Morality matters: How tolerant are we of intolerance?

To boycott or not to boycott? It’s a very live issue. The BDS movement – boycott, divestment, sanctions – which grew out of the Israel/Palestine conflict and seeks to punish Israel for its policy towards the Palestinian state and people, has shown how factionalised and controversial sanctions and boycotts can become.

With passions running white-hot on either side, it was inevitable that the Sultan of Brunei’s decision to impose the death penalty – by stoning, of all methods – for being gay would inflame feelings in the West. It shines a bright, unforgiving light on cultural differences which are uncomfortable for us all to acknowledge. Conservative Muslim opinion in some quarters will see this as nothing more than the acknowledgement of contemporary mores, and reject Western protests as interference and imperialist hangovers. Meanwhile, society in the UK, the US and elsewhere will view the development as a severely retrograde step for universal human rights and respect for human dignity. How, then, should we react? How tolerant are we of intolerance?

The Sultan’s controversial decision didn’t take long to provoke a desire for action, for meaningful protest. But then what? What would make a difference? How do you strike at the man who has everything? The answer has come in a way which might have been lifted from an Ealing comedy: a boycott of the Dorchester Collection, the Sultan’s chain of nine exclusive hotels across the world. Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish were quick out of the blocks to announce that they would no longer be using the company, with George Clooney, Ellen DeGeneres and other celebs also declaring their support for the campaign.

There seems to be agreement that the boycott is harming the brand of the Dorchester Collection. The Beverly Hills Hotel, once a favourite of the Hollywood in-crowd, has suffered, with bookings cancelled and custom curtailed, and Adweek noted that “such brand damage will be difficult to repair”.

But support is not universal. Russell Crowe and Kim Kardashian have opposed the campaign on the grounds that its impact on the Sultan himself will be minimal, whereas sanction will fall on employees and workers at the group’s hotels. The CEO of the group, Christopher Cowdrey, has pointed out that many luxury brands are supported by foreign investors, who might sometimes be associated with ethical and moral decisions that others would not have made.

So what’s the answer? What should those who find the imposition of the death penalty in Brunei unacceptable do to try to make their voices heard? Are they right to assume that Sultan Bolkiah will be most effectively pressured by being hit in the wallet, or will it in fact be a rather minor inconvenience for one of the world’s richest men, whose wealth is estimated at $20 billion? If anyone can afford to ride out the financial storm, it is surely him. More widely, are economic sanctions the answer to all, most or any disagreement between nations or cultures? And what are the optics? How does this look?

Ultimately, business has to include a moral dimension. Of course the Dorchester Collection isn’t directly responsible for the legal policies of the Brunei government, and, yes, many brands have international investors. But surely a line has to be drawn somewhere. Let’s be quite clear about this: the Sultan of Brunei has personally taken the decision to allow LGBTQI+ people to be stoned to death – stoned to death – for expressing their sexuality. To stand silently by is unacceptable. We must make our feelings known. Under the circumstances, the only moral choice is to join the boycott against the Dorchester Collection and show that we are appalled by the decisions the Sultan has made, and will not line his pockets any further so long as this situation persists.