Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Hm, okay, perhaps people were being delicate.   The ruling to which you are
referring is not about same-sex relationships.   It is about same-sex
relations in a semi-public place.  I agree that this is a valid argument
against going to Singapore, and certainly against Singapore being eligible
for consideration for future IETFs.

In Singapore's defense, police shootings are much rarer there than in the
U.S.   I do not know what the relative risks are, though.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 5/24/16 12:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> It is only in the past three years that the IAOC has even really had a
>> meaningful choice about whether to go to a country that recognized LGBT
>> marital rights.
>>
>
> The problem with Singapore is not that marital/parental rights
> are not recognized.  The problem is that Singapore has multiple
> laws that criminalize same-sex relationships between men and
> that their Supreme Court upheld those laws less than two years
> ago.  This is, to my knowledge, unique among countries where
> the IETF has met.  If the situation in Singapore is, in fact,
> hunky-dory, they have the option of making that clear by
> getting rid of those laws.
>
> Nobody has been able to provide any concrete assurances
> that a meeting participant's familial and parental rights would be
> protected while visiting Singapore, Barry Greene's giggles
> notwithstanding.  The risks are unknown and the consequences are
> potentially quite serious.
>
> Melinda
>
>