Hi Leif,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Leif Johansson <leifj@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 2016-04-07 20:30, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> +1
>
> I am happy to see that LGBT inclusiveness taken seriously by the IETF.
> But looking at the law on the books in black and white, would be doing a
> disservice to a large region of the world (with a large number of
> Internet users).
I don't parse that actually.
Sorry if I was not clear.
How is reading the law of Singapore "doing disservice to a large region
of the world?"
No, I meant that IETF would be doing a disservice to a large part of the world (that has on its books these laws). We need to have a nuanced approach and this being another factor in a multitude of factors. Having a blanket rule that the IETF will not go to any such place is something I disagree with.
I don't think "yes but many who live in Singapore are nice people"
nor "yes but those laws are hardly ever applied" are useful arguments
in this discussion but maybe thats just me...
I am pretty sure that Ted (to pick a random example) would be able to
travel to Singapore for an IETF and be /personally/ quite safe because
as you say the laws of the land would be selectively applied.
That is always the problem of selectively applied laws: they are used
when it is convenient... and are often used to intimidate. That is why
censorship is often self-administered in countries where there are
censorship laws "on the books".
I agree with you. I understand this well, as an openly gay person, living in a country with such laws on the book.
I hope these laws go away but till then, having a blanket rule against taking IETF to a big part of the world is something I find wrong.
Thanks!
Dhruv
Cheers Leif