Boycotts | Brunei | Kim Kardashian | News

Kim Kardashian: ‘Boycotting The Beverly Hills Hotel Won’t Affect the Sultan of Brunei'


Kim Kardashian took to her blog today to speak out on the boycott of The Beverly Hills Hotel aimed at its owner the Sultan of Brunei. The boycott began in the wake of the Sultan’s implementation of sharia law in the Southeast Asian nation late April. Under the law individuals can be stoned to death if proven to have committed homosexual acts. Celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres, Richard Branson and Jay Leno have been vocal in their support of the boycott. And while Kim originally supported the boycott, pulling her bridal shower from the famed LA destination, she now believes that it is not the best way forward: 

For a sultan that has 20 billion dollars, this loss of business doesn’t even make a dent in his fortunes. But the hotel staff are being negatively affected every day with the boycott that has gone on for weeks now… We shouldn’t punish the amazing hard-working people who have been so good to us for years! …There must be other ways to express our views without punishing the workers, some who I know personally have families at home and depend on the city’s business and tips to survive…I support Rose McGowan and Russell Crowe’s takes on this matter. The unjust treatment and violation of rights of the LGBT community around the world is never justified and I will continue to proudly support the LGBT community in every way imaginable. I do believe though that instead of this boycott, there has to be another solution. I’m glad to hear that industry executives like Jeffrey Katzenberg and Casey Wasserman are reaching out to leaders of the hotel chain to discuss a way to potentially end the protest.

You can read Kim’s blog post in its entirety HERE

UPDATE: The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has pointed out that The Beverly Hills Hotel leadership promised to guarantee the jobs, incomes and gratuities of its employees following the uproar over the Sultan of Brunei's draconian laws. In an op-ed in The Hollywood Reporter this month, HRC Vice President Jeff Krehely said the sultan was turning his employees into 'human shields':

Dorchester [Collection -- the hotel group that runs The Beverly Hills Hotel] has said that its employees are the “victims” of these [protests] and that only they would feel the financial impact of Americans taking business elsewhere. Now the company has begun to parade employees -- some of whom would be subjected to the laws in Brunei -- and their stories into the media and online.

The ploy comes despite assurances that the company has guaranteed the jobs, income, gratuities and benefits of all of its employees during the controversy. This stands in stark contrast to its claim that actions against the sultan’s hotels will result in a big income loss for its staff. Its leadership is talking out of both sides of their mouths. Given the guarantees, how will its staff actually be impacted?

We urge Hollywood to see past this smokescreen. With $20 billion in the bank, the sultan can afford to support his employees. But what his company cannot afford to do -- if it wishes to fix its badly damaged reputation -- is continue to shamefully use its employees in a deceptive effort to shield the sultan from criticism.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. If the hotel is boycotted enough and long enough, he will be forced to sell it, and the new owners should be better.

    Posted by: tim S | Jun 24, 2014 9:53:11 AM

  2. There "has to be" another solution yet neither she NOR Russell Crowe have offered even one other solution. Until they come up with one they should shut the hell up. It's not THEIR people who are under threat here.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Jun 24, 2014 9:53:50 AM

  3. Whenever a serious ethical problem arises I always ask myself "Miss Self, what would Kim Kardashian do?"

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 24, 2014 9:55:35 AM

  4. Vapid, care-less whore.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 24, 2014 10:00:15 AM

  5. So, since it isn't make any dent, we should pour more money into his pocket??

    Posted by: Moniker | Jun 24, 2014 10:00:56 AM

  6. There is no way in hell that twit wrote her own blog post.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 24, 2014 10:01:43 AM

  7. When businesses with unethical practices are forced to close, everyday people who just need a job to put food on the table always hurt the worst. But when that business closes, it sends a clear message about how future businesses should operate.

    It's a bad argument. It's like saying, "They're pouring toxic waste into the ocean, but the workers need to pour the toxic waste into the ocean so they can pay their water bill."

    Posted by: Rene | Jun 24, 2014 10:08:08 AM

  8. In one sense, she's not entirely wrong (and you don't know how much it pains me to say this).

    The SoB could keep all the hotels in the Dorchester Collection (The Beverly Hills AND the Bel-Air, the Dorchester in London, The Meurice and Hôtel Plaza Athénée in Paris and severl others)open with full staff and no guests for many years before it became a serious financial drain on his resources.

    The point of this boycott is both political and social, and I see international shaming as one more more idea that bears utilizing; if nothing else, it tells who are our friends are, and who are not.

    Posted by: Elsewhere | Jun 24, 2014 10:08:22 AM

  9. It's frustrating to see another unequivocal ally take this stance. Personal ties to employees at the hotel are preventing Rose and Kim from seeing the big picture here.

    Posted by: JMC | Jun 24, 2014 10:15:39 AM

  10. So, why just he Beverly Hills Hotel? Dorchester Properties owns many hotels and spas. We hear very little about the Bell-Air or The Dorchester in London, or the many hotels in France and Europe. Are there boycotts for these locations as well?

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 24, 2014 10:20:47 AM

  11. She's right, we can boycott as a purely political stance, but the only ones hurting are the employees, and it doesn't seem like anybody in this boycott's even addressed them.

    I don't think people are taking the time to imagine how much $20 billion really is. Even if he decided, out of spite, to keep business running as usual, this boycott would fall apart a lot quicker than he would. People will forget or the next trendy cause will come up and supporters will drop off gradually.

    I'm not saying the boycott is useless, but let's at least address the employees who work for these hotels.

    Posted by: Hugh | Jun 24, 2014 10:27:56 AM

  12. People getting stoned takes precedent over a staff member getting laid off from a hotel because they don't have enough business. End of discussion.

    That Kim is a "star" is…sad.

    That's all.

    Posted by: Leo | Jun 24, 2014 10:30:49 AM

  13. This woman has no credibility. I know this. The public knows this. The White House knows this. The problem - she does not know it. She associates "fifteen minute" publicity with intelligence.

    Posted by: robertL | Jun 24, 2014 10:32:30 AM

  14. Hey, Kim. You're talking about the situation, aren't you? Kinda the point, yea? Now sit back down and try not to hurt yourself thinking too hard about things.

    Posted by: phluidik | Jun 24, 2014 10:36:41 AM

  15. LGBT staff at these hotels should be looking for alternative employment.

    if they want to take money from scum like the Sultan of Brunei then they are collaborating scum who deserve contempt.

    Posted by: MaryM | Jun 24, 2014 10:41:22 AM

  16. The two options you give are not mutually exclusive. I believe the boycott should be continued AND we must lobby to end the trade deal with Brunei.

    Posted by: Jay | Jun 24, 2014 10:41:36 AM

  17. The last thing I come to towleroad for is to see a Kardashian. Why, Andy, why?

    Posted by: Ken | Jun 24, 2014 10:48:30 AM

  18. This is a woman who didn't realize racism existed until she started dating a black guy and had a biracial baby.

    Posted by: Derrick | Jun 24, 2014 10:54:14 AM

  19. If Kardashian really cared about the plight of gay people I bet the Sultan would actually accept her phone call.

    Posted by: Daniel | Jun 24, 2014 10:59:08 AM

  20. do we really care what this thing has to say...urgh

    Posted by: Derek | Jun 24, 2014 11:01:01 AM

  21. Does anyone buy Kenya is the father of that baby? The baby is as white as she is.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 24, 2014 11:02:28 AM

  22. I actually agree. If this guy has 20 billion, then it's doubtful one hotel boycott is going to hurt his bottom line for a very long time. And what ABOUT the other properties he owns? why no boycott?

    Posted by: FakeOutrage | Jun 24, 2014 11:04:28 AM

  23. I am glad to know the amateur porn community's thoughts on the issue. Now isn't it just about time for her next divorce and subsequent media frenzy?

    Posted by: MIke | Jun 24, 2014 11:05:29 AM

  24. Please make her go away. Kim's right up there with Sarah Palin on the "Most Irritating Media Whore Idiot List."

    Posted by: Joe in Ct | Jun 24, 2014 11:07:03 AM

  25. And her qualification to speak because of her butt? Talk about speaking out of her ass. Until this whore done whoring and writing her memoir as her last rite to the world, only will i begin to take her seriously. I doubt it...the line is long....

    Posted by: bambinoitaliano | Jun 24, 2014 11:08:41 AM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Stephen Colbert Dotes Over Convicted Felon Jeremy Meeks' Handsome Mugshot: VIDEO« «