Hm, okay, perhaps people were being delicate. The ruling to which you are referring is not about same-sex relationships. It is about same-sex relations in a semi-public place. I agree that this is a valid argument against going to Singapore, and certainly against Singapore being eligible for consideration for future IETFs.
In Singapore's defense, police shootings are much rarer there than in the U.S. I do not know what the relative risks are, though.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/24/16 12:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
It is only in the past three years that the IAOC has even really had a
meaningful choice about whether to go to a country that recognized LGBT
marital rights.
The problem with Singapore is not that marital/parental rights
are not recognized. The problem is that Singapore has multiple
laws that criminalize same-sex relationships between men and
that their Supreme Court upheld those laws less than two years
ago. This is, to my knowledge, unique among countries where
the IETF has met. If the situation in Singapore is, in fact,
hunky-dory, they have the option of making that clear by
getting rid of those laws.
Nobody has been able to provide any concrete assurances
that a meeting participant's familial and parental rights would be
protected while visiting Singapore, Barry Greene's giggles
notwithstanding. The risks are unknown and the consequences are
potentially quite serious.
Melinda