This week the sultanate of Brunei officially introduced sharia law, announcing that homosexuals now risk being sentenced to death by stoning. While it is blindingly obvious to most liberals that consensual homosexual activity in private is not a crime, and that the latest laws are horrifyingly brutal and antiquated, is turning our backs on the country really the answer?

Since the news broke, public figures such as Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John and George Clooney have all weighed in, urging the public to stop spending at hotels owned by the Sultan. Meanwhile, TfL has announced it will be removing all adverts for Brunei tourism from the transport network, citing 'public sensitivity'. Whether or not this is a performative gesture to give the impression of inclusivity remains to be seen, but either way, the company is taking a public stance against all travel to the sultanate.

Their knee-jerk reaction is well intended, but misguided. I would ask: are we really going to abandon these innocent citizens and wilfully sabotage their economy, knowing that they have to live there regardless?

Call me cynical, but a significant tourism boycott is unlikely to diminish the Sultan's personal wealth – if anything, it is far more likely to be citizens' access to free healthcare and schooling that suffers. Just as in North Korea where there is severe poverty but leader Kim Jong-un maintains a luxurious palace, cutbacks would not necessarily affect those in power. Meanwhile, with gay people living in Brunei already marginalised and on the fringes of society, a hasty boycott carried out clumsily could harm the very people it is aimed at protecting.

In fact, Brunei's funds are declining anyway, and it is arguable that the country's financial concerns (and consequent reliance on trade agreements with other Islamic countries) are precisely the reason the Sultan has adopted sharia law in the first place. One report by the International Monetary Fund reported a 40 per cent decrease in the country's oil production since 2006. For a country that derives a massive amount of its financial income from a depleting natural resource, the next steps for its economy are critical.

Withdrawal of support will simply drive Brunei into the arms of dictators and other countries which support or accept stoning. If these countries become its main business partners, then – due to the absence of ethical allies – it will be less likely to leave sharia law behind. The most effective way for westerners to make an impact is surely by continuing to allow travel, tourism, and conversation with Brunei, not by retreating from it.

I suspect that the stoning clause has been introduced by Brunei merely for symbolic reasons, to reassure its key trade partners of its commitment to sharia law and conservative Islamic values, and to act as a threatening deterrent. In practice, there is little chance of these draconian laws ever being enforced, not least because either witnesses or a full confession are required to successfully prosecute. The chances of being able to 'prove' that a homosexual encounter took place behind closed doors are very slim. Plus, according to the sharia law brand of logic, any witnesses could be implicated in homosexuality themselves. Those reporting a breach of the law to the authorities would be inviting a suicidal element of risk.

On another note, why single out Brunei for a boycott when other locations with similar laws remain unscathed? As one example, a woman was sentenced to death by stoning for committing adultery back in 2000 in Abu Dhabi. Yet it is still a mainstream tourist destination around the world, and received more than 10 million visitors in the past year. Technically homosexual acts – or even robbery or blasphemy – could also risk the death sentence in parts of the UAE, although such serious penalties are almost never enforced. Meanwhile, China allows the death penalty, but the UK receives billions of dollars worth of annual imports from the country. If Brunei is boycotted, would our relationships with other countries receive the same treatment?

Tackling human rights violations in the sultanate will be no easy task, but a hasty boycott without regard to the consequences is not the answer. Before we attempt to sabotage the Sultan, we should consider the impact it could have on the often innocent and powerless victims who live there.