By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a prior denial of entry into Turkey due to its LGBTQ+ charter, the cruise ship Scarlet Lady has now been refused passage into Egyptian waters. This sudden decision, impacting 2,000 passengers, including Broadway performer Patti LuPone, forced the ship to reroute its itinerary for the second time. While official reasons for the Egyptian ban remain undisclosed, the Turkish authorities cited the cruise being chartered by a group with “behaviors that do not align with the structure of our society and our moral values.” This situation raises concerns that other nations may follow suit, potentially impacting future LGBTQ+ tourism.
Read the original article here
It’s quite the developing story: a cruise ship specifically catering to the LGBTQ+ community has faced a double whammy of port rejections, first from Turkey and then, just days later, from Egypt. This situation has understandably sparked a lot of conversation and, frankly, not a small amount of bewilderment about the choices made by the cruise organizers and the reactions of these host countries.
Honestly, if I were planning a gay cruise, my immediate thought would be to seek out destinations that are generally more welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community. It seems a fundamental aspect of ensuring a positive and safe experience for all passengers. The fact that this particular cruise has been turned away from not one, but two countries known for their less-than-friendly stances on LGBTQ+ rights, raises some significant questions about the planning process.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that perhaps the organizers didn’t fully consider the implications of their chosen itinerary. While these countries might have been visited in the past without incident, it’s been speculated that the presence of celebrities on board this specific sailing might have amplified awareness, making the situation less likely to be overlooked by authorities. This raises the question: was there a genuine lack of foresight, or is there another motive at play?
Some are suggesting that the cruise operators might be intentionally choosing these “unfriendly places” for publicity. The idea is that such a visible rejection would generate headlines and, in turn, draw more attention to the cruise and the issues faced by the LGBTQ+ community in these regions. It’s a controversial thought, implying a deliberate poking of the bear, a strategy that, while attention-grabbing, could also be seen as irresponsible.
It’s not hard to understand the perspective of many within the queer community who would steer clear of such destinations. The thought of deboarding in places where one’s identity could be met with hostility, or worse, is a deeply unsettling one. This sentiment is echoed by personal experiences; one anecdote even shared that dating apps like Tinder advised against swiping while in Egypt, highlighting the reality of the situation on the ground.
The choice of Turkey and Egypt as cruise stops, given their known social and legal landscapes regarding LGBTQ+ individuals, seems like a strategic misstep to many. It leads to the rhetorical question: what’s next, Chechnya and Iran? The implication is that these destinations are not just unwelcoming, but actively hostile, making the decision to include them in a gay-centric itinerary particularly baffling.
Moreover, the economic aspect is frequently brought up. Why would anyone choose to spend their tourist dollars in countries that are not only unwelcoming but actively discriminatory towards a significant portion of the global population? The argument is strong: by patronizing these destinations, the cruise is effectively funding environments that may be harmful to LGBTQ+ people, both visitors and residents.
The lack of proper port access figured out by an international cruise line is also a point of contention. One would expect meticulous planning and confirmation with ports of call, especially when the cruise explicitly promotes an identity that is vehemently, and sometimes violently, opposed in certain regions. This suggests a significant oversight or a calculated gamble that didn’t pay off.
The idea of voting with one’s tourist dollars is a powerful one in these discussions. For many, the only sensible course of action is to boycott such destinations entirely. The concern is that by continuing to visit, the LGBTQ+ community is implicitly condoning or at least tolerating the repressive policies in place, which is seen as counterproductive to the fight for equality.
There’s a palpable sense of frustration from many who identify with the LGBTQ+ community. The question “what the hell is wrong with these guys?” is posed, reflecting a disbelief that anyone would willingly put themselves in a potentially precarious situation. The jokes about “get thrown off a building” excursions, while dark, speak to the real fears associated with these destinations.
The cruise line itself is urged by some to stop “poking the goddamn bear” and instead opt for more accepting destinations like Europe. The sentiment is that rather than challenging deeply ingrained homophobia, which can be dangerous, it’s more practical and safer to seek out places that are already affirming.
On the other hand, there are strong sentiments directed at the host countries, with calls for boycotts against both Turkey and Egypt. This perspective places the blame squarely on the nations that refused entry, highlighting their intolerance. However, it’s also noted that this reaction isn’t entirely surprising given the known stances of these countries on LGBTQ+ rights.
The observation that the cruise might be skipping countries in the Middle East that actually have a significant and vibrant LGBTQ+ culture, like Israel with its large pride parades, adds another layer of complexity. It suggests that the cruise’s destination choices might not be driven by a desire to engage with or support LGBTQ+ communities in the region, but rather by other, less altruistic factors.
The reality, as some point out, is that conservative countries often welcome money from tourists, regardless of their identity. This pragmatic, albeit cynical, view suggests a transactional relationship where hospitality is offered in exchange for economic benefit, but only up to a certain point. The cruise, by its very nature, likely flags its passenger demographic to the host countries.
There are also discussions about the specifics of the input, such as the mention of Patti LuPone performing on the ship, which brought a celebrity dimension to the narrative. Her expressed frustration at being denied entry to Turkey, due to the passengers’ identities, underscores the perceived injustice of the situation. She highlighted the absurdity of being banned simply because of who is on board, a sentiment that resonates with many.
The underlying irony is that for some, the inclusion of such destinations was never going to be a surprise. The thought that “Egypt is letting them in” might have been a fleeting notion before the reality of their refusal became clear. It’s a case of expectations being met, albeit in a negative and discriminatory way.
The question of what exactly makes the cruise “LGBTQ+” is also raised, as if to downplay the significance of the passengers’ identities. However, the core issue remains the refusal of entry based on those identities. Similarly, the suggestion to visit Mexico instead points to more readily available and openly welcoming destinations for LGBTQ+ travelers.
The practicalities of such travel are also a concern. In some of these countries, even sharing a room without being married is not permitted, let alone the open expression of LGBTQ+ identity. While foreigners may sometimes receive leeway, the fundamental cultural and legal barriers are substantial.
Ultimately, the situation with the LGBTQ+ cruise ship being refused entry to both Turkey and Egypt is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles for acceptance and equality faced by the community worldwide. It’s a complex issue that involves diplomatic relations, cultural sensitivities, and, for many, a fundamental question of human rights. The hope is that such incidents, while disheartening, will spark further dialogue and, perhaps, lead to more thoughtful planning and ultimately, more inclusive destinations in the future.