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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:57 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> 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