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

Harish Pillay <harish.pillay@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 05:18 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 36C3D12D1BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:18:27 -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 6yHfeIlfJjGc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (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 D070512D15A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f1so145879254igr.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:18:25 -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=bXUXi/SQS4LVnpAAuMr/7o8BM23B2qLGPWPj2HiNiXw=; b=Eo3xMVFQxi4buR6GlyPatZ54jCTM2zz+RUv4a9d9hQc6oH6jyrsMgjrjaLNCGCw0iQ utYhWr2AI0MNIgXTBR+QDRuIGdKGMkAI0it2PEGr9f51B6nKvRgkQFbv2E8od70CB2f6 CkFDhRfn/u/FJ2pFgIj0A2fBv5hqfz7etbvXJvUxDfe19p7sQ6a1asZ0N4BgaL8K2vvT 0tJ+nLTOV6mipEThApbm5KrTRmjM3Ab5iplMWjHniiQuSfRi56ktRgTYUW4YYZh1pDXF 4DrJIxLZvTw3OPAsun/EPVJNW7Fpj7heaKDaZnCxIj335ex3DpYmNj54BB19NC2I9Z/k vXyA==
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=bXUXi/SQS4LVnpAAuMr/7o8BM23B2qLGPWPj2HiNiXw=; b=Oskz041h9e8sCbt8H4kSzd1F7t+1avS9hUhUl3DUSWwDmbrkiGpygzTcVk6SdyTnBc a6BqwTA7yKDwbc4Ij1hOmdUxa4RCyoo8PWD9HsjsghGGHVRnCK6SuAOVJWxGBxj6QPc7 F6+4NGa/vyE6Cy6qU0eFZ0YUdUGhG5P67pedZfj0S9PiBx2QKi3jsro0hdwGhDOkvGm4 HtsRS/yB3gNKfotkBf9JQKzCQ2uXDNNvOETMmaPu5bGdG2vMYcjX7azSj9MwRyQj/T9b XecCg/rchFEMExQzA7CEc8KXWmh+Mojf+gexdmX6WG4NHIBTgZGt79Kx9m1v+qGUisQz DIHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ1D5pcD2wZf22IUQlXHWhdTKQe4O+WAdZB3oQI+8nDtfksN8Hi50/avLNGxL8gRyEmp+nurKRnU35jyw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.61.148 with SMTP id p20mr1669511igr.20.1460006305278; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.129.214 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5705D883.2090309@gmail.com>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <5705C837.5060000@gmail.com> <CAHkmkwuOxOnmJa7KOPdW0Fpqdoq2c7oKWmt9B+zvSy6WcCY5QA@mail.gmail.com> <5705D883.2090309@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:18:25 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHkmkwt9geOiwXnqi=LxPWUVp0_oR7GDgzt6KZ3ZM46U__c3Yw@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/jG8B-0dNU-MkRmuXiGg1Tc6eCBU>
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 05:18:27 -0000

>> There are ongoing debates on withdrawing Section 377A and it
>> will happen eventually. It is a matter of time.
>
> Well, it was upheld by your courts as recently as late 2014, and
> it is by no means the only anti-gay law on the books in Singapore.

No different from the many other anti-gay laws on books in many
countries including the US. Important thing is, in the Singapore
context, that even though it is in the books, it is NOT enforced
in any aggressive nor wanton manner.

Harish