IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sat, 11 June 2016 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A3EA912DA46 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 jk2UkUHtlye6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913CD12DA57 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6EEFDA2; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 07:38:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1465623514; bh=ZAm+FMpMhJF8hNz6f+zFu4aEhRv8z+V5H1Vym0iYYEw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gGXLB//VQLbeaVlSUTLgLx/o/3NXCim8QQJgVkeSmDZWuj9KIQB6tnQRsFBGpfFYq EUxwIKIRJm7viYGR6WO9+4iruor6q41UpzSCI4Op5QmPvK69dgJRferq8OwJm/DIX5 igRhJW+uchiiRjwQc5bsHRHlqCJJ05TaRwc8R0A8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AE2A1; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 07:38:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 07:38:34 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective]
In-Reply-To: <ad649e68-f134-bf71-8c0f-f71869a88bc8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1606110730360.28955@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c0dac7eb-3886-5bd0-4ecb-0f66008fe755@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <6d8e2bb4-e41c-5cf7-18a3-d6eac6e9a13f@gmail.com> <m28tydvh5c.wl%randy@psg.com> <C172F8BC-6339-4762-A600-5AFEEFD3ED6A@piuha.net> <0c54dab2-89cc-6d0f-c8c7-a2a65249d04d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <6597503E-AB88-4A89-BF86-57B06E7C8FD3@consulintel.es> <0848b990-dec1-78e9-7845-1f5b683a49cd@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4DD051C3-841E-45EE-82F0-8AF4991685A7@consulintel.es> <72313874-f19d-1a0e-0ffa-cc34e380bb8a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FADEFCB4-034F-49A1-999E-D3DF78DBFC89@consulintel.es> <CAAQiQRfeFn-az3n5OGLwQqscWJ_Up6V8M0WSrE4boRbbCLnvug@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFCtf4HmEZfUvzb7wH_8Ov2g0CdRzzzYsrAhhp2NhR3rg@mail.gmail.com> <128d6b02-bbf9-3afb-7353-4f411a2eb8c2@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <ad649e68-f134-bf71-8c0f-f71869a88bc8@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/D1BplPWvQgWfSXBki7QZpbk-opQ>
Cc: 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, 11 Jun 2016 05:38:39 -0000

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Melinda Shore wrote:

> For the purpose of clarity, and in hopes that we can stick to the facts 
> (to the extent they're known), the issue with Singapore is not that they 
> do not recognize same-sex marriage but that they have laws criminalizing 
> same-sex relationships.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Singapore they 
criminalize "male same-sex sexual activity".

I don't know if that's what you mean by "relationships", but in the strict 
sense of the word, Singapore doesn't criminalize the actual relationship. 
It doesn't even criminalize "same-sex sexual activity". It criminalizes 
"MALE same-sex sexual activity".

Since you said "for the purpose of clarity" and "stick to the facts", I 
thought this needed to be clarified.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email