That said, people with backgrounds in intelligence, terrorism/counter-
terrorism, and risk assessment in the middle east have been critical
of the event, and been ignored.
It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those
individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy.
"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because
of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in
the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region,
including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should
be avoided." The latter quote is especially relevant given the current
political clime related to the Muhammad images. Note: the Canadian
government agrees. "These attacks demonstrate that security incidents
can occur without warning. The risk of possible terrorist attacks in
areas frequented by Westerners or tourists exists, and further such
attacks in Egypt cannot be ruled out."
"Egypt remains one of a number of countries where a threat from
international terrorism exists."
To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.
Since the last discussion, which I assume to mean that of several
weeks ago (as this current one is a continuation of discussion over
the past 2 weeks or so), the amount of animosity over the muhammad
images (cartoons and wikipedia) has skyrocketed. There has been
government retaliation against foreign news agencies, anti-semitic
demonstrations, and increased awareness of Wikipedia's role in the
controversy. That's a significantly increased risk than we were at
several weeks ago.
It's like a rich white person hanging out on the streets of <insert
crime-ridden slum here>. Just by being there, you are at significant
risk of experiencing a crime. Does that mean one is going to happen?
No. Can you take steps to limit your risk? Sure. Foremost among them
is "don't put yourself in that situation in the first place."
By the way...we'd be going to jail for this in Alexandria.
-Dan
PS: Surprisingly enough, the US Department of State has significantly
less warnings and such about travel in Egypt than the UK, Canada, or
Australia. Apparently the US department of state is more worried about
people driving over WWII era land mines after a rainstorm, or getting
bird flu.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:10 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Rosenthal
<swatjester(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a
situation that our mere
existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country
endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding
conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman
is
offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject
themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention,
fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot
be guaranteed.
I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a
situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender,
religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure
their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It
is
an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights --
the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of
sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's
absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a
stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and
force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their
human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia
Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
-Dan
Hypothetically, if the conference is actually putting attendees at
significant security risk due to terrorism, or those with alternative
lifestyles or sexual preferences at significant risk, then perhaps a
re-siting decision would be called for.
What was in evidence after the previous discussion about the latter
issues
was vague unease, not evidence that there was actual serious risk
there.
What is in evidence now about the security situation is vague
unease, not
evidence that there's serious risk there.
Please don't turn vague unease into a mad rush to abandon the site.
If
anyone participating happens to be a private or governmental
intelligence
analyst or counterterrorism professional with middle east
experience, or
know people who are, it might help if you talk to the Foundation and
input
what you know.
I am acutely aware of the history and issues involved, in religious,
local
political, geopolitical, and local and regional terrorist incident
history,
but I don't have any current useful intelligence or background to do
an
event risk assessment.
Unless someone with that experience and those specific skills is
willing to
publically comment here, we're operating the thread without a
competent
level of knowledge to hold a serious discussion on the topic.
I oppose hyperbolic conversations eminating from vague unease.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l