[Basil Ransom]

"Since Hollywood is very gay, and Sharia Law hates homos, I expect to see some very anti-Islamic politics come out of Hollywood in the years to come."

Keep on expecting. The progressive types will much sooner hate on straight Christian whitey than the bearded Musulmen. Criticism of Islam admits to cracks in the multicultural fantasy. Standard leftist operating procedure is to ignore it, as well as NOT to draw a general conclusion, eg that Islam is homophobic. Hollywood will continue on its current course of ignoring the schism on the left between gays and Muslims, just as it has done with say, gays and blacks. The standard tack is to buy off each group with some government handout or exception, in return for the member groups agreeing to ignore each other.

It causes progressives sincere anguish to criticize Islam. So they will make every effort to avoid that pain, and just ignore the problem. If anything, the more exposure a country has to Islam, the less critical the local left wing is of it (eg Sweden and the UK vs America). I can see gays on the ground becoming more critical of Islam, but I doubt it will filter upwards to the progressive leadership.

[sylo]

You have not given a clear answer or opinion or solution in any way. I am wanting to understand your point.

The Hollywood crowd has been a machine for decades. The fools making a stand for religion are just as idiotic. Who cares?

[Seth_Rose]

(05-07-2014 07:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Regardless of the hypocrisy, let's get to the bottom line:

Islam is a common enemy of both the left and the right. If anything saves the West from utter destruction, it will be the common foe of Islam that brings the people together.

Politics is a strange thing.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is quite interesting that the left is taking on Islam, as usually they don't like to criticize any religion except Christianity although when gay rights are in the picture it's a different story.

We're already seeing this clash in Western Europe. Islam has become a huge force and there has been a lot of backlash by hard line nationalist and conservative parties in those countries that are typically liberal.