Re: Concerns about Singapore

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 09 April 2016 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9006F12D122 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCvUhAYR95yy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB92A12D0C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n1so97163560pfn.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wQiviMaEUVW6wdHgcjnTFA0TfNLP/c1Y8C0hwBoDfas=; b=Z2ctxS7S0tQWpXdWWpGf4Xo25xMSVr0KZRu1MjpvCj6MmhDXM5wRBrW3It/8R4Derc 9UESbxi5CBGs1LiooOEuRgVC3KeCAPITbUBGM6CWFPdvKtP5SSD+F/Kwv+pJjaxbV49B T7bVwbUQNvaTmymipx1nGp9hRalxEBXBmyH4BMwa/6FVxPRnXAr/4zoleLP96mG0P+mO 2JKZuPJcnLTqxSdULLMzuth44BfT0t5GJJJVsScHZYMQ8jOt/e9GTzUsv17Kjvb1g3w0 kPmmWHxQT9nxerSrFwhSCJlAWuGkUcRlqcCVYNCGF722UBk0jRNKTEFNFRJHH8wa//g2 x10A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wQiviMaEUVW6wdHgcjnTFA0TfNLP/c1Y8C0hwBoDfas=; b=aqmpwqfxr6gcg+HSnxZmJuvaZUOh3ShsGge6Uo7e1BEqpDHdh4HRLAPFVhRnOSeS76 3EXEtF24Wf4y0HjxmTjsvZxqwKXXP6Z/Bt8yVV7Xc8aUcc1FFNzLPzRFopc3A7xa/aVg VWUg3q2DPyHpcJRgfnAfwVr9pdKNn/pnJ0+2Cmj5C4iaNEKfUunPm4NDdmhfbbgANjKj Hykd5anS+kORDGjdLaaVO+6bIfAndveTFw6wQSfGTSdDvLl/3UBU1sfCsRGdIFokecV9 0VA/iAlTgUjQpVxVhd/HoV1isEUYK0SdjmFdPKaqsA73H4t8e4lK6Hqf8CjbXmrYTKbE gzMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKE5S+JyQsUggUj2j4GzUrh4B768yYpbmZwf8JW7N2gfKgJ+S5OzuoNZ3UWwfcApw==
X-Received: by 10.98.74.17 with SMTP id x17mr22103130pfa.14.1460235356486; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:74e8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:74e8:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 87sm26724936pfq.93.2016.04.09.13.55.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <9B723FB0-6B93-4C85-ADD9-D423F873CF08@virtualized.org> <20160409155300.6283348.41255.10529@blackberry.com> <ADC8666A-436C-4AD4-BD48-9277601069F8@gmail.com> <57093CD3.3050502@gmail.com> <f5b1ceec-4cd5-55b5-5089-4a499ed0586c@bogus.com> <F2D3ACF5-C7BD-4D0C-8518-665D2EDAA6CA@cisco.com> <570955E3.2010205@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <57096C65.7020409@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:56:05 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <570955E3.2010205@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7zrfBj2k7TdacZrAg0XufbwU50w>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 20:55:58 -0000

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
> 
>