[Foundation-l] Concern for the safety of Wikimedians at Wikimania in Alexandria.

[Dan Rosenthal]

That said, people with backgrounds in intelligence, terrorism/counter- 
terrorism, and risk assessment in the middle east have been critical  
of the event, and been ignored.

  It's not a hypothetical at all. The conference IS putting those  
individuals at significant security risk, says the Australian embassy.  
"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Egypt because  
of the high threat of terrorist attack." " Political developments in  
the region may prompt large demonstrations across the region,  
including in Egypt. These demonstrations could turn violent and should  
be avoided." The latter quote is especially relevant given the current  
political clime related to the Muhammad images. Note: the Canadian  
government agrees. "These attacks demonstrate that security incidents  
can occur without warning. The risk of possible terrorist attacks in  
areas frequented by Westerners or tourists exists, and further such  
attacks in Egypt cannot be ruled out."
"Egypt remains one of a number of countries where a threat from  
international terrorism exists."

To characterize the above as mere unease is a grave disservice.

Since the last discussion, which I assume to mean that of several  
weeks ago (as this current one is a continuation of discussion over  
the past 2 weeks or so), the amount of animosity over the muhammad  
images (cartoons and wikipedia) has skyrocketed. There has been  
government retaliation against foreign news agencies, anti-semitic  
demonstrations, and increased awareness of Wikipedia's role in the  
controversy. That's a significantly increased risk than we were at  
several weeks ago.

It's like a rich white person hanging out on the streets of <insert  
crime-ridden slum here>. Just by being there, you are at significant  
risk of experiencing a crime. Does that mean one is going to happen?  
No. Can you take steps to limit your risk? Sure. Foremost among them  
is "don't put yourself in that situation in the first place."

By the way...we'd be going to jail for this in Alexandria.

-Dan

PS: Surprisingly enough, the US Department of State has significantly  
less warnings and such about travel in Egypt than the UK, Canada, or  
Australia. Apparently the US department of state is more worried about  
people driving over WWII era land mines after a rainstorm, or getting  
bird flu.

On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:10 AM, George Herbert wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> When the Wikimedia Foundation puts us in a situation that our mere
>> existence is offensive to others, and our mere existence in a country
>> endangers our safety, it's a good sign we should not be holding
>> conferences there. Being openly jewish, gay, or a westernized woman  
>> is
>> offensive to some in Egypt, and unless one is forced to subject
>> themselves to coercive rules and limitations that, I should mention,
>> fundamentally violate standard human rights, then their safety cannot
>> be guaranteed.
>>
>> I don't know how this isn't clear to you Gerard. When we have a
>> situation where our conference attendee's sexual preferences, gender,
>> religion, and birth country must hidden or denied, in order to assure
>> their safety, we simply should NOT be hosting conferences there. It  
>> is
>> an implicit statement that Wikimedia does not support human rights --
>> the right to freedom of religion, freedom of nationality, freedom of
>> sexual preference, and freedom from gender discrimination. It's
>> absolutely unacceptable to say "Instead of admitting that we picked a
>> stupid place to host a conference, we're going to stand by it and
>> force our conference goers to choose between their safety, and their
>> human rights." That's a fundamentally wrong thing for the Wikimedia
>> Foundation to do, but it's precisely what they've been doing.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
> Hypothetically, if the conference is actually putting attendees at
> significant security risk due to terrorism, or those with alternative
> lifestyles or sexual preferences at significant risk, then perhaps a
> re-siting decision would be called for.
>
> What was in evidence after the previous discussion about the latter  
> issues
> was vague unease, not evidence that there was actual serious risk  
> there.
>
> What is in evidence now about the security situation is vague  
> unease, not
> evidence that there's serious risk there.
>
> Please don't turn vague unease into a mad rush to abandon the site.   
> If
> anyone participating happens to be a private or governmental  
> intelligence
> analyst or counterterrorism professional with middle east  
> experience, or
> know people who are, it might help if you talk to the Foundation and  
> input
> what you know.
>
> I am acutely aware of the history and issues involved, in religious,  
> local
> political, geopolitical, and local and regional terrorist incident  
> history,
> but I don't have any current useful intelligence or background to do  
> an
> event risk assessment.
>
> Unless someone with that experience and those specific skills is  
> willing to
> publically comment here, we're operating the thread without a  
> competent
> level of knowledge to hold a serious discussion on the topic.
>
> I oppose hyperbolic conversations eminating from vague unease.
>
>
> -- 
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l