Re: Concerns about Singapore

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 09 April 2016 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 A477412D105 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -113.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-113.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 AO4XqokPsXf1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4C2E12D0FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3264; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460228476; x=1461438076; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=G/jcEIR3OYItjfjHuuv2VDlxqEbiwLaEJYwGRhKxisw=; b=T/vqzNSbmXpGM3V99p358i1dXhUjNbUhXVnvpLgq5LynrSYmdDr+Ekjp J8AjFbu6szrH3oWT5AIlufonNbzPK/0oaH9ODQXeOWPkbvjpMzE4wJZJP w/JIw+IHujN+JcRx8Ms+0zCutEfl/Lp4Lv3ooMf0d8z53hEsGvRrJfVqj 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BaBQCNUAlX/4ENJK1cgzeBUAa6XIFzh?= =?us-ascii?q?g0CgSo6EgEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBAwEjTgEHBQsCAQgYKgICMiUCBA4FDogRCKk?= =?us-ascii?q?BkTgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQENCIgWCIJOhz8rgisFmAQBgyOBZokCj?= =?us-ascii?q?w2PJQEnBjWDZ2yILn4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,460,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="259567977"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Apr 2016 19:01:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u39J1Flb009760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:01:15 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:01:14 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:01:14 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
Thread-Topic: Concerns about Singapore
Thread-Index: AQHRkOMYE5f4WLltSk+KMEq8Vk+KKZ9/KOsAgAAATwCAAAuKAIAACE2AgAAKzQCAAtn5gIAAFv+AgAAE94CAABe5AIAAAOSA
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:01:14 +0000
Message-ID: <F2D3ACF5-C7BD-4D0C-8518-665D2EDAA6CA@cisco.com>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <9B723FB0-6B93-4C85-ADD9-D423F873CF08@virtualized.org> <20160409155300.6283348.41255.10529@blackberry.com> <ADC8666A-436C-4AD4-BD48-9277601069F8@gmail.com> <57093CD3.3050502@gmail.com> <f5b1ceec-4cd5-55b5-5089-4a499ed0586c@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <f5b1ceec-4cd5-55b5-5089-4a499ed0586c@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.119]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85FD2C08-B532-485F-B800-5A9579A8C9EF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zYhZ7HH1RI9md3MhdLzGfFVQpXg>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 19:01:18 -0000

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 <joelja@bogus.com> 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
>> 
> 
>