George Herbert wrote:
One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might
reply that the US
has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing
some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both
internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
We're talking about Egypt, not the United States. Your assertion that
few people in the U.S. are critical of U.S. policy is specious at best.
We could hold an even in ... London (no, wait,
tube/bus bombings)...
Paris (race riots?)... Moscow (organized crime? government
oppression?)... Madrid (train bombings?), San Francisco (a few
murders, and might all fall down in an earthquake...), Seattle (less
murders, but both likely to fall down and be sunk by a Tsunami in a
quake, and there's a volcano waiting to spew Lahar all over the
southern parts of the city...).
Let us be practical. There are moral and practical concerns with
about every possible venue we could chose. At least some of those
concerns are legitimate in a wider scope. We cannot not chose
somewhere to go, or rule out any given place, due to legitimate but
not overwhelming concerns.
What is your standard for "not overwhelming"?
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all
the time without
being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local
treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local
political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering
western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of
terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was
also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the
atrocities not affecting them.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a
Sharia Law area, or
in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or
freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned
for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
Rangoon would be
bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any
Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization
and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical
sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your
Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and
western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria
is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after
selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make
statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human
rights issues only came to light *today*.