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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 DE4AF12D1A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 mpkWZNCq8qp2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (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 415C612B05A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x201so234551946oif.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qD5NWM/F6focZxf+/JpKZLVB3B39TqR5O0tayKdkiEo=; b=Y7plo7i+0VXJTRGcH+rQqBeC5x/sb7XDx91slRNXUVG4AvOWSFx8WKecGswd+cxGbu QJljO53jFjxX3anKjaIZGpi4vmjW5GO6uIj4Eh1yq1vHrQwm+z3le+ZZ2E5OKBd4Ey38 i5WO43syORMCqTZ4KCTfkXvdwEHEUzx5rIrC5Yor0VrGySQyprBimUL2+wv57X0ihl6+ LPy1dYRDXnPFUC4fnRsZ/FmqWBBdD3dMnKicFAlibFqHS8weS4jZHL+xLp1pqmaS9bOL luRWdqcRi/93HlV1f1slkAlvqUAMAptoEbn4h5n3cqoTaRneEv9+YjFKvQfSw87iBDsX EOew==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qD5NWM/F6focZxf+/JpKZLVB3B39TqR5O0tayKdkiEo=; b=XB0pPY0l5Ece28C+EX0UVkaZqO4qOVVqSZrB0mxrBiYD1a20iN55ljM1MlpjmfRwWq +ff1JfylqZhoujzWNX54oe2NBGv6sBKT6Uar9bdB89qyUUXqWk841vc/IFZqozsUYnHz f8oSjmFG9dm6pz24cFhQJ5xGRqA69rcsxOe2qSiYFHd8UaljP7MUUkvtzCSbtHI1X9QG ssTKi573KZepvVi98pZbWZId7XKuA2gcsIqT7UneP+D0JkXsWQb2+Tnju4YVs5h+kTol nR1EHZ7iBhGqV2PT9CStZCvSS8Sh3kdA80/pb8QVqxykULUBRFfbXwUPhGMuzMXAT96z +79w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXD+n+nKSdy3X7f14553xyy/RoB3R5dN9WfWrmqRP9M1stwELUNJsAa36mQxSyW2Wp1yew7rhoJhecLgw==
X-Received: by 10.157.61.197 with SMTP id l63mr6443305otc.48.1463891477587; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160522025721.45884.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <3970ba54-92c3-cded-bbaf-4a187de1cfaa@krsek.cz> <20160522025721.45884.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:30:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDjUvwgf-Orkv+eN3b-8BA1qdiT0mo6hwRAtKB=Qb2Mug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149299c82ed72053366cbe3
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XU0bXM3TpfAFtgJILFpjQC8C940>
Cc: IETF <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: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:31:20 -0000

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:57 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote
>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, there are laws against male homosexuality dating
> back to British colonial times,


This is not an issue of defunct laws dating from colonial times.  The
current law was promulgated after an exhaustive review of the penal code in
2007, and it was upheld by the courts in 2014.

While there are many press statements that this is "little enforced", the
maintenance of laws like this has the effect of ensuring that same sex
couples know that they are not considered equal.  There availability to the
police for selective enforcement also acts to curtail public behavior and
force individuals to remain largely closeted in public spaces.  We are not
dealing with a historical accident; the Singaporean state has made a public
policy of fostering this inequality.

but it's highly unclear what the
> actual enforcement is, viz. the seventh annual pink dot rally last
> year with 28,000 people.


I was one of the more than 800,000 participants in the U.S. March on
Washington in 1993.  During that period, LGBT citizens were subject to laws
criminalizing consensual same-sex relations, had no access to marriage,
could not remain open members of the armed services, lacked any protection
in access to housing or jobs, and were subject to the most shocking
disregard of a health crisis in the country's history.

To be blunt:  the availability of the right to assemble is no evidence of a
lack of animus by the state.

Ted Hardie