Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
2016-05-25 17:38:00
On Wed, 25 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:
question. That question is either: are we willing to presume that
certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the
law to attend?
Yes, because we're already doing that and have been for a long time. The
LGBT issue is one important issue, but there are a lot more of also
important issues.
It's my firm opinion (as I have posted in multiple email) that if we
disqualify Singapore on the basis of its on-the-books laws, then we must
also disqualify USA and for a very long time (at least 5+ years before we
might re-evaluate performance) and not have a meeting there in near time.
In a lot of aspects USA is an oppressive nation with a long string of
human-rights violations and arbitrary incarceration (more examples than
the ones Ted Lemon mentioned), with huge amount of gun violence and 1/4 of
the worlds prison population. As mentioned before, stand-your-ground laws
means I can get shot and the shooter go free because the person claimed he
was scared of me.
Again, there are no perfect places to have our meetings. Some people can't
attend some meetings because of $REASON. Skipping Singapore because of
LGBT issues means we're as a consequence discqualifying a huge part of the
world (including some parts of USA that still have opressive laws on its
books (see earlier postings)). Singapore has the chance to be inclusive
for people that have other problems than LGBT issues, that might not be
able to attend meetings in USA because of $REASONS.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, (continued)
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, John Levine
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input,
Mikael Abrahamsson <=
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Margaret Cullen
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Message not available
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Adam Roach
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, S Moonesamy
- Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Dave Crocker
|
|
|