[Foundation-l] Concerns for Safety

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Mar 7, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Nathan wrote:

> You point out new *incidents* that themselves don't point up changed *
> circumstances*. The issue of images of Muhammad, in general, is not  
> new and
> is predictable. The fact that Egypt is predominantly Muslim, despite a
> semblance of official secularity, is not new. This is my point -  
> nothing has
> fundamentally changed about Egypt since it was selected.

Except for the active censorship of images by the government, the  
destabilized safety and political situation etc. That's "changed  
circumstances". If your metric is that Egypt should suddenly become  
non-Muslim to be changed, you're off track.

> I don't have the
> history of the last bid selection - I assumed since no reference was  
> at any
> point made to discussions in the bid selection process, that this  
> particular
> issue wasn't raised as a major problem. If it was, my bad, but then  
> its even
> harder to understand why folks say that its been completely ignored  
> if its
> come up before.

Because it WAS completely ignored. We said "Hey bid team, what have  
you to say about these concerns?" The typical voices shouted "ZOMG  
RACISM/AMERICAN-CENTRIC

>
>
> It is particularly 1L to see tort law the way you seem to and to  
> think that
> there is an opportunity to sue hiding behind each new event. How  
> many cases
> without extraordinary circumstances (i.e. gross negligence)...

Congratulations. You've realized that this entire time, I have been  
discussing duty, one of the elements of negligence. The law student  
bashing is stereotypical, and has deeply dropped my respect for you,  
by the way.

> can you name
> where an *organization* has been sued because it held a conference  
> somewhere
> that was the target of an attack or other unpredictable untoward  
> event?

Funny you mention that, Danny emailed me shortly before this email  
about an event where was personally involved in a lawsuit against the  
Jewish Agency and the American Youth Zionist Foundation for an  
unpredictable event involving the death of a boy attending Masada  
Israel Water Workshop, Group 2.  I'm sure if I looked hard, I could  
find similar situations, such as when Ankie Spitzer sued over the  
Munich Olympics attacks, or David Boim's familys' lawsuit against the  
QLI and HLF for  his death in a terrorist attack. But even if there  
weren't any such situations, it does not have to be a
> Even
> a parent isn't required to protect children from 100% of possible  
> harm, and
> I think the reasonable interpretation of the duty of a parent is  
> far, far
> away from a reasonable interpretation of the duty of the WMF.

With the exception that they come from the same principle of common  
law: that one who relies upon another's position or assurances of  
security, and in so doing loses his freedom to adequately secure  
himself, is owed a duty of protection from criminal acts by the person  
he relies upon. But then again, you were the one initially comparing a  
duty of a parent to that of the WMF. So now you're backing away from  
that interpretation?

> The legal
> angle is simply a non-issue designed to add supposed weight to your
> position. It does not.

Except, of course, where it does.

> You should be careful not to offer an opinion on the
> law presaged by your status as a law student - if someone takes your  
> view as
> authoritative, I'm sure you can dream up circumstances under which  
> you could
> be sued.

Ignoring how pathetically low of a personal attack that is, I've made  
it entirely clear that I am not a lawyer, nor offering legal advice,  
simply presenting my interpretation of the law. It's flat out  
ridiculous to threaten me as such, and certainly repugnant to the  
intent of this list.
>
>
> You have a point when you mention that Wikimania is supposed to have  
> a wide
> draw (paraphrasing), like Wikipedia, and that excluding a number of  
> people
> who feel unsafe to attend can be seen as a conflict with the  
> purpose. There
> is some question over whether the Wikimania is primarily intended to  
> attract
> regional attendees, or global attendees. I think the answer is both,  
> to the
> extent possible. Issues on the ground of the location (on the  
> ground, I
> sound like a politician) always exclude some people - thats  
> inevitable. So
> maybe what we need is a number - how many people who would otherwise  
> go are
> refusing to go to Alexandria because of the security and liberty  
> issues? If
> its a lot of people, that would lend support to your argument and be  
> more
> persuasive in trying to get the Wikimania moved/canceled.

Thing is, we can't get that kind of number without discussion. The  
repeated calls for everyone to shutup, or criticizing people for  
perpetuating this discussion on the list, do nothing to help that.

-Dan
>
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l