> We are disappointed that our international participants won’t get to experience the Zambia we have come to know through our planning for RightsCon

This strikes as a bit naive. Like a bunch of kids who saw a Disney movie about Zambia and then decided to go there and have a RightsCon. Have they seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Zambia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Zambia? I could see if they wanted to sponsor an action there or protest or something but it's unrealistic expecting RightsCon to go without issues there. Unless... the whole point was to show that Zambia would never allow this and they just wanted to "expose it".

▲

pavel_lishin 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I would wager that the people running RightsCon are more familiar with Zambia than someone who's read two Wikipedia articles.

	▲	rdtsc 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I would wager that the people running RightsCon are more familiar with Zambia One would hope, but their actions don't seem to point to that? So you might have lost that wager, unless you wagered also that this part of an exposure or performance to highlight the issue. It would be kind of an expensive, round-about way to do then. > who's read two Wikipedia articles. I read more https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index?continent=Africa. Zambia is one of the most restrictive countries as far legal rights and how lgbtq-friendly it is. Senegal and Gambia are only "ahead" of it. Here is another https://www.fandmglobalbarometers.org/wp-content/uploads/202... > Zambia has received a score of F..." If wikipedia are not enough another 10 sources probably not going to convince anyone. That's my wager :-) > We invested months in building government relationships focused precisely on transparency and mutual understanding, including explicit conversations about the diversity of our community. If this foundation was somehow deemed insufficient, we are left to ask: why was that not communicated to us earlier, rather than only five days before our participants were due to arrive? > This was our red line. Not because we were unwilling to engage, but because the conditions set before us were unacceptable and counter to what RightsCon is and what Access Now stands for. The manner of the government’s communications process this week also raised serious questions as to the integrity, forthrightness, and value of any future engagement based on good faith I can't read that as anything but being naive and not being able to read between the lines.