Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Harish Pillay <harish.pillay@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <harish.pillay@gmail.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 7C1A712D0BF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TBHh1RMgikYm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218D212D0B3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id g185so79311274ioa.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Ml/4gvo90qtde5sHPEN/qZm8RaAT4mfY+5e+vflT/4s=; b=MtAe3lE1dQIpozcG7yhmbxDiQadwVGUr3yNhw7RypkqKb1UOnlaDOpEOUCFF1lE9T9 aw82y+9qks8sB1cpX+zKec6qpeEreNxDtoYUOIwkt7m0nD7DVBFiVLR6zKuVyRLLfy+T 4ln6rWDjm3D5/rMFvIcyUzNiczcyo7wum07JU64JXUgzoDFMA8m2cnRXRzwo/NV8JCMU Hf6RVf/BS3dHuY+sj7wGh4i2WepZHP+4eL2pSS45tBS0OwBGDgq3JnK/9f+eKmO6YaW6 LY1yOhc9HDdtj2VuslF7E2h+qRM7GqKOCjp3h0tuSISm/ul8VouqiewzsovN8iP6diCh x7Yg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Ml/4gvo90qtde5sHPEN/qZm8RaAT4mfY+5e+vflT/4s=; b=ZDV7uOLrfpiwBja4TA5EvC2lvwPvERfYSdVqesT1z6KxcWiqAmkTVziOpoMqw9UTET 9dfJyRoouA+cGKqDP91T8waSeUoGTTWX7WFnqFJZ7qWTdfgpFpra5yppH3U7AuwWmwOO D72RPFVW5TzygoxGzowrVKCBrlso+4WInGrZrYfMxplcBky4OkkmJjZ99cZXPQaiE5g9 niRlJaVsfQ0qrd9VPK0YpjS4eU31gfB1wJoBBGEoJp/pUQKB9kd9rsf5xv8aNxvNBSqr fxg9EmwisiUP3adGc7eB7cIOqYi8fwWDksgd+X6K+XuhBMcPqefEnZkxdaIQl9gtLDSI 8KFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLuR0YVXltHGDbrjgbq//iyFHu86JdiBQMwukDrVtcYncEbAYrizGtyxdJWVc7NqwSV7DDywSJXrNJcog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.161.140 with SMTP id k134mr1240400ioe.190.1459998726544; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.129.214 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5705C837.5060000@gmail.com>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <5705C837.5060000@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:12:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHkmkwuOxOnmJa7KOPdW0Fpqdoq2c7oKWmt9B+zvSy6WcCY5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
From: Harish Pillay <harish.pillay@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/P7_9nI6gSuQdWXtCTjHWbfRRLEQ>
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 03:12:09 -0000

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On 4/6/16 6:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> Anything less specific leaves too much to interpretation, which
>> guarantees that similar errors will recur.
>
>
> The situation in Singapore goes well beyond being vaguely
> homophobic, to actively criminalizing the families of some
> IETF participants.  This is not simply a matter of same-sex
> marriage not being legal there, or of the country lacking
> anti-discrimination laws.

I would like to ask for validation and citation of what you are
saying above. I live in Singapore and yes, we do have the archaic
rules on our books (Section 377A of the Penal Code -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_%28Singapore%29)
This is a rule we inherited from our British colonial days.

I don't agree with that section, but it is there.

There are ongoing debates on withdrawing Section 377A and it
will happen eventually. It is a matter of time.

If there is any "active criminalizing" then how would this annual
event called pinkdot.sg (http://pinkdot.sg/) happen? The next
pinkdot.sg is on 4th June 2016. But, as it has been
in Singapore so far, open and honest dialogue is used to get to
a favourable resolution. It is still work in progress though.

So, let's keep discussions based on facts please.

Harish