Re: Concerns about Singapore

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 09 April 2016 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9006F12D122 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCvUhAYR95yy for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB92A12D0C6 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n1so97163560pfn.2 for <>; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 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 with ESMTPSA id 87sm26724936pfq.93.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Melinda Shore <>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, joel jaeggli <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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:

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.


> 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