Re: Concerns about Singapore

joel jaeggli <> Sat, 09 April 2016 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A1D12D0F2 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RYPhYU2PNYif for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AE5112D0C2 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u39IwBnC038635 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:58:15 GMT (envelope-from
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Melinda Shore <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 15:58:02 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="39F37NKFngK9XI52oQUPtmdI2GIiU8nUb"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:58:20 -0000

On 4/9/16 2:33 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/9/16 9:15 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> I’m sure they didn’t ask *you* any questions. But you might have gotten
>> some response if you tried to check in with another man into a room that
>> had just one bed.  I’m not saying that you would. I don’t know, having
>> never been in Singapore, but I can understand that it would be a concern.
> I was discussing this a little bit with my partner this morning
> and she pointed out that in many cases where we would find the
> laws ridiculous, those laws are not actually enforceable (for
> example, French laws against women wearing pants).  

"Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public" is
probably also ridiculous but readily enforced and fairly recently
upheld, so it's not like interdictions on personal freedom, self
expression or conscience are not still being readily or facilely adopted
in Europe.  Which is not to say that  one views all such restrictions
as qualitatively the same, I do not.

> The problem
> with the situation in Singapore is that the laws that are on
> the books appear to be quite enforceable, with the Singapore
> Supreme Court having upheld laws banning consensual same-sex
> relationships as recently as late 2014 (one of the plaintiffs
> had been arrested in 2010).
> To the extent that these laws appears to be enforceable and
> that there is uncertainty about whether or not some of our
> participants are likely to run into issues with public
> accommodation, etc., I'm grateful that the IAOC is treating
> this as a serious issue.
> Melinda