Re: Concerns about Singapore

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

One could mention sodomy laws in Texas; we have met in Houstaon and Dalls, I believe, there times.

> On Apr 9, 2016, at 11:58 AM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
>