IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 90BD512B039 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 19:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 m_5cDNtOG2W2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 19:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F190912B005 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 19:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 35293 invoked from network); 22 May 2016 02:57:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 22 May 2016 02:57:43 -0000
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 02:57:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20160522025721.45884.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <3970ba54-92c3-cded-bbaf-4a187de1cfaa@krsek.cz>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OxFgD7l9poudNVQk_nxa9IYZ_iw>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 02:57:46 -0000

>there is a distinction for sure, but I'm not sure which one is worse. I 
>have a friend of mine who is in relationship with other man. They went 
>to Singapore for business reason about a year ago. They felt safer than 
>in Dallas (being there also for business about three years ago) - I just 
>verified this findings over e-mail.

In both cases, the nominal rules and the actual rules are not the
same.  In Singapore, threre are laws against male homosexuality dating
back to British colonial times, but it's highly unclear what the
actual enforcement is, viz. the seventh annual pink dot rally last
year with 28,000 people.  On the other hand, many things are nominally
legal in Texas, but there are also a lot of people with strong
opinions and guns.  I didn't feel particularly unsafe in Dallas, but I
felt a lot safer in Singapore.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email