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.

On 11/10/2007, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 10/11/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

Dan Rosenthal wrote: Israelis quite regularly vacation in Egypt. Ec

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:

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 10/13/07, Moushira Elamrawy &lt;moushirah(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. -- 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

On 10/12/07, Aphaia &lt;aphaia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 1:57 PM, Anthony at wikimail(a)inbox.org wrote: Are you serious, Anthony? Marc Riddell

on 10/12/07 2:36 PM, Anthony at wikimail(a)inbox.org wrote: No, I did not, Anthony. Marc

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

Il giorno 13/ott/07, alle ore 02:43, Ray Saintonge ha scritto: 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".)

Il giorno 13/ott/07, alle ore 14:32, Anthony ha scritto: 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.

Dan Rosenthal wrote: 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

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. -- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com

Ben Yates wrote: And some people in US government would like a constitutional amendment to insure that a marriage is between one man and one woman. Ec

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 &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- 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

Marc Riddell wrote: 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

Dmcdevit wrote: 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

Casey Brown wrote: 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 Oct 13, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Casey Brown wrote: Please provide evidence where anyone has publicly attacked an individual jury member (as opposed to offering criticism of the jury as a whole) -Dan

"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 &lt;swatjester(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

on 10/14/07 12:06 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com wrote: 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

On 10/13/07, Aphaia &lt;aphaia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

On 10/14/07, Dan Rosenthal &lt;swatjester(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: -- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com

On 14/10/2007, Daniel Mayer &lt;maveric149(a)yahoo.com&gt; 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)198). -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

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 &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: -- http://www.Egyman.net

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 &lt;maveric149(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

On 14/10/2007, MeMo &lt;moamen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. 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. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Oldak Quill wrote: 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

MeMo wrote: 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

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(a)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 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/10/2007, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. Egyptian law treats men and women differently thus legally someone's gender at a given time is of some significance. Jimmy Wales is not transsexual. Transvestism is a separate issue and is treated rather differently. 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. Legally transsexuals are in a better position than GLBs. Transvestites less so not sure about furries. -- geni

On 12/10/2007, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. -- geni

Il giorno 12/ott/07, alle ore 00:31, Muhammad Alsebaey ha scritto: 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?" Someone spoke about 70 gays being arrested in Egypt for being gay. Is it true? 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.

Ray Saintonge wrote: 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.

Do you all find GLBT issues funny? Just to know it, please.

2007/10/12, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: ...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.

2007/10/12, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: 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.

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 &lt;gattonero(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 10/12/07, Dan Rosenthal &lt;swatjester(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

On 12/10/2007, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 10/12/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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 12/10/2007, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 10/11/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion