Re: Concerns about Singapore

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10/04/2016 07:20, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/9/16 11:01 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> One could mention sodomy laws in Texas; we have met in Houstaon and
>> Dalls, I believe, there times.
> 
> That goes, I think, to the question of unenforceable laws
> (Lawrence v. Texas).  I'm interested in the question of where
> the line is between issues that the IETF needs to deal with
> and matters of personal conscience, and I tend to think it
> comes down to questions of whether or not meeting participants
> will be treated equally when it comes to public accommodation,
> etc.

I think that's the point, and unfortunately, like so many things, it
ends up as a judgment call.

Are transgender people treated equally when getting haircuts? Not always,
it turns out:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11618046

Does this disqualify Auckland? Probably not, and it's less serious than
being denied a hotel room or worse. But my point is: this issue just goes
in the balance along with everything else, and the problem here seems to be
that the IAOC overlooked it. I sympathise, because I'd probably have
overlooked it too.

otoh, the IETF boycotting SG would not have the same impact as Springsteen
boycotting NC.

   Brian

> 
> As we're seeing, businesses are responding to the recent spate of
> anti-gay legislation and transphobic potty laws by announcing that
> they're not  opening planned facilities in those states, not allowing
> their employees to take business travel there, and so on.  So, there's
> an actual question about whether or not the IETF would be able to
> meet in a place that's recently passed anti-gay legislation, given
> some corporate travel restrictions.  As far as I know there are
> no corporate bans on travel to Singapore, but civil liberties
> organizations like Civil Rights Watch have identified Singapore as
> a place where LGBT people still face active legal discrimination
> and it seems clear that there's a legitimate question about what
> sort of treatment some meeting participants can expect to receive.
> 
> Melinda
> 
>