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@xxxxxxxxx> 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 >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail