By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following its exclusion from Turkey due to perceived incompatibility with societal values, an LGBTQ cruise was subsequently denied entry to Egypt. The operator, Atlantis Events, stated that official approval for the ship’s arrival in Alexandria was revoked just hours before docking, with no explanation provided. This marks a disappointing turn of events for Atlantis Events, which had previously docked in Egypt without issue on multiple occasions.
Read the original article here
It appears a recent LGBTQ+ cruise experienced a significant setback, being denied entry to Egypt after already facing a similar exclusion from Turkey. This situation has naturally sparked a good deal of discussion and, quite frankly, disbelief. It really makes one ponder the planning and thought process behind such an itinerary. It seems, to many, that embarking on an “LGBTQ cruise” in the Middle East, a region with varying and often restrictive stances on LGBTQ+ rights, wasn’t the most well-considered idea.
The reactions suggest a general consensus that this was, to put it mildly, a clusterfuck of an idea. The core of the concern seems to stem from the fundamental question: why choose destinations that are, at best, ideologically opposed to the lifestyle and identities of the passengers? For many, the simple answer is that if you’re openly gay, keeping that aspect of your identity to yourself in many parts of the Middle East is advisable, and perhaps even safer, than actively seeking out those destinations for a celebratory cruise.
There’s a strong sentiment that the safety of the passengers should have been a paramount concern, and that the denial of port in both Turkey and Egypt, while surprising to some, might ultimately have been for the best. The comparison to Egypt’s past stance on pride flags in sports venues underscores the perceived ideological incompatibility, making the cruise’s itinerary seem even more questionable. It raises the question of what, exactly, the organizers were thinking when they planned this route, especially when considering other potential, more welcoming destinations.
The idea of a cruise specifically branded as “LGBTQ+” sailing into countries where LGBTQ+ individuals face significant legal and social challenges is baffling to many. It’s a sentiment echoed by queer individuals themselves, who express bewilderment at the decision-making process. The lack of basic human rights for LGBTQ+ people in these regions is a stark reality that seems to have been overlooked, leading to a scenario where passengers could potentially face dangerous situations.
Many commenters express a desire to understand the rationale, questioning if alternative, more tolerant ports were considered. The absence of foresight or a willingness to acknowledge the geopolitical and cultural realities of the chosen destinations appears to be the central point of criticism. It’s as if the organizers failed to consider the fundamental opposition between the cruise’s identity and the host countries’ societal norms.
Some mused about the cruise potentially being a publicity stunt or an attempt to prove a point, though the prevailing sentiment leans towards a profound miscalculation. The suggestion that countries like Israel, particularly Tel Aviv, could offer a more welcoming environment is frequently brought up as a stark contrast, highlighting that more amenable options might have existed within the region, albeit with their own geopolitical considerations.
The discussion also touches on the idea of passenger expectations and the cruise line’s responsibility. While some might see the denial as a result of the cruise’s explicit branding, others feel the cruise line should have been more proactive in vetting potential ports. It begs the question of when, or if, the queer community will collectively gain a clearer understanding of navigating regions where their rights and freedoms are not guaranteed.
There’s a cynical undercurrent to some comments, suggesting a lack of basic common sense in planning such a voyage. The notion of “enriching jurisdictions that treat them badly” is also raised, prompting a reflection on why individuals would choose to patronize countries that do not align with their values or offer them respect and safety. This sentiment is even extended to domestic travel, with some expressing reluctance to visit places like Florida due to perceived anti-queer policies.
Ultimately, the denied entry to Egypt after Turkey’s refusal serves as a focal point for a broader conversation about cultural understanding, risk assessment, and the complexities of planning inclusive travel in a world that is not universally accepting. The repeated questioning of the decision-makers’ logic, coupled with concerns for passenger safety, suggests that this cruise itinerary was, for many observers, a significant and perhaps avoidable misstep.