So I see...we (homosexuals etc) have to hide who we are and what we are proud of...so homosexuals don't get hurt or arrested. Wonderful...I will make sure to bring a mask or 2 to conceal anything that might suggest I am gay. Because thats what it feels like I ans any other homosexual has to do to make this trip work. Thats wrong, unfair and it discrimination.
I am also not happy with the fact that this is sounding more and more like a political conference than anything and thats not right. If you want to make Wikimania political, then don't get involved. And then to have Jimbo make a speech title that can get a lot into a lot of trouble....take the political mess somewhere else. This is a media conference, not an election.
Anyone can go and no one should have to be afraid of their own safety. Wikimania should be something for everyone, not the elite. Stop this discrimination.
Jason Safoutin
On 11/10/2007, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
So I see...we (homosexuals etc) have to hide who we are and what we are proud of...so homosexuals don't get hurt or arrested. Wonderful...I will make sure to bring a mask or 2 to conceal anything that might suggest I am gay. Because thats what it feels like I ans any other homosexual has to do to make this trip work. Thats wrong, unfair and it discrimination.
There is a difference between hiding and not flaunting. Do you really define yourself in terms of your sexuality to such an extent that you need everyone to know you're gay? No-one is suggesting you pretend to be straight, just tactfully avoid the subject.
I am also not happy with the fact that this is sounding more and more like a political conference than anything and thats not right. If you want to make Wikimania political, then don't get involved. And then to have Jimbo make a speech title that can get a lot into a lot of trouble....take the political mess somewhere else. This is a media conference, not an election.
There, I have to agree with you completely. I'm really not convinced Jimbo's speech proposal is wise.
Anyone can go and no one should have to be afraid of their own safety. Wikimania should be something for everyone, not the elite. Stop this discrimination.
I'm yet to see anyone give any real cause for fear.
Il giorno 11/ott/07, alle ore 23:32, Thomas Dalton ha scritto:
On 11/10/2007, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
So I see...we (homosexuals etc) have to hide who we are and what we are proud of...so homosexuals don't get hurt or arrested. Wonderful...I will make sure to bring a mask or 2 to conceal anything that might suggest I am gay. Because thats what it feels like I ans any other homosexual has to do to make this trip work. Thats wrong, unfair and it discrimination.
There is a difference between hiding and not flaunting. Do you really define yourself in terms of your sexuality to such an extent that you need everyone to know you're gay? No-one is suggesting you pretend to be straight, just tactfully avoid the subject.
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
I never said they would not be permitted to sleep with their partner, I said it might be wise to avoid being to obvious about it. Sometimes we do thing we would rather not do, just for the sake of a quiet life. If people want to make a stand, then that's their decision, but if people want to go to Wikimania to talk about Wikimedia projects, rather than to preach to the natives, they may want to consider being discrete.
As for the burqa - only the most oppressive regimes (if any) require non-Muslims to wear the burqa, and I don't believe many Muslims would be offended by non-Muslim women showing their faces. It is, however, often recommended that women (and, men, for that matter), dress a little more modestly that perhaps they would usually do when in devoutly Muslim countries - for example, it would be inappropriate to wander around in just a bikini and sarong.
Should I avoid being Jewish while I'm at it? Why not, it's a choice just like being gay is right? Or if being gay is not a choice (TBH I don't know what the prevailing viewpoint is), should I attempt to avoid being black? Should I be stoned for being a single mother out of wedlock? Oh what a slippery slope we're on here, and the fact that people are ok with it is really scary.
-Dan On Oct 11, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
I never said they would not be permitted to sleep with their partner, I said it might be wise to avoid being to obvious about it. Sometimes we do thing we would rather not do, just for the sake of a quiet life. If people want to make a stand, then that's their decision, but if people want to go to Wikimania to talk about Wikimedia projects, rather than to preach to the natives, they may want to consider being discrete.
As for the burqa - only the most oppressive regimes (if any) require non-Muslims to wear the burqa, and I don't believe many Muslims would be offended by non-Muslim women showing their faces. It is, however, often recommended that women (and, men, for that matter), dress a little more modestly that perhaps they would usually do when in devoutly Muslim countries - for example, it would be inappropriate to wander around in just a bikini and sarong.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Should I avoid being Jewish while I'm at it? Why not, it's a choice just like being gay is right? Or if being gay is not a choice (TBH I don't know what the prevailing viewpoint is), should I attempt to avoid being black? Should I be stoned for being a single mother out of wedlock? Oh what a slippery slope we're on here, and the fact that people are ok with it is really scary.
I don't think anyone is "ok" with it. You just have to pick your battles. No-one has presented any evidence that anyone would be in any real danger, so it isn't that big an issue. It would be great is people were more open minded, but the world is not perfect, and there's not a lot we can do about it. Our key aim of spreading knowledge should help, but I can't see anything we can do making a big difference in the next year.
You are obviously more OK with it than we are.
On 11/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Should I avoid being Jewish while I'm at it? Why not, it's a choice just like being gay is right? Or if being gay is not a choice (TBH I don't know what the prevailing viewpoint is), should I attempt to avoid being black? Should I be stoned for being a single mother out of wedlock? Oh what a slippery slope we're on here, and the fact that people are ok with it is really scary.
I don't think anyone is "ok" with it. You just have to pick your battles. No-one has presented any evidence that anyone would be in any real danger, so it isn't that big an issue. It would be great is people were more open minded, but the world is not perfect, and there's not a lot we can do about it. Our key aim of spreading knowledge should help, but I can't see anything we can do making a big difference in the next year.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/11/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You are obviously more OK with it than we are.
Who is "we"?
You may be one of a number of LGBT people who have said they feel uncomfortable with going to Egypt, but you can't say you speak for everyone in the LGBT community. Those with concerns can or have voice them, those who are willing to take any perceived or imagined "risks" will go, those who feel safe will go confidently. Saying all LGBT people feel unsafe going to Egypt is putting words in their mouths and is very inaccurate.
I don't claim to speak for all GLBT people. When I say "we", I referring to GLBT people who have already expressed a concern, and the concerned people are certainly more queer than the unconcerned people.
On 11/10/2007, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/11/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You are obviously more OK with it than we are.
Who is "we"?
You may be one of a number of LGBT people who have said they feel uncomfortable with going to Egypt, but you can't say you speak for everyone in the LGBT community. Those with concerns can or have voice them, those who are willing to take any perceived or imagined "risks" will go, those who feel safe will go confidently. Saying all LGBT people feel unsafe going to Egypt is putting words in their mouths and is very inaccurate.
-- Ayelie ~Editor at Large _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And I would add - since both of them make it public iirc - there were two Jewish origin people in the jury members, and one of them were Isreal by nationality. You seems to be trying to create criticism for criticism, sadly.
On 10/12/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Should I avoid being Jewish while I'm at it?
Israelis quite regularly vacation in Egypt.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Aphaia wrote:
And I would add - since both of them make it public iirc - there were two Jewish origin people in the jury members, and one of them were Isreal by nationality. You seems to be trying to create criticism for criticism, sadly.
On 10/12/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Should I avoid being Jewish while I'm at it?
Israelis quite regularly vacation in Egypt.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What about Vegetarians..??
In Egypt, meat is being sold in stores, were meat parts -or actually animal parts- are hung from the clutches, mostly uncovered. Like if you are walking down a street, you can see a whole lamp body, a whole piece of fresh red meat, by your side if you passed in front of one of the meat stores. Vegetarians should be also aware of that.
Thanks!
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/13/07, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.com wrote:
What about Vegetarians..??
In Egypt, meat is being sold in stores, were meat parts -or actually animal parts- are hung from the clutches, mostly uncovered. Like if you are walking down a street, you can see a whole lamp body, a whole piece of fresh red meat, by your side if you passed in front of one of the meat stores. Vegetarians should be also aware of that.
They might not mind hopefully and Taipei market is just as same - but I would like you as host remind, roughly estimation, many attendees (10% or more?) are vegetarians and we serve them lunch and breakfast. I don't know if there have been vegans. A list of local vegetarian restaurants would be helpful too.
Thanks!
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
People can order vegan meals at most restaurants, I dont think it will be a problem also to arrange with Hilton (the conference caterer) and at the dorms for the comfort of vegan attendees. Actually the most popular national dish of Egypt is a vegan one, mashed fava beans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ful_medames
On 10/12/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/07, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.com wrote:
What about Vegetarians..??
In Egypt, meat is being sold in stores, were meat parts -or actually
animal
parts- are hung from the clutches, mostly uncovered. Like if you are
walking
down a street, you can see a whole lamp body, a whole piece of fresh red meat, by your side if you passed in front of one of the meat stores. Vegetarians should be also aware of that.
They might not mind hopefully and Taipei market is just as same - but I would like you as host remind, roughly estimation, many attendees (10% or more?) are vegetarians and we serve them lunch and breakfast. I don't know if there have been vegans. A list of local vegetarian restaurants would be helpful too.
Thanks!
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/12/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/13/07, Moushira Elamrawy moushirah@gmail.com wrote:
What about Vegetarians..??
In Egypt, meat is being sold in stores, were meat parts -or actually
animal
parts- are hung from the clutches, mostly uncovered. Like if you are
walking
down a street, you can see a whole lamp body, a whole piece of fresh red meat, by your side if you passed in front of one of the meat stores. Vegetarians should be also aware of that.
They might not mind hopefully and Taipei market is just as same - but I would like you as host remind, roughly estimation, many attendees (10% or more?) are vegetarians and we serve them lunch and breakfast. I don't know if there have been vegans. A list of local vegetarian restaurants would be helpful too.
Thanks!
Actually vegetarian and vegan culture is not a familiar thing in Egypt. You don't expect to find vegetarian menus in restaurant, or a vegan dishes, however, the local food mainly depends on beans and rice, which is vegetarian, tasty, and quite cheap:). My point actually was to raise one more issue of inconvenience other than LGBT..:). I can keep raising similar ones; defenitly the culture here is different from other parts of the world, that does not necessarily make it bad; it is quite relative.
Thanks
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefs any more than your taste in sexual partners.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on, was the sarcasm lost on you there? How does one "be jewish"?
The same was someone can "be gay". You can by gay and not engage in homosexual actives, just as you can be Jewish and not engage in religious activities. I don't see any significant difference between being Jewish and being gay in that respect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefs
Are you serious, Anthony?
Marc Riddell
On 10/12/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefsŠ
Are you serious, Anthony?
You misquoted me.
on 10/12/07 2:36 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefsS
Are you serious, Anthony?
You misquoted me.
No, I did not, Anthony.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefsŠ
Are you serious, Anthony?
In some ways he's right. It's hard to imagine a Jewish kid telling his parents over the dinner table that he wants to convert to something else. By the time he's old enough to be on his own it may be too late to move away from those earlier influences. Abandoning the religion then may only function at the intellectual and liturgical level.
Ec
Moving back on to topic, I'd like to question the composition of the jury in this case. Who chose the jury members, and how?
Further, how can we improve the jury selection process so that the jury members take more of an actual interest in the bidding process? For background, only four members of the jury actually participated in the bidders' IRC meeting or Q&A page on meta for Alexandria:
* Britty/Kizu Naoko/User:Aphaia * brassratgirl/Phoebe Ayers * Theodoranian/Titan Deng * Jan-Bart De Vreede/User:Jan-Bart
Additionally, one of those jury members basically accused the Atlanta team of shit-stirring when the GLBT issue was raised on the Q&A page for Alexandria. The other Q&A pages show similar lack of interest on the part of most jury members to actually find out more about the candidate bids. The fact that the Q&A pages were set up for the *jury* to ask questions of the bid teams was effectively ignored, because the jury wasn't making the effort to ask the questions some Wikimedians thought were relevant and should be asked. Does this mean the jury was crap, or the process was crap?
Additionally, why were there "advisors", who selected them, and what role did they serve in the judging process?
Hopefully we can steer this thread back on topic and address some of the things that should be improved for the Wikimania 2009 bidding process.
~Mark Ryan
On 10/13/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
[snip] Additionally, why were there "advisors", who selected them, and what role did they serve in the judging process?
I believe they were non-voting members of the jury who commented, advised, and asked questions occasionally of the bid team (as well as being apart of the jury's discussions).
Hopefully we can steer this thread back on topic and address some of
the things that should be improved for the Wikimania 2009 bidding process.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Il giorno 13/ott/07, alle ore 02:43, Ray Saintonge ha scritto:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefs (etc etc)
Are you serious, Anthony?
In some ways he's right. It's hard to imagine a Jewish kid telling his parents over the dinner table that he wants to convert to something else. By the time he's old enough to be on his own it may be too late to move away from those earlier influences. Abandoning the religion then may only function at the intellectual and liturgical level.
Ec
Sorry, it's something totally different. Being homosexual is not a choose at all. "You choose to be homosexual" is one of the most used and harmful phrase against a gay: "You choose to be homosexual, you can choose back". "Choose" could mean "bad choose", and that's the most used accuse against homosexual. That's homophobia, I'm sorry. Have you choosen to be heterosexual?
I hadn't choose to be homosexual. I _came to the acceptance_ of being homosexual: it's very different, totally different. And it's a tough process, a path not so easy to take for a lot people. Being said that I had liberally choosen to be mistreated, accused, offended, and to possibly have problem with my friends, family, peers (and maybe lose some of them for being homosexual)... being said this, it's offensive.
I hadn't choose to be homosexual. But I choose to be Christian. That's something you can choose. I've born Christian, I've been raised as a Christian, but then I learned what "be Christian" mean, and I chose to remain so. This is a choose, a choose everyone can do.
(by the way: "I think it's about as possible for someone to change their taste in sexual partners. ***Maybe it could be done***, but it's extremely unlikely". That's what I call a totally silly statement: I can't change my taste in partners; I can fake it, it's the maximum I can do. It could not be done, not even "maybe".)
On 10/13/07, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Being said that I had liberally choosen to be mistreated, accused, offended, and to possibly have problem with my friends, family, peers (and maybe lose some of them for being homosexual)... being said this, it's offensive.
I hadn't choose to be homosexual. But I choose to be Christian. That's something you can choose. I've born Christian, I've been raised as a Christian, but then I learned what "be Christian" mean, and I chose to remain so.
So you wouldn't choose to be gay, because that would subject you to accusations and mistreatment, but you would choose to be a part of a religion which teaches that God called gay people an "abomination"?
Could you choose to agree with me that that's ridiculous?
Il giorno 13/ott/07, alle ore 14:32, Anthony ha scritto:
On 10/13/07, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Being said that I had liberally choosen to be mistreated, accused, offended, and to possibly have problem with my friends, family, peers (and maybe lose some of them for being homosexual)... being said this, it's offensive.
I hadn't choose to be homosexual. But I choose to be Christian. That's something you can choose. I've born Christian, I've been raised as a Christian, but then I learned what "be Christian" mean, and I chose to remain so.
So you wouldn't choose to be gay, because that would subject you to accusations and mistreatment, but you would choose to be a part of a religion which teaches that God called gay people an "abomination"?
Could you choose to agree with me that that's ridiculous?
It seems to me this is a totally off topic discussion, and it regards how gay people relate with their religion. But if you want an explanation... Personally, I'm Christian. Not Catholic, even if I've been raised as a Catholic. Being Christian means believe in Christ's message. A message of integration and love: "The last ones, will be the first ones", "The only real comandament is to love the others as you love yourself". Jesus Christ defended the adulterine woman: "Who's sinless, launch the stone". This is a real strong message for the time: noone is an "abominion", a "sin" is only something made for hurting people. Love is not a sin. I'm quite sure - cause religion is something _really_ personal - that if Jesus Christ would be lived in these times we're living, he would have said the same about homosexual people. Than no: that's not ridicolous. Maybe being a Catholic it's ridicolous, for what the _Church_ says about homosexual. Being Christian, not.
I hope this could answer to your question.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
I don't think you can choose your beliefsS
Are you serious, Anthony?
on 10/12/07 8:43 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In some ways he's right. It's hard to imagine a Jewish kid telling his parents over the dinner table that he wants to convert to something else.
Ray,
Introducing a "kid" and parents into the mix here adds a whole other dimension to the process, and to the discussion. Ones I'm not sure we should explore here.
Marc
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
As fascinating as such arguments are, somehow foundation-l doesn't seem like the most appropriate venue to debate nature vs. nurture vs. free will.
-Mark
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How about the argument as to whether being gay is a choice or not. I can choose my religion. I cannot choose my taste in sexual partners.
Being Jewish is also to do with race, not just religion. Even a non-practising Jew is a Jew. You can't choose not to be Jewish.
Most of what I've read indicates egypt is safe for tourists. Yes, there are gay touring packages. But this long, very graphic report by Human Rights Watch -- http://hrw.org/reports/2004/egypt0304/1.htm#_Toc63760377 -- says the Egyptian government tracks down Egyptians it suspects are gay and tortures them, in significant numbers.
If the justice system of an american state was torturing LGBTs, I think a lot of people wouldn't want to go to a wikimania held in that state. (Mind you, those people might be wrong -- isolating the state might just increase its radicalism.) Expecting them to not care when *arab* LGBTs are persecuted is a little condescending.
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
If the justice system of an american state was torturing LGBTs, I think a lot of people wouldn't want to go to a wikimania held in that state. (Mind you, those people might be wrong -- isolating the state might just increase its radicalism.) Expecting them to not care when *arab* LGBTs are persecuted is a little condescending.
Of course people are going to care, and not just LGBTs, I think everyone on this mailing list is unhappy at the treatment of LGBTs in Egypt. However, if we're going to rule out countries on ideological reasons, we'll end up ruling out the entire world.
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Ec
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on 10/13/07 7:21 PM, Aphaia at aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
This is not directed at you, specifically, Aphaia, but in response to several similar posts here.
Dialogue, debate, intelligent conversation between and among persons is a joy, and should be encouraged everywhere. So it's not strictly flowing exactly from the original topic, so what! It's conversation. Now the suggestion is to actually moderate (punish) the participants. My question is simple: How on earth is this conversation harming this List or anyone reading it? Are we so anal as to decide what specific conversations are and are not "permitted"? OK, I might have some trouble with someone wanting to discuss their chicken soup recipe, but what is being discussed here is people and their condition.
Marc Riddell
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
So it's not strictly flowing exactly from the original topic, so what! It's conversation. Now the suggestion is to actually moderate (punish) the participants. My question is simple: How on earth is this conversation harming this List or anyone reading it?
Foundation-l is not an amateur debate club. I don't give a whit about your pontifications on sexuality, religion, and politics, and neither does my inbox. Frankly, I have no idea what you Thomas, Ray, Anthony and others think you are accomplishing, but I am very frustrated that repeated attempts to suggest some level of relevant discussion are simply dismissed with a "it's not harmful" response. It may not be harmful to whatever your purposes are, but it is extremely counterproductive to the list's, and Wikimania. Whether or not I agree with it, I was happy to see Mark Ryan's on-topic post, moving us towards what the line of discussion already should have been: if and how we can improve the bid selection process in the future. Unfortunately, it's being drowned out by your droning on the nature of homosexuality, learning and choosing religion, Jewishness, and other stuff that is better left to your private musings and personal emails.
If your response to this email is a similar dismissal and continued off-topic philosophizing, I welcome moderation.
Dominic
on 10/13/07 8:22 PM, Dmcdevit at dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
If your response to this email is a similar dismissal and continued off-topic philosophizing, I welcome moderation.
Are you wanting to preempt my response by suggesting I be moderated if I do?
Marc
Dmcdevit wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
So it's not strictly flowing exactly from the original topic, so what! It's conversation. Now the suggestion is to actually moderate (punish) the participants. My question is simple: How on earth is this conversation harming this List or anyone reading it?
Foundation-l is not an amateur debate club. I don't give a whit about your pontifications on sexuality, religion, and politics, and neither does my inbox. Frankly, I have no idea what you Thomas, Ray, Anthony and others think you are accomplishing, but I am very frustrated that repeated attempts to suggest some level of relevant discussion are simply dismissed with a "it's not harmful" response. It may not be harmful to whatever your purposes are, but it is extremely counterproductive to the list's, and Wikimania. Whether or not I agree with it, I was happy to see Mark Ryan's on-topic post, moving us towards what the line of discussion already should have been: if and how we can improve the bid selection process in the future. Unfortunately, it's being drowned out by your droning on the nature of homosexuality, learning and choosing religion, Jewishness, and other stuff that is better left to your private musings and personal emails.
If your response to this email is a similar dismissal and continued off-topic philosophizing, I welcome moderation.
Lighten up!
Threads that wander off topic eventually die out anyway. Allowing them to die out naturally is a great stress reliever. If you really don't want to read them you should have no difficulty finding the delete button on your keyboard. That would be preferable to a lot of drama about counterproductivity. As to "what you ... think you are accomplishing", have yoe even considered the possibility that maybe we aren't trying to accomplish anything? Or maybe we are just trying to understand better how each other thinks.
Ec
On 10/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/13/07 7:21 PM, Aphaia at aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
[snip]
Now the
suggestion is to actually moderate (punish) the participants.
Moderation is not punishment. If your posts are on-topic for the list, they will get put through by the moderator. If not, they will just be discarded. Moderation is sometimes caused by bad behavior, but it in itself is not punishment.
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home
fought
desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Casey Brown wrote:
On 10/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Now the
suggestion is to actually moderate (punish) the participants.
Moderation is not punishment. If your posts are on-topic for the list, they will get put through by the moderator. If not, they will just be discarded. Moderation is sometimes caused by bad behavior, but it in itself is not punishment.
It really comes down to a question of how you define punishment. From the perspective of the person receiving this treatment it most ncertainly is punishment. The practical operations are indeed as you say. Even the delay of on-topic postings can be regarded as punishment.
Ec
On 10/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/13/07 7:21 PM, Aphaia at aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
This is not directed at you, specifically, Aphaia, but in response to several similar posts here.
...and that post was not directed at you, specifically, Marc. However, many of the posters to this topic have taken attacks on each and every jury member, of which Aphaia is one. She had every right to post something and ask for this to stop, it is, after all, full of attacks on her (not necessarily made by you, Marc).
Marc Riddell
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home
fought
desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
However, many of the posters to this topic have taken attacks on each and every jury member, of which Aphaia is one.
Please provide evidence where anyone has publicly attacked an individual jury member (as opposed to offering criticism of the jury as a whole)
-Dan
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
However, many of the posters to this topic have taken attacks on each and every jury member, of which Aphaia is one.
Please provide evidence where anyone has publicly attacked an individual jury member (as opposed to offering criticism of the jury as a whole)
It's clear to me that Dan and I have had divergent opinions on this thread over the issue about LGBT and Alexandria. We may also have allowed the topic to drift a little. But getting off topic and personal attacks on jury members are very different concepts, and I have seen no significant evidence of attacks. I say this as a supporter of the jury's decision.
Ec
"each and every" does not necessarily mean individually, it just means that each one has been attacked in some way, whether grouped as the whole jury or grouped as some other subset of the jury. I will not point out individual posts out of respect for the people who wrote them and the people about whom they were written.
On 10/14/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
However, many of the posters to this topic have taken attacks on each and every jury member, of which Aphaia is one.
Please provide evidence where anyone has publicly attacked an individual jury member (as opposed to offering criticism of the jury as a whole)
-Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
"each and every" does not necessarily mean individually, it just means that each one has been attacked in some way, whether grouped as the whole jury or grouped as some other subset of the jury. I will not point out individual posts out of respect for the people who wrote them and the people about whom they were written.
"Each" means individually, "all" means as a group. You can attack a group as a whole without attacking the individuals. Saying you think the jury made a bad decision means you think the majority of them have done something wrong, it does not mean you think each of them has done something wrong.
on 10/14/07 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
"each and every" does not necessarily mean individually, it just means that each one has been attacked in some way, whether grouped as the whole jury or grouped as some other subset of the jury. I will not point out individual posts out of respect for the people who wrote them and the people about whom they were written.
"Each" means individually, "all" means as a group. You can attack a group as a whole without attacking the individuals. Saying you think the jury made a bad decision means you think the majority of them have done something wrong, it does not mean you think each of them has done something wrong.
Perspective, people, perspective. A public group (committee) made a public decision. There are those who disapprove of that decision and are criticizing it. In the process the people who made that decision are getting swept up in the criticism. On a much larger scale, a public group (committee) makes a decision to hold Olympic games in a certain city. There are those who disapprove of that decision and criticize it. In the process the people who made that decision get swept up in the criticism.
Are we so thin-skinned, that we take personal offense when criticized about decisions we make that have nothing to do with us personally?
In a public role, it goes with the territory.
And, to characterize "criticism" as "attack", shows there's an axe grinding away somewhere.
Marc Riddell
That's a cop-out. "I have no evidence so I will make up an excuse to not give you any".
Mark
On 14/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
"each and every" does not necessarily mean individually, it just means that each one has been attacked in some way, whether grouped as the whole jury or grouped as some other subset of the jury. I will not point out individual posts out of respect for the people who wrote them and the people about whom they were written.
On 10/14/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
However, many of the posters to this topic have taken attacks on each and every jury member, of which Aphaia is one.
Please provide evidence where anyone has publicly attacked an individual jury member (as opposed to offering criticism of the jury as a whole)
-Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/13/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation.
It seems to me that legal issues of Egypt are totally relevant to the WMF, as that's where Wikimania is going to be held. I also think discussion of laws in other locations are right on-topic, as bidding for the next Wikimania is right around the corner.
I agree that discussions about free will and religion are off-topic, and the moderator has made it clear that those discussions should stop. But this thread isn't about that.
Suggesting that people be moderated for proferring criticism is never a good thing.
-Dan On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Aphaia wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/14/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Suggesting that people be moderated for proferring criticism is never a good thing.
However, suggesting that people, who wander completely off-topic and abuse this mailing list as a free debate club with a large audience, are moderated is probably valid.
I am not saying that I will moderate everyone who is off-topic on foundation-l (I witnessed the #wikipedia off-topic drama and I don't think we need to repeat this here) but moderating people who constantly talk about things that are completely irrelevant to this mailing list is an alternative that should not be dismissed so easily.
Michael
-Dan On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Aphaia wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/14/07, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Suggesting that people be moderated for proferring criticism is never a good thing.
However, suggesting that people, who wander completely off-topic and abuse this mailing list as a free debate club with a large audience, are moderated is probably valid.
Oh, and, let me clarify: I think that discussions about ideal criteria for Wikimania selections and about the composition of the jury are certainly okay and they can be as critical as they want to be (as long as there are constructive ideas and not just rants...).
The off-topic refers to debates on free choice of sexual preferences and religion.
Michael
I am not saying that I will moderate everyone who is off-topic on foundation-l (I witnessed the #wikipedia off-topic drama and I don't think we need to repeat this here) but moderating people who constantly talk about things that are completely irrelevant to this mailing list is an alternative that should not be dismissed so easily.
Michael
-Dan On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Aphaia wrote:
Holding Wikimania in a given is never and should not a verdict which country is politically correct. This thread is totally irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. I admit you're discussing something meaningful in a certain regime, but it is not relevant to this mailinglist and methinks the participants of this discussion should be moderated, if they continue it here.
On 10/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Which brings up a good point. How does Egypt treat polygamists? Better or worse than Georgia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not being able to get married sucks, but it doesn't remotely compare to being dragged away, imprisoned, and tortured.
"I used to think being gay was just part of my life and now I know it means dark cells and beatings. It is very, very difficult to be gay in Egypt.
I'll tell you something. Some things that happen in your life you can forget. And there are some things that you can never forget, even for one minute. You forget the good times; you may have been happy in a moment, and you forget. But the black days you can't forget. If it's inside you, you remember every minute. And [the day I was tortured] was a very black day in my life. … It hurts me to remember.
I don't sleep at all. If I sleep I would dream about the trial. If I have to go back to prison, I will kill myself. What do they want from us? I have no one to talk to, no one to ask. No one who can understand. What do they want from us? Why do they want our lives?"
—Ziyad (not his real name), a defendant in the "Queen Boat" trial, interviewed by Human Rights Watch in 2003.
On 10/13/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Look -- our own governments didn't treat GLBTs so well til recently (see: forcing Allen Turing to take estrogen; turning a blind eye to gay bashings; etc.). This is an open wound -- it's not shrill or "politically correct" to have serious issues with shrugging your shoulders about a foreign system that your predecessors at home fought desperately against.
And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
OK folks - I think this heated back and forth has gone on long enough. While I certainly sympathize and agree with those people who feel that the human rights record of Egypt is really bad in the area of gay/LBT rights, I don't think that the selection of Alexandria by the jury was in any way whatsoever an endorsement of those policies or even came from an insensitivity by the jury in this area. Remember - let's assume good faith.
What I would like to see, however, are some statistics, not anecdotes, on the real risk GLBT visitors* to Egypt will face. If those aren't forthcoming, then I don't think further discussion will be particularly useful.
* I specifically mention visitors since those who are in Egypt already have been living with the risk. So attending Wikimania in their own nation would not, IMO, put them in significantly increased peril. And the risk to Wikimania attendees is the only part of this discussion that is relevant to this list, IMO.
-- mav
PS - As a gay man I must be aware of my surroundings and act accordingly; while I'm openly gay to all my friends, family, coworkers, schoolmates and neighbors (and all of you) I feel that walking down the street of a small town in Alabama or Utah while holding my partner's hand would be needlessly asking for trouble. Yep, that's not fair. But that is how things are.
Advancing GLBT rights by provoking bigots is not why I travel to places. So yeah, I compromise in certain situations in order to reduce my chances of getting harassed or bashed. Looks like the same will be true for Alexandria. I'm not going to lose sleep over that or cancel my plans to attend Wikimania 2008 with my partner. Like traveling anywhere, certain precautions will need to be followed and some knowledge (dare I say respect with a small 'r') of local social norms is needed.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
On 14/10/2007, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
What I would like to see, however, are some statistics, not anecdotes, on the real risk GLBT visitors* to Egypt will face. If those aren't forthcoming, then I don't think further discussion will be particularly useful.
Four non-Egyptians (read foreigners) were put on trial in Egypt for homosexuality in 2003. Three were acquitted on appeal and one was sent to prison for a year (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205) (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=198).
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
What I would like to see, however, are some statistics, not anecdotes, on the real risk GLBT visitors* to Egypt will face. If those aren't forthcoming, then I don't think further discussion will be particularly useful.
Four non-Egyptians (read foreigners) were put on trial in Egypt for homosexuality in 2003. Three were acquitted on appeal and one was sent to prison for a year (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205) (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=198).
It seems as though there is more to this than simply being gay. As you say three of the four were acquitted in this 2003 incident, but I see nothing in the articles to show how this one differed from his colleagues. The impression that I get from reading these articles is that I am not getting a whole story.
Ec
OK .. people there is something that i need to clarify you r talking like once a gay man enters the an Egyptian airport he will be arrested 'for being gay' the imprisoned and tortured .. i must say that this is TOTALY wrong. the only case that a gay or a straight person might get arrested is for doing a direct sexual act in a public place - a street or instance - and this apply to both heterosexual and homosexuals a like .. other than that there is no problem if you already have a partner. as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no problem at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together without being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
On 10/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
What I would like to see, however, are some statistics, not anecdotes,
on the real risk GLBT
visitors* to Egypt will face. If those aren't forthcoming, then I don't
think further discussion
will be particularly useful.
Four non-Egyptians (read foreigners) were put on trial in Egypt for homosexuality in 2003. Three were acquitted on appeal and one was sent to prison for a year (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205) (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=198).
It seems as though there is more to this than simply being gay. As you say three of the four were acquitted in this 2003 incident, but I see nothing in the articles to show how this one differed from his colleagues. The impression that I get from reading these articles is that I am not getting a whole story.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- MeMo moamen@gmail.com wrote:
as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no problem at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together without being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
I've heard about the how American businessman are often shocked by being kissed by and being pressured to hold hands with full grown Arab men business contacts while traveling in the Mid East (all done w/o any sexual context or intent as far as the Arab man is concerned). There is also a different sense of personal space, with conversations often occurring at what would be very uncomfortably close range for American men.
That said, the interactions I've heard about are either between locals or a local and a foreigner. Would the same behavior between two foreigners go unnoticed in the street? I'm inclined to think that many Egyptians know enough about western culture to spot that as something more than friendly behavior.
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Before I get flammed on this point, I'm fully aware that Arabs and Egyptians are different ethnic groups. However, what I've heard about the below behavior was specific to Arabs and may not fully translate to Egyptians. What I want is a better understanding of this issue specific to Egypt so that LGBT visitors to Wikimania 2008 will be properly informed and will be able to act in a way that will minimize the possibility of encountering objectionable situations.
-- mav
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- MeMo moamen@gmail.com wrote:
as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no problem at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together without being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
I've heard about the how American businessman are often shocked by being kissed by and being pressured to hold hands with full grown Arab men business contacts while traveling in the Mid East (all done w/o any sexual context or intent as far as the Arab man is concerned). There is also a different sense of personal space, with conversations often occurring at what would be very uncomfortably close range for American men.
That said, the interactions I've heard about are either between locals or a local and a foreigner. Would the same behavior between two foreigners go unnoticed in the street? I'm inclined to think that many Egyptians know enough about western culture to spot that as something more than friendly behavior.
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
physical contact between men is a usual thing in Egypt whether Egyptians or foreigners as long as you AVOID any sexual behavior of any kind in PUBLIC . as long as this is done nobody will object or might even notice. and for those who know enough about Western culture are mostly well educated and know enough to accept the situation and deal with it in a civilized way .
On 10/14/07, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Before I get flammed on this point, I'm fully aware that Arabs and Egyptians are different ethnic groups. However, what I've heard about the below behavior was specific to Arabs and may not fully translate to Egyptians. What I want is a better understanding of this issue specific to Egypt so that LGBT visitors to Wikimania 2008 will be properly informed and will be able to act in a way that will minimize the possibility of encountering objectionable situations.
-- mav
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- MeMo moamen@gmail.com wrote:
as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no
problem
at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together
without
being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
I've heard about the how American businessman are often shocked by being
kissed by and being
pressured to hold hands with full grown Arab men business contacts while
traveling in the Mid
East (all done w/o any sexual context or intent as far as the Arab man is
concerned). There is also a
different sense of personal space, with conversations often occurring at
what would be very
uncomfortably close range for American men.
That said, the interactions I've heard about are either between locals
or a local and a
foreigner. Would the same behavior between two foreigners go unnoticed in the
street? I'm inclined to think
that many Egyptians know enough about western culture to spot that as
something more than
friendly behavior.
-- mav
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest
shows on Yahoo! TV.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14/10/2007, MeMo moamen@gmail.com wrote:
OK .. people there is something that i need to clarify you r talking like once a gay man enters the an Egyptian airport he will be arrested 'for being gay' the imprisoned and tortured .. i must say that this is TOTALY wrong. the only case that a gay or a straight person might get arrested is for doing a direct sexual act in a public place - a street or instance - and this apply to both heterosexual and homosexuals a like .. other than that there is no problem if you already have a partner. as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no problem at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together without being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
The problem is not just with having sex in public places. http://www.mask.org.za/index.php?page=egypt - this website lists some news items about homosexuality in Egypt.
Since 2001 the government has been cracking down on homosexuality by entrapping people trying to meet other gay people on the internet and raiding private parties (the Cairo 52).
On the Human Rights Watch report published in 2004 concerning homosexuals in Egypt: "It said they spoke of being whipped, bound and suspended in painful positions, splashed with ice-cold water, burned with cigarettes, shocked with electricity to the limbs, genitals or tongue. They also said guards encouraged other prisoners to rape them, according to the report."(http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=egypt&id=209)
What's more, the Egyptian authorities have been arresting (and imprisoning) people who are not Egyptian nationals.(http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205)
The point of this discussion isn't to determine whether Egypt has a good human rights record or not. It doesn't have a good human rights record and that shouldn't stop us going there (we should not punish Egyptians for their government).
What some of us seem to be concerned about is whether non-Egyptians visiting Alexandria for the conference are in any danger. From everything I've read (imprisonment of non-Egyptian homosexuals, use of entrapment by the police, torturing homosexuals in custody and trying homosexuals using tribunals set up to combat terrorism), we cannot say with certainty that Wikimedians will be safe in Egypt.
It is not a matter of flaunting homosexuality in public or not - the Egyptian police seem to have caught most homosexuals by other means (posing as gay men on internet meet services, raiding private parties). I don't think we can say with certainty that two non-Egyptian men (namely, a Wikimedian and his partner) sharing a double room in Alexandria will be safe.
What's more, the Egyptian authorities have been arresting (and imprisoning) people who are not Egyptian nationals.(http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205)
Those people went looking for gay partners while in Egypt. I'm sure any gay Wikipedians are perfectly capable of restraining themselves...
It's not difficult for any gay couples to just request twin rooms. It would be nice if they didn't have to, but it's not a big enough deal to stop us holding Wikimania in Egypt.
Oldak Quill wrote:
The problem is not just with having sex in public places. http://www.mask.org.za/index.php?page=egypt - this website lists some news items about homosexuality in Egypt.
... What some of us seem to be concerned about is whether non-Egyptians visiting Alexandria for the conference are in any danger. From everything I've read (imprisonment of non-Egyptian homosexuals, use of entrapment by the police, torturing homosexuals in custody and trying homosexuals using tribunals set up to combat terrorism), we cannot say with certainty that Wikimedians will be safe in Egypt.
It is not a matter of flaunting homosexuality in public or not - the Egyptian police seem to have caught most homosexuals by other means (posing as gay men on internet meet services, raiding private parties). I don't think we can say with certainty that two non-Egyptian men (namely, a Wikimedian and his partner) sharing a double room in Alexandria will be safe.
Interesting that the linked site above should use Wikipedia as a source. The article does say that foreigners are released quickly. That sounds more like a question of taking time to identify people arrested in a large raid.
I didn't know that WMF was running an internet meet service for gays or that we were planning the kind of wild gay party that would be subject to such raids. We do tend to have a Saturday party; should we be inviting the Chief of Police for Alexandria as a guest?
I heard a very long time ago that Egypt required visitors to declare their religion when they arrived. The _only_ options were Muslim, Christian and Jewish. One could not claim to be atheist or buddhist for that matter. Is that still the case?
Ec
We get a considerable number of tourists from Korea, China and Japan, a large number of those people would be non-religious, Shinto, Buddhist, Taoist, etc.. So I dont think it is an issue.
I heard a very long time ago that Egypt required visitors to declare
their religion when they arrived. The _only_ options were Muslim, Christian and Jewish. One could not claim to be atheist or buddhist for that matter. Is that still the case?
MeMo wrote:
OK .. people there is something that i need to clarify you r talking like once a gay man enters the an Egyptian airport he will be arrested 'for being gay' the imprisoned and tortured .. i must say that this is TOTALY wrong. the only case that a gay or a straight person might get arrested is for doing a direct sexual act in a public place - a street or instance - and this apply to both heterosexual and homosexuals a like .. other than that there is no problem if you already have a partner. as renting a hotel room with you partner or holding his hand is no problem at all simply because those acts are common in Egypt .. men do hold each others hand and friends do rent rooms together without being considered gay or harassing them in any mean .
Oldak Quill wrote:
Four non-Egyptians (read foreigners) were put on trial in Egypt for homosexuality in 2003. Three were acquitted on appeal and one was sent to prison for a year (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=205) (http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=&id=198).
What you express makes sense, and there is a huge difference between simply being gay and involving oneself in gay activism, and I suspect thay no small amount of activism is involved in the example prosecutions. If you believes that the citizens of a country that you are visiting do not have all the rights that they should have it is grossly irresponsible to spend a one-week visit there agitating for those rights. After the week you may fly away home without problems, and even with the blessing and the thanks of the authorities for whom you have exposed someone that they were watching. The people you wanted to help are put in greater danger. I have no basis for saying that this would in fact happen in Egypt; it's one's beliefs that it could happen that should guide one's behaviour.
Ec
Daniel, thank you for being a voice of reason. This is perhaps the most sensible post I've seen on this list for days.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer Sent: 14 October 2007 07:46 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Reboot on LGBT/Egypt issue (was Re: [Wikimania-l]Wikimania 2008 will happen in Alexandria, Egypt)
OK folks - I think this heated back and forth has gone on long enough. While I certainly sympathize and agree with those people who feel that the human rights record of Egypt is really bad in the area of gay/LBT rights, I don't think that the selection of Alexandria by the jury was in any way whatsoever an endorsement of those policies or even came from an insensitivity by the jury in this area. Remember - let's assume good faith.
What I would like to see, however, are some statistics, not anecdotes, on the real risk GLBT visitors* to Egypt will face. If those aren't forthcoming, then I don't think further discussion will be particularly useful.
* I specifically mention visitors since those who are in Egypt already have been living with the risk. So attending Wikimania in their own nation would not, IMO, put them in significantly increased peril. And the risk to Wikimania attendees is the only part of this discussion that is relevant to this list, IMO.
-- mav
PS - As a gay man I must be aware of my surroundings and act accordingly; while I'm openly gay to all my friends, family, coworkers, schoolmates and neighbors (and all of you) I feel that walking down the street of a small town in Alabama or Utah while holding my partner's hand would be needlessly asking for trouble. Yep, that's not fair. But that is how things are.
Advancing GLBT rights by provoking bigots is not why I travel to places. So yeah, I compromise in certain situations in order to reduce my chances of getting harassed or bashed. Looks like the same will be true for Alexandria. I'm not going to lose sleep over that or cancel my plans to attend Wikimania 2008 with my partner. Like traveling anywhere, certain precautions will need to be followed and some knowledge (dare I say respect with a small 'r') of local social norms is needed.
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This year we were stopped twice in catholic churches, because my wife did not wear the catholic Burqa on her head. The veil, that is. Both of us are orthodox, we don't feel that a catholic church has anything to do with religion, we were just quietly watching to pictures and the architecture. We were also MUCH quieter than most catholics.
Are we supposed to say that catholic countries are repressive and/or hate women? No, they simply have areas (churches) in which you are supposed to behave according to a code you don't understand and that you may find stupid or funny. It happens with ALL cultures. Try and enter the Vatican in a miniskirt, high heels and nylon stockings... it doesn't take to be LGBT to have trouble because of your sexuality. Trouble is very democratically offered to all and anyone.
Besides, we read lots of reports of people "looking like arabs" being harassed by the cops in euro and US airports... why should they feel safe (say) in NYC? I'd never fly to such places, if I had the slightest suspect that someone may need a "monster" next week and my face fits in the picture "in principle". What about us smokers in ridicolous countries that don't allow rooms for smokers? Why should I pay money to be forced to hide my cigarettes?
The whole discussion is simply ridicolous. No matter what place you choose, some of us will be somehow harassed by the authorities. If I don't want to be in that place, I don't go there, and that's it. But I don't request the whole WMF not to go there, because HOLY ME wants to be happy.
And yes, if I do go anyway I DO HIDE. I'm not going to be another person just becuse I smoke on the terrace. I'm surely going to miss all meetings that happen in non-smokers rooms, no matter the city you choose, but that's MY problem, not yours.
Berto 'd Sera Skype: berto.d.sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:00 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2008 will happen inAlexandria, Egypt
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
I never said they would not be permitted to sleep with their partner, I said it might be wise to avoid being to obvious about it. Sometimes we do thing we would rather not do, just for the sake of a quiet life. If people want to make a stand, then that's their decision, but if people want to go to Wikimania to talk about Wikimedia projects, rather than to preach to the natives, they may want to consider being discrete.
As for the burqa - only the most oppressive regimes (if any) require non-Muslims to wear the burqa, and I don't believe many Muslims would be offended by non-Muslim women showing their faces. It is, however, often recommended that women (and, men, for that matter), dress a little more modestly that perhaps they would usually do when in devoutly Muslim countries - for example, it would be inappropriate to wander around in just a bikini and sarong.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The earlier suggestion that a doctor's note will be required is also upsetting.
For someone who is biologically a man to live socially as a woman, they should not need a doctor's note to avoid persecution. Life is already more difficult for trans people.
In response to my earlier letter, I noticed people bandying about the term GLBT again. Guys, I am not talking about GLBT here really. I am talking about T.
GLB people may not be able to be who they are, and for many, that is going to be a no-go.
But it is the T people for whose safety I fear.
In the trans community there is what is known as "passing", that is someone who is biologically male being able to live as a female without anyone noticing them, or vice-versa.
If our trans friends can pass, I do not think they will really be unsafe as long as they are careful, in the same way they would want to be careful if they were going on a road trip in Alabama.
If, however, they are among those individuals for whom passing is more of a challenge, I would very much fear for their safety and think that this is a matter of life and death rather than just "not flaunting it". If Jimmy Wales wanted to go to the conference dressed in drag (not that he wants to, but if he did), and go out on the streets afterwards and live "as a woman", he should be able to feel comfortable doing that.
Now, imagine if you could not feel safe travelling in the gender you are. For the men out there, imagine you had to wear fake breasts and women's clothing to avoid being beaten and harassed? For the women, imagine you had to cut your hair short, duct tape your cleavage, and perhaps even stuff your pants to avoid the same? In the majority of Islamic countries, trans people are not safe unless they deny their true gender identity. This is unacceptable.
All that aside, what upsets me the most about this issue is the way our community has been blown off by just about everyone. Jimmy Wales was kind enough to at least show some concern; others have called us a "special interest group" asking for unreasonable things or told us not to "flaunt it". This has been so highly offensive and so greatly frustrating that I am having difficulty believing it is coming from Wikimedians, since our organization is so diverse (if you ever looked, you would see there is a higher portion of GLBTQ people on Wikimedia than in society at large).
Mark
On 11/10/2007, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 11/ott/07, alle ore 23:32, Thomas Dalton ha scritto:
On 11/10/2007, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
So I see...we (homosexuals etc) have to hide who we are and what we are proud of...so homosexuals don't get hurt or arrested. Wonderful...I will make sure to bring a mask or 2 to conceal anything that might suggest I am gay. Because thats what it feels like I ans any other homosexual has to do to make this trip work. Thats wrong, unfair and it discrimination.
There is a difference between hiding and not flaunting. Do you really define yourself in terms of your sexuality to such an extent that you need everyone to know you're gay? No-one is suggesting you pretend to be straight, just tactfully avoid the subject.
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/10/2007, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The earlier suggestion that a doctor's note will be required is also upsetting.
I doubt it. The issue there is that self diagnosis may not be considered valid I don't know of any case law in this area.
For someone who is biologically a man to live socially as a woman, they should not need a doctor's note to avoid persecution. Life is already more difficult for trans people.
Egyptian law treats men and women differently thus legally someone's gender at a given time is of some significance.
In response to my earlier letter, I noticed people bandying about the term GLBT again. Guys, I am not talking about GLBT here really. I am talking about T.
GLB people may not be able to be who they are, and for many, that is going to be a no-go.
But it is the T people for whose safety I fear.
In the trans community there is what is known as "passing", that is someone who is biologically male being able to live as a female without anyone noticing them, or vice-versa.
If our trans friends can pass, I do not think they will really be unsafe as long as they are careful, in the same way they would want to be careful if they were going on a road trip in Alabama.
If, however, they are among those individuals for whom passing is more of a challenge, I would very much fear for their safety and think that this is a matter of life and death rather than just "not flaunting it". If Jimmy Wales wanted to go to the conference dressed in drag (not that he wants to, but if he did), and go out on the streets afterwards and live "as a woman", he should be able to feel comfortable doing that.
Jimmy Wales is not transsexual.
Transvestism is a separate issue and is treated rather differently.
Now, imagine if you could not feel safe travelling in the gender you are. For the men out there, imagine you had to wear fake breasts and women's clothing to avoid being beaten and harassed? For the women, imagine you had to cut your hair short, duct tape your cleavage, and perhaps even stuff your pants to avoid the same? In the majority of Islamic countries, trans people are not safe unless they deny their true gender identity. This is unacceptable.
The version of Islam prevalent in Egypt views transsexualism as an illness and will not oppose any treatment proposed by a doctor.
There is a Fatwā to this effect floating around.
All that aside, what upsets me the most about this issue is the way our community has been blown off by just about everyone. Jimmy Wales was kind enough to at least show some concern; others have called us a "special interest group" asking for unreasonable things or told us not to "flaunt it". This has been so highly offensive and so greatly frustrating that I am having difficulty believing it is coming from Wikimedians, since our organization is so diverse (if you ever looked, you would see there is a higher portion of GLBTQ people on Wikimedia than in society at large).
Legally transsexuals are in a better position than GLBs. Transvestites less so not sure about furries.
Transvestitism is very different from being transgendered, and being transgendered is again (sometimes) different from being transsexual. Pre-op or non-op transgendered individuals are certainly not in a better position legally than GLB individuals.
On 11/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/2007, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The earlier suggestion that a doctor's note will be required is also upsetting.
I doubt it. The issue there is that self diagnosis may not be considered valid I don't know of any case law in this area.
For someone who is biologically a man to live socially as a woman, they should not need a doctor's note to avoid persecution. Life is already more difficult for trans people.
Egyptian law treats men and women differently thus legally someone's gender at a given time is of some significance.
In response to my earlier letter, I noticed people bandying about the term GLBT again. Guys, I am not talking about GLBT here really. I am talking about T.
GLB people may not be able to be who they are, and for many, that is going to be a no-go.
But it is the T people for whose safety I fear.
In the trans community there is what is known as "passing", that is someone who is biologically male being able to live as a female without anyone noticing them, or vice-versa.
If our trans friends can pass, I do not think they will really be unsafe as long as they are careful, in the same way they would want to be careful if they were going on a road trip in Alabama.
If, however, they are among those individuals for whom passing is more of a challenge, I would very much fear for their safety and think that this is a matter of life and death rather than just "not flaunting it". If Jimmy Wales wanted to go to the conference dressed in drag (not that he wants to, but if he did), and go out on the streets afterwards and live "as a woman", he should be able to feel comfortable doing that.
Jimmy Wales is not transsexual.
Transvestism is a separate issue and is treated rather differently.
Now, imagine if you could not feel safe travelling in the gender you are. For the men out there, imagine you had to wear fake breasts and women's clothing to avoid being beaten and harassed? For the women, imagine you had to cut your hair short, duct tape your cleavage, and perhaps even stuff your pants to avoid the same? In the majority of Islamic countries, trans people are not safe unless they deny their true gender identity. This is unacceptable.
The version of Islam prevalent in Egypt views transsexualism as an illness and will not oppose any treatment proposed by a doctor.
There is a Fatwā to this effect floating around.
All that aside, what upsets me the most about this issue is the way our community has been blown off by just about everyone. Jimmy Wales was kind enough to at least show some concern; others have called us a "special interest group" asking for unreasonable things or told us not to "flaunt it". This has been so highly offensive and so greatly frustrating that I am having difficulty believing it is coming from Wikimedians, since our organization is so diverse (if you ever looked, you would see there is a higher portion of GLBTQ people on Wikimedia than in society at large).
Legally transsexuals are in a better position than GLBs. Transvestites less so not sure about furries.
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/10/2007, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Transvestitism is very different from being transgendered, and being transgendered is again (sometimes) different from being transsexual. Pre-op or non-op transgendered individuals are certainly not in a better position legally than GLB individuals.
Going by the Fatwā which I assume the courts would consider it would depend on what their doctor had said but I'm only aware of a couple of cases Sally Mursi of course and a case involving inheritance law.
With all due respect to all parties involved guys, this is quickly degenerating into a FUD (if it hasn't already).
Some quick facts:
- Burqa sounds medieval :) , only a very small fraction of the population here wears what you would call a burqa. Most either wear a scarf or have bare hair. that is perfectly ok. - Getting a double room is ok, no-one will be offended. - No one gets stoned in Egypt, for anything, Our laws were originally based on English and French laws, with a touch of Islamic law, this is not considered Sharia laws by any means.
When you try to visualize Egypt, and you have never been here before, please don't imagine one of the more fundamentalist Islamic countries you see in the news or something along that line, I think this is stereo-typing.
On 10/11/07, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 11/ott/07, alle ore 23:32, Thomas Dalton ha scritto:
On 11/10/2007, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
So I see...we (homosexuals etc) have to hide who we are and what we are proud of...so homosexuals don't get hurt or arrested. Wonderful...I will make sure to bring a mask or 2 to conceal anything that might suggest I am gay. Because thats what it feels like I ans any other homosexual has to do to make this trip work. Thats wrong, unfair and it discrimination.
There is a difference between hiding and not flaunting. Do you really define yourself in terms of your sexuality to such an extent that you need everyone to know you're gay? No-one is suggesting you pretend to be straight, just tactfully avoid the subject.
No, that's not the problem. I'm reading "Don't take a double", and that's... how to say? Ridicolous? This is not a matter of wearing a t-shirt with "I'm gay" written on, this is a matter of people who are not permitted to sleep with their partner cause "could be offensive" and could give problem. Iperbole: when will be going to a place where women "socially" wear burqa, are we going to ask all the women attending to "wear the burqa to not seem offensive"? I don' think so.
Please: read what you write. I'm not against Alexandria, but the more I read this thread, the more I'm ashamed of what I read.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Il giorno 12/ott/07, alle ore 00:31, Muhammad Alsebaey ha scritto:
With all due respect to all parties involved guys, this is quickly degenerating into a FUD (if it hasn't already).
Some quick facts:
- Burqa sounds medieval :) , only a very small fraction of the
population here wears what you would call a burqa. Most either wear a scarf or have bare hair. that is perfectly ok.
I was making an iperbole. I know that burqa is not an oblige in Egypt, I know the various interpretation of being veiled. I was just making an ipothesis: "What about the next year we're going to a place where burqa is used?"
- Getting a double room is ok, no-one will be offended.
Someone spoke about 70 gays being arrested in Egypt for being gay. Is it true?
When you try to visualize Egypt, and you have never been here before, please don't imagine one of the more fundamentalist Islamic countries you see in the news or something along that line, I think this is stereo-typing.
I've no problem with Egypt at all, and I don't find it that fundamentalist EVEN IF it _is_ fundamentalist (not that much, but it is so). I'm making a broader thinking about "Wikimedia and Human Rights", and "Wikimania and Human rights".
Ah, and I'm answering to some homophobic phrase I'm reading on this thread: they're very sad.
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
Some quick facts:
- Burqa sounds medieval :) , only a very small fraction of the
population here wears what you would call a burqa. Most either wear a scarf or have bare hair. that is perfectly ok.
- Getting a double room is ok, no-one will be offended.
- No one gets stoned in Egypt, for anything,
Good to know -- we should all avoid bringing marijuana. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
- No one gets stoned in Egypt, for anything,
Good to know -- we should all avoid bringing marijuana. ;-)
I am outraged at this, the jury's decision should be overturned immediately and a location in northern Afghanistan where they grow the stuff should be selected.
Failing that, Amsterdam. :-P
Brian.
On 10/12/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
Some quick facts:
- Burqa sounds medieval :) , only a very small fraction of the
population here wears what you would call a burqa. Most either wear a scarf or have bare hair. that is perfectly ok.
- Getting a double room is ok, no-one will be offended.
- No one gets stoned in Egypt, for anything,
Good to know -- we should all avoid bringing marijuana. ;-)
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
...as long as you're not involved... So simple. You'll be able to choose, LGBT people not. So you can go there, if you want. We, even if we would like to go there, we can't.
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
...as long as you're not involved... So simple. You'll be able to choose, LGBT people not. So you can go there, if you want. We, even if we would like to go there, we can't.
Why can't you? Have they installed "gay detectors" in the airport which will out any "LGBT people" who pass through it?
Now Mark raises a valid point that transsexuals pose a different set of issues, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Egyptian government goes against transsexuals.
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Why can't you? Have they installed "gay detectors" in the airport which will out any "LGBT people" who pass through it?
It seems to me that you've obviously no idea of what are you talking about, and what means being gay. So, as long as I'm not interested in attending Wikimania, and as long as my only concern was to explain how subtle homophobic were some of the phrases I've read on this thread, and as long as it seems people _want_ to ignore LGBT concerns cause they believe these concerns are stupid concerns of decerebrated and paranoic people, I think it's better to stop here.
But I'm sorry to see what I've seen, in WMF.
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Why can't you? Have they installed "gay detectors" in the airport which will out any "LGBT people" who pass through it?
It seems to me that you've obviously no idea of what are you talking about, and what means being gay.
Feel free to explain it, privately if you'd like. I thought being gay meant you were sexually attracted to people of the same sex. I don't think this can be easily detected. It'd probably be easier to detect potheads than homosexuals.
"LGBT people should not be viewed as a special interest group, but as people. Just like us, homogenous, no different."
So, as long as I'm not interested in attending Wikimania, and as long as my only concern was to explain how subtle homophobic were some of the phrases I've read on this thread, and as long as it seems people _want_ to ignore LGBT concerns cause they believe these concerns are stupid concerns of decerebrated and paranoic people, I think it's better to stop here.
You haven't explained it well. If you want to give up now, just when we were starting to get somewhere (you apparently have discovered my problem, that I don't know what it means to be gay), go ahead.
But I'm sorry to see what I've seen, in WMF.
Like everyone else here (or perhaps moreso), I don't speak on behalf of the foundation.
Hoi, Yes, you can. Like everyone else you have to remember; when in Rome do as the Romans do ! Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
...as long as you're not involved... So simple. You'll be able to choose, LGBT people not. So you can go there, if you want. We, even if we would like to go there, we can't.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I thought freedom of expression was an international human right?
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:33 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Yes, you can. Like everyone else you have to remember; when in Rome do as the Romans do ! Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
...as long as you're not involved... So simple. You'll be able to choose, LGBT people not. So you can go there, if you want. We, even if we would like to go there, we can't.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I thought freedom of expression was an international human right?
Doesn't mean governments follow it. Like I said before, even in the US people are charged with a crime for soliciting gay sex. I'm sure it's the same in Cape Town too.
On 12/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I thought freedom of expression was an international human right?
Not according to the UN, as far as I can see (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).
Theoratically it should be. Practically it isn't ..... nowhere. Every country in the world has laws that suppress this. It is on our wishlist yours and mine. When you visit the Vatican you will not get far in a miniskirt or short trousers. You will be refused in any temple you want to visit in Bangkok. Same in Egypt. When you go to another country there are different laws. Abide by them or reap the consequences. If you feelyou want to go and preach "western" so called standards wherever you go you will find yourself unwelcome in virtually any country. Apart from your freedoms, local people also have the freedom to make their own laws! Pertaining to their own cultural standards.
Waerth
I thought freedom of expression was an international human right?
-Dan On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:33 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Yes, you can. Like everyone else you have to remember; when in Rome do as the Romans do ! Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/12, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
...as long as you're not involved... So simple. You'll be able to choose, LGBT people not. So you can go there, if you want. We, even if we would like to go there, we can't.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Yes, you can. Like everyone else you have to remember; when in Rome do as the Romans do !
In this case I think you take your advice from the Bangles.
"Walk like an Egyptian"
Brian.
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
Same thing with potheads, though.
On 10/12/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
Same thing with potheads, though.
Or nudists. I don't think the locals would take kindly to people walking around Cairo naked.
So maybe we should only hold wikimania events in marijuana-supporting nudist colonies in Antarctica? That way everyone's interests are looked after ... oh, except the fact that 95% of people can't afford the trip, so there goes that plan...
*sigh*
On 10/12/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
Same thing with potheads, though.
Or nudists. I don't think the locals would take kindly to people walking around Cairo naked.
So maybe we should only hold wikimania events in marijuana-supporting nudist colonies in Antarctica? That way everyone's interests are looked after ...
A Wikimania spread out across geographical locations, so that each person would have a choice of which one to go to, would accomplish a similar goal.
It wouldn't allow people from such disparate locations to meet each other face-to-face, but with the number of people who do so being so tiny (a few hundred people) I don't see the great benefit to that.
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
Same thing with potheads, though.
I don't think sexuality (and it's manifestations in our lives, e.g. the partners we have) can be compared to particular things we like doing like drug use or the foods we like to eat.
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Gatto Nero gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
How discriminatory and offensive. Why should potheads be told that they are free to come, so long as they pretend to be someone they are not?
Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.
No, but I find parts of this thread to be ridiculous. Egypt, like every other country, has a lot of sucky laws. If you don't want to follow them, don't go there.
Isn't this the point of the discussion? LGBT Wikimedians may want to go to Wikimania but will not if they feel intimidated by the laws of the country in which it is held.
Same thing with potheads, though.
I don't think sexuality (and it's manifestations in our lives, e.g. the partners we have) can be compared to particular things we like doing like drug use or the foods we like to eat.
I don't see why it can't.
On 10/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm yet to see anyone give any real cause for fear.
Well, concern anyway. Here's a recent gallup poll:
http://www.gallupworldpoll.com/content/?ci=28762&pg=1
Egypt: Sharia must be the _only_ source of legislation: 67% agree, the highest of any polled country. Significantly higher than the Palestinian territory, or Iran.
I'll be the first to admit, I don't know what tourism is like in Egypt, but numbers like that are more than a little bit concerning.
Jason Safoutin wrote:
I am also not happy with the fact that this is sounding more and more like a political conference than anything and thats not right. If you want to make Wikimania political, then don't get involved. And then to have Jimbo make a speech title that can get a lot into a lot of trouble....take the political mess somewhere else. This is a media conference, not an election.
There is some merit to your saying that it this should not be a political conference, but there is equal justification for saying that it's not a sex conference.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org