Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

<> Thu, 26 May 2016 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8B712D6F3 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZoVKSoM97rhA for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2BF712D707 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1464279699; bh=fPMZAU6x1AvY5L94SEZDUG5qxRw/kXeTDxXIWxLxK38=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=tyb/dQ+7yLlXN5fpkoXeVk/9XflMHv3Xmwq3FyAzkKhtVqlXyikLbYiFDmTDjceH2Em5N+7T1LpOQzX91e7UPrHywzhuR9KB9CSM2Q5CPAXoXxvTQTPEOCBizUcpdPX6Qe7aRdvM5p/9z0P2zHp6Je5Io5IkiOItO3BXBhQAXhZtlIUr02H+I3aQJerIjUmY5ZfoQQi06YUYCR6bZmSTTSKDGERbLcgpB61rySrL5E8ugiDbs+y7/jYeg3DFRb1oO9l8nE70GKd1YkkKlUavYp9QLCMOocADR2eB5fMn4Rf2SU8k+e0nhp2oBYM9kCJKDWbaJQNBhJVeIpc+KfQXeA==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:21:39 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:18:56 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:18:56 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 26 May 2016 16:18:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: CU4g0AwVM1lTaulnHz6sDYphQFN1eWP9inGuE.xxkYK1ykubwWCVcMGQ69m_3xz x5FUAiwcv_WngDJZpt6V9oRGFmHnQ1AyMbVR2YxwUnDEOw2PKnGU9GEm68iwZvIKq5JmkOz57rI1 1pgEU16j5gIJSnYnt8WpOoSug40twTknYuBZm0l6WDHP47_1SwPfKvVpC4IKvAsZfHN5vbCEqAQ5 q869S7SIfwtlRum.QpOKSK_z4DVa46sICE_ZtXTvuM5L3_GfGeeT0ElBFYc5Rx2mGesJT07ACrB4 DaZU.tMAkpo6GkLudZYzMAZMKL0xSM.phjUgvvYLa6MQjnT73Gp7qAophTdY8wMbOoqvNwnXVTN. D5dzMclN1NwPpInKpQ_sc8TUevfHSuUvg1pzjs0cxAJ1OrAHaGqfmiuIFYleBMIv0bRtosX7ofLa jrkx7ayy5WZ9vDNFue0IG2BRYLGbJ.0nP4LdpztR8pFGZBSz4gy5Kpfo1D1NYPAvJeqBUo3NWfmt r9XhWJOF9odEGwZ0KBqlovOOC.k4w2gzC6j9duNwgWmxc.imWNAKLIbE0eS6X0p4laGnakacqNKt O0OEQQsvIXDuSEYc.Jnc-
Received: from by; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:18:56 +0000; 1464279536.321
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:18:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Yoav Nir <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$> <> <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, " Discussion" <>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:22:02 -0000

On 26 May 2016, at 5:47 PM, <> <> wrote:

>> He said that he doubted that there would be any problem at all in Singapore.  He also suggested that I contact the Singapore Consulate General in San Francisco.  (Which I will do once >>they open)
>> I will ask them the following questions:
>> 1.  If two gay men with a baby (or child) come in to Singapore customs together, will there be a problem?
>> 2.  If two gay men with a baby (or child) walk the streets of Singapore together, will there be a problem?  Will they be harassed or arrested?
>> 3. If two gay men with a baby (or child) check into a hotel in Singapore together, will there be a problem?  Will they be harassed or arrested?

>“Oh, yes. We are totally going to harass visitors to our country,” said no consulate spokesperson ever.

I get your point.  I think they would say that this is not something we approve of, or is our custom or some such coded language.  I will also call the South East Asia desk of the State Department to see if they have any complaints.  That will be a US viewpoint. 

But I think for some people, no matter what I or any of the other people say, they will not be convinced.  So now what?  I think we are pretty much at that pass today.

There is no way to achieve 100% consensus or have 100% guarantees on anything. 

>> 4. If two gay men with a baby (or child) need to go to a hospital or a doctor because the baby (child) is ill, will there be a problem? Will they be prevented in any way from being >>with the child? Will they be harassed or arrested?

>The question is not whether the hospital staff will have the gay men arrested. They won’t. It’s whether the hospital staff will consider them to be actual parents. There are medical >decisions only parents can make such as authorising surgery, or authorizing an epinephrine injection for a severe allergic reaction. In most jurisdictions including Singapore injecting >a child with epinephrine is assault unless there is either parental consent or it’s a life-or-death situation. If the child’s parent is not there, medical staff is force to wait until >>it becomes a life-or-death situation. Note that even though sex between women is not criminalized, this issue affects lesbian couples just as much. Same for the secondary issue of >allowing them to be in the room with the child.

Fine.  I will ask that.  I believe Harish is also talking to medical staff.

I suspect the odds of needing surgery while travelling for one week or needing an epinephrine injection are quite low.  If your child has severe allergies, then the parents generally travel prepared for such events.

But, again, I am sure that you can always offer cases which have not been foreseen.  What if this, what if that?  Sure.  No one can guarantee you absolute safety under all conditions.