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

Tue Mar 4 14:46:27 UTC 2008

Oldak,

I have to disagree with part. I do think there have been signs that  
the Foundation recognizes there are issues. I don't think they're  
doing enough about it, but that's very obviously my selfish opinion  
vs. what the foundation feels is how far they need to go. I understand  
that "what I want", i.e., what I believe the best solution to be  
(namely, postponing Wikimania by a few months and moving it to South  
Africa instead), is very unlikely to happen.  That being said, the  
foundation has recognized there are issues. Sue is investigating the  
security issues, Florence has responded to the complaints we've  
brought up by presenting them at the board meeting. There's not a  
whole lot more we can ask for, at least, not until Sue's report comes  
back. We have to be realistic about what the ED and the board have the  
power to actually do about our concerns. Basically, while it's not as  
much as I personally would like, I think the foundation has done as  
much as they can. It's selfish to then ask for more. (I'm not saying  
that as a criticism of anyone at all,  nor accusing anyone of being  
selfish, rather, as a thought process as to how I feel and what I  
think about the steps the foundation has taken when I send these  
emails).

Danny brings up a point that various issues are being conflated and  
confused, and I'd like to second that. There is no one single issue  
here. Terrorism, or human rights, or Muhammad controversy, or poor  
planning, none of those alone are a critical issue, but when viewed  
together, become greater than the sum of their parts. It is because of  
this that I am concerned about the rights of gay wikimedians, though I  
am not gay, and of women wikimedians, though I am not a woman. The  
issues that affect those parties are part of something bigger that  
affects all of us, and dismissing, negating, or ignoring one issue  
does nothing to address the damage of the greater whole.

-Dan

On Mar 4, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Oldak Quill wrote:

> On 04/03/2008, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> Just a quick comment here:
>>
>> I think the problem is that various issues are being conflated and   
>> confused,
>> so that each person participating has valid points, but they are   
>> talking
>> about different circumstances and therefore talking past one   
>> another.
>>
>> 1. Respecting local customs: This is a given anywhere you travel,  
>> and  should
>> be considered as such. For instance, when entering a mosque, you  
>> remove  your
>> shoes. When having dinner with the queen, you do not burp at the  
>> end of the
>> meal to show your satisfaction. Most of this is common courtesy.  
>> There are,
>> however, some societies where accepted social norms would truly  
>> impinge on the
>> freedom of Wikipedians. For example, I am hard pressed to believe  
>> that
>> Wikimania  will be held in Saudi Arabia, where women are required  
>> to cover
>> themselves in  what Westerners would consider a restrictive  
>> fashion, or where someone
>> like  Florence would need a note from her husband or son to appear  
>> outside in
>> public  alone. That said, Egypt is not, I repeat, is NOT, in any  
>> way like that.
>> It is a  country whose economy is fueled by tourism, and they have  
>> seen
>> Western women  before.
>>
>> 2. Respecting local laws: I am not going to discuss the Egyptian  
>> sodomy  laws
>> per se, but suffice it to say that among Egypt's many tourists are  
>> many gay
>> tourists, and I don't know of anyone arrested for that. In fact, it  
>> is harder
>> to  get into the Cayman Islands if you are gay. That said, do not  
>> have sex
>> with your  partner in midday in a bustling market. But hey, I would  
>> go so far as
>> to suggest  the same behavior in Amsterdam.
>
> Thank you for pointing out to gay Wikimedians that they cannot have
> sex in public. Since sex with your partner at "midday in a bustling
> market" is common custom throughout the Western world, this was a
> productive and helpful thing to say.
>
> According to the British Embassy in Cairo
> (http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1062157948289 
> ),
> "homosexual acts in public are illegal and homosexuals have been
> convicted for breaching laws on public decency". Obviously, sex would
> be considered a "homosexual act", but what about kissing or holding
> hands?
>
> In 2002, the Egyptian government put 52 men on trial for being
> homosexual (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/1858469.stm 
> ).
> According to the article the police tested one man for homosexuality
> by telling him to take down his trousers. He was not wearing Egyptian
> cotton underwear, which meant that he was gay. They tortured him for 3
> days. Initially, they arrested another 8 non-nationals, but did not
> sentence them to a jail term.
>
> 23 of the 52 were convicted and "sentenced to up to five years prison
> with hard labour".
>
> It is not a simple matter of not performing "homosexual acts" in
> public. These 52 were arrested at a private party on a boat. The
> article goes on to say "Meanwhile the arrests of alleged homosexuals
> continue. They are unpredictable. While I was in Cairo I attended the
> appeal hearing of a young man entrapped by the police over a gay
> website. He had been convicted of distributing obscene material...
> three years imprisonment with hard labour".
>
> If I remember correctly, these concerns have been dismissed on this
> list with suggestions that only Egyptian homosexuals are in danger
> (i.e. not tourists). This is not true. In 2003, an Israeli tourist was
> jailed for homosexuality in Egypt. The tourist wasn't arrested for
> having sex at midday in a bustling market. He was entrapped by the
> police when trying to meet local men using the internet. Thankfully,
> he was released from jail after only a couple of weeks
> (http://www.gaymiddleeast.com/news/article19.htm).
>
> So it is not just Egyptians who are in danger, and it is not just
> those who commit lude acts in public who are in danger. To requote the
> BBC: "the arrests of alleged homosexuals continue. They are
> unpredictable."
>
> A translation of the relevant Egyptian Law 10/1961 is provided by
> Human Rights Watch:
> http://hrw.org/reports/2004/egypt0304/9.htm#_Toc63760431 . A
> particularly interesting passage is article 9b (which might put
> Wikimania organisers in legal-grey if a room is given to two men who
> are known to be partners).
>
> The sentence for breaking article 9 is a minimum jail term of 3
> months. The next part, c, states: "Whoever habitually engages in
> debauchery or prostitution" will be similarly punished.
>
> I don't wish to keep nagging on about this, but I haven't seen any
> response from the Foundation acknowledging that this is an issue or a
> problem at all. The continuing objections of users such as Mark
> Williamson and Dan Rosenthal seem to suggest that I am not the only
> one who feels that my concerns haven't been acknowledged.
>
> Telling people to not fuck in public isn't adequate.
>
> -- 
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l