76 thoughts on “Taking Inventory of Future Worldcon Bids”

1. The dates for DC in 2021 were announced as August 25th to 29th (the last full weekend in August and the weekend before Dragoncon).

2. I would certainly support, with my labor even, a bid from outside the USA for 2021. Alas, they only have until March to file with Dublin to get on the Site Selection Ballot. It’s not a lot of time to get a bid together.

   A bid for 2022 is more practical and I’d support that, too.

3. I have added a little bit more information to the Worldcon and NASFiC web sites’ bid pages to point people wanting to update bid information at the sites’ contact forms.

4. Anyone know why the New Orleans 2023 bid has 2018 in the logo….?

5. I will support a bid in US. I think americans with low income also should have a chance to go to Worldcon. And if Washington should win, I hope they will set up a scheme to donate memberships based on class.

   But I most likely will skip out on it myself.

6. It’s unlikely I would go to a non US Worldcon so I hope they continue to have some here, some abroad. A variety of places would maximize the people who can attend.

7. It’s a rough call. On one hand, it’s not fair to the large SF/F fanbase in the US, many if not most of whom do not support this from their government, to host Worldcon constantly out of the country such that travel costs make it impractical for most to go to the event (An event in Canada might be a compromise that would work, but none are proposed).

   On the other hand, the idea of Worldcon is to cater to an international audience, and the event is including more and more authors from outside the US, many of whom will not be able or want to risk coming to the US given the situation. The possibility that a Hugo Award Winner won’t be able to come to the US seems almost inevitable at this point, for example.

   I don’t think DC in 2021 is a problem – as that’ll be after two straight Worldcons out of the Country and a new administration could be around by then (Please Please Please) – PNH may be right that the issues may not have reversed by then, but if they’re starting to, it’d be nice for US fans to have a chance to attend a worldcon. I’d support a 2022 bid out of the country until more is known about what will change by then, tho.

8. The border issues don’t just affect people outside the U.S.

   Something that most of the calls for “NO US WORLDCONS” ignores is that trans people have had their passports under their current identities and genders revoked recently, and others have been refused passports. A Hugo-nominated writer and their partner have both stated that they cannot leave the U.S. for fear that they will not be allowed back in. ICE has been attempted to deport people who are U.S. citizens. Disadvantaged and minority people in the U.S. would be the fans most penalized by a “no U.S. Worldcon” policy. And none of these people are in a position of power to effect change on U.S. border policy.

   As others have pointed out, having a mix of international and U.S. Worldcons is the best solution to enabling all fans to have a least a chance of attending a Worldcon at some point.

9. JJ, well said. I agree with you and the others making similar points.

10. And considering Worldcon bids have to set up WAY in advance of any elections, it hardly seems fair to cons post-2020, does it?

    Even overseas, the US fans manage to be a large plurality; whether smaller Worldcons are better or worse is up to the reader.

    Not having Worldcon for two years in a row certainly won’t help.

    JJ has a good point about many people who can’t leave the US — you’d be punishing actual diversity (gender, racial, religious, and economic) to make yourself feel righteous. The only people who support current policies are the ones who don’t go to overseas cons anyway.

    Then there’s the money issue. I can barely afford to go to Worldcons in the US; overseas is never going to happen. That’s true for a lot of Americans. So you’re telling them they can never go to a Worldcon over something they have no control over and didn’t support? Again, allowing for lag time, that’d be no US Worldcons till at least 2030. That’s a new generation lost, an old one dead, and a lot of institutional knowledge unused.

    And finally, if people are all huffy about US policies, I presume they are going to be just as disapproving of the Chengdu bid. Haven’t seen anyone up in arms about that, though. Any Twitter storms of outrage over free speech, Tibet, re-education camps for Muslims in Xinjiang… anyone?

11. Anyone who suggests American Worldcon bids should be rejected on human rights grounds but is mute with respect to China’s bid is, at a minimum, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

12. “Three cities are being considered — Glasgow, Scotland; London, England.”

    It was three, but Liverpool was ruled out.

    Yes, London and the City of London are different entities, but even so London does not count as two.

13. Typo: the UK bid is considering only two cities (the two listed), not three; the questionnaire says they dropped Liverpool because it lacked “infrastructure” (don’t ask me whether that means facilities, ways to get between them, …).

    @Cassy B: I was wondering about that; considering that they also are rather short on hotel rooms, I suspect the bid is not exactly up to speed yet. Seattle is even more vaporous; it will be interesting to see whether they can make a deal for Seattle space where other bidders failed.

    @Lurkertype: my reaction (re Chengdu) also. I suspect they’ll say “that’s our internal affair, nothing to do with whether people can get in” — but I wonder whether public China critics will find they can’t get memberships.

14. Getting a viable non-US bid together for 2021 is close to impossible. I also believe there should still be WorldCons in the US, for all the fans who cannot leave the US for economic or political reasons. Though as long as Trump is in office and maybe even beyond (even with a different president, many travel restrictions and intrusive security measures will probably remain in force, because lightening travel restrictions for foreigners is not the sort of thing that wins votes), there will be a significantly lower international attendance at US WorldCons. I’m certainly not travelling to the US for the time being and I’m far from the only one.

    Getting a viable non-US bid together for 2022 should be more possible, so maybe those who want fewer US WorldCons should focus on that. Plus, New Orleans may well win the 2023 bid, since the Nice folks are inexperienced and Chengdu has the problem of being located in an illiberal country. Though pesonally I would feel safer travelling to China than to the US at the moment, because the Chinese government for all its many highly problematic policies usually leaves foreigners alone, unless they do something to provoke the regime. Whereas the US seems to delight in harrassing travellers.

    But with the current worldwide trend towards more border controls and stricter travel restrictions (which infuriates me because travel is a human right and no country should require more than a passport for spending a week or two there), almost everywhere could be problematic for some people to visit. There have been several cases of artists, musicians, writers, etc… from Africa or the Middle East, but also parts of Asia (one example was a metal band from Cambodia) being refused entry into the Schengen area, the EU in general or the UK in recent times, even though those artists, writers, musicians, etc… had official invitations from festivals and the like, because it was feared they would stay in the host country and not return. And a post Brexit UK shows signs of being hostile even to EU citizens, particularly from Eastern Europe, let alone anybody else. For example, I still haven’t decided whether to attend Eurocon in Belfast the weekend after WorldCon 77, because we still don’t know if the UK border guards will start hassling EU citizens, requiring visa, extensive security checks, financial statements and other idiocies, post Brexit. It’s also not impossible that violence will erupt again in Northern Ireland.

    So the best bet is probably to hold WorldCons in as many different parts of the world as possible, so that fans from everywhere can attend at least once in a while.

15. I would only add that election results aren’t just a risk factor for American Worldcons. (For instance, we’ll have to vote on site selection for 2023 without knowing who wins the 2022 French presidential election.)

    I do agree with asking bidders about issues that international travelers are likely to encounter with entering one’s country.

16. @Chip Hitchcock

    my reaction (re Chengdu) also. I suspect they’ll say “that’s our internal affair, nothing to do with whether people can get in” — but I wonder whether public China critics will find they can’t get memberships.

    I suspect that very public China critics would not be granted visa, but that attendants who have not been vocally critical of China or supportive of the Chinese opposition would be left alone. Though I worry about Chinese expats and their direct descendants living abroad (and there are quite a few folks of Chinese descent in fandom), because they or their families might well have had a very good reason to leave and don’t dare to go back.

17. @Goobergunch
    Yes, a France possibly governed by Marine Le Pen would also be an unpleasant destination particularly for muslims and POC.

    As for the 2024 UK bid, it’s not even certain if the UK in its current form will still exist in 2024.

18. Tom Becker: My copyediting gets even worse when I’m watching football. Appertain your favorite beverage!

19. Regarding Olav Rokne’s comment, every country which has ever hosted a Worldcon and every country which has an active bid is rated as “Free” by Freedom House’s Freedom in the World (linked above, but apparently not the same as the “World Freedom Index“) — with the notable exception of China, which is rated as “Not Free”.

    Amnesty International doesn’t appear to have a rating or ranking system — rather, their report finds something to criticize in every country they analyze.

20. Agrees with JJ and Cora Buhlert: I might not have any interest in going to the USA under the current administration, but I would not like that to block American fandom from hosting the event that they very much created. Better to focus on improving the Worldcons wherever it is held than trying to block certain people to host one.

    A much greater problem is rather to keep international cooperation and contacts going despite the best efforts of governments in the USA, UK, Poland, Hungary, and so on.

21. Cora Buhlert: So the best bet is probably to hold WorldCons in as many different parts of the world as possible, so that fans from everywhere can attend at least once in a while.

    Yes, this.

22. I admit to an entirely selfish desire for Chicago to get the Worldcon in 2022; that would mean I could go to it….

23. @Karl-Johan Norén
    Poland is a good example. The country has taken a very problematic turn, but it also has an enthusiastic fandom and an active con scene. It’s not inconceivable that they might big for a WorldCon some day.

24. This may not impact any fans, but those going to New Zealand in 2020 might want to be aware of this:

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/367642/travellers-refusing-digital-search-now-face-5000-customs-fine

25. @Joel Zakem
    Sigh, it’s getting worse everywhere.

26. Yep, NZ now only slightly better (in theory reasonable suspicion required) than the rest of the Anglosphere
    https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2017/07/19/border-rights/

    A rate of ~500 times a year seems reasonable, but obviously that can’t prevent all abuse. If they are meant to examine them in ‘airplane mode’, then removing eg WhatsApp and your password manager from the device looks like an option – reinstall when groundside (except in the USA due to no constitution in border areas).

27. Were there reports in San Jose of any foreign attendees having problems getting in to the country? or of having their digital devices searched?

28. I have considered (and rejected, partially because it would be a lot of work, but primarily because it would be stabbing DC-in-2021 in the back) setting up a bid for a minimal, and required-things-only WorldCon for 2021 (and 2022, and 2023), with the programming being essentially “business meeting” and “site selection”.

    Also, this is not my idea, originally, but the two people I spoke with about it at WorldCon 75 can identify themselves, should they want to.

29. bill, there are multiple reports of people having their rights ignored when crossing the US border, why are only ones linked to a WorldCon of concern?

30. Ingvar: I have considered (and rejected, partially because it would be a lot of work, but primarily because it would be stabbing DC-in-2021 in the back) setting up a bid for a minimal, and required-things-only WorldCon for 2021 (and 2022, and 2023), with the programming being essentially “business meeting” and “site selection”.

    A minimal Worldcon bid is something that should be done only as a very last resort in the absence of a viable Worldcon bid. It’s not something to be done to sabotage viable bids because someone doesn’t happen to like where they’re located.

31. @errolwi
    bill, there are multiple reports of people having their rights ignored when crossing the US border, why are only ones linked to a WorldCon of concern?

    1. Don’t presume that only ones linked to a WorldCon are of concern to me. I’m enough of a civil libertarian to be distressed by all of the violations of rights that occur at borders (and elsewhere). However, it seems to me that the participants at File770 overlap with WorldCon membership sufficiently to make a targeted request for information useful.

    2. Some have proposed rejecting US hosting bids as a solution to [something], or as a protest. This strikes me as a significant action, with the potential for serious unintended consequences. If it turns out that the problem of foreign attendees having troubles entering the country or being digitally searched is small (currently zero known [to me, subject to revision] events in 2018), then perhaps actively rejecting American hosting bids is an overreaction.

32. Amal El-Mohtar has trouble every time she crosses the border from Canada to the U.S. She has been quite open about it. She always (so far) gets through in the end, but most recently her Nexxus card was revoked while on a writers’ cruise, making her trip back home via the U.S. difficult.

    I’m sure there are others. But besides that, I have heard many, many people, including some right here on File 770, say they will not travel to the U.S. under current conditions. So, yes, it’s a problem.

    This doesn’t mean I believe we should reject all U.S, bids, because, as aforesaid, there are also Americans afraid to leave the country for fear of not being allowed back in. In addition, many people (probably including myself) would be shut out of attending for financial reasons if we did that. Spreading it around allows more people to attend. And, finally, there are a limited number of groups able and willing to throw a worldcon. At this point there are not enough of those groups outside the U.S.

33. Cheryl Morgan and Peter Watts both cannot enter the US at all. And Amal El-Mohtar has talked about problems at the US border several times, including border personnel searching private notebooks and the like. That’s three people from our community, two Hugo winners and a finalist, who either cannot attend or might have significant problems.

    Add to that fans and pros who simply will not attend a WorldCon in the US, while the current government is in power. Also, just the fear of having border personnel search your electronic devices is enough to deter many people. Remember that many WorldCon attendants are writers and other creatives and writers/creatives are understandably very protective of their files, documents, etc… Also, a lot of WorldCon attendants work in tech and may worry about sensitive day job documents falling into the hands of unauthorised US border guards (industrial espionage is a thing and the US engages in it – coincidentally, this would also be a potential issue with Chengdu). Others may worry that their political activities, e.g. because they work with refugees, will put them on a list. All three of these apply to me to varying degrees.

    So the problem is real. Though this doesn’t mean that there should never be a WorldCon in the US again, because the issue of US residents who cannot travel abroad for various reasons is just as real.

34. @bill Apologies, I should have said ‘of interest’. However, surely any reported issues are of interest, as those feeling vulnerable etc will respond to stated and demonstrated policies, regardless of the reason of travel of victims? As well as people like myself who refuse to travel to locations on the basis on the policies there, rather than perceived risk to themselves.

35. The Cheryl Morgan and Peter Watts situation has also impacted their travel to other countries, as they have to tick ‘yes’ to the question about having been refused entry every time they cross a documented border. Doesn’t help the stress levels.

36. Errolwi: When people talk about Peter Watts they never mention that a jury found him guilty of a felony. So yes, I guess he’s going to have to check that box “yes” if asked.

37. OGH: As do people convicted of e.g. homosexual activities in countries where that has a maximum penalty of over x years (or ‘insulting the monarch’ in Thailand), value of x depending on country of entry.
    The bar to having future hassles at borders isn’t that high.

38. errolwi: So your argument is that because people can get convicted of horseshit felonies someplace that it’s an unjustified burden for Peter Watts to have to answer yes about a felony conviction that resulted from a law violation during a border crossing? That’s frankly not much of an argument.

39. @ JJ:

    Indeed, thus my “it would be a stab in the back” comment,

40. Ingvar: Indeed, thus my “it would be a stab in the back” comment,

    And yet you mentioned considering doing it for several years. Why is DC any more deserving of consideration than any other viable bid?

    If you’re referring to the proposal by KS (to which I contributed), it’s a joke and an excuse for a party, not a serious proposal, and I’m sorry if that wasn’t made clear to you.

41. So, I know that US Border is understanding of BS problems in other countries. Someone very close to me who had a legal problem in another country had no problem getting into the USA when they explained the issue in the other country.

    Also, I know someone who was denied access to the UK. Does that mean we should boycott all UK Worldcons?

42. I have another major problem with this.

    Foreign Worldcons pretty much can’t run without the help of USians. Some Foreign Worldcons (like Loncon) burned out a lot of USians.

    On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that a US Worldcon could run with no foreign staff at all. Not that I would want that.

    So, you are asking us to give up US Worldcons, but still help Foreign Worldcons?

    That is kind of daft.

    Fortunately, it seems that most of the people running Foreign Worldcons understand this and are still supportive of US Bids.

43. @ JJ:

    There’s a difference between contemplating “this is something that could be done” and thinking “this is something that should be done”.

44. Re: Morgan and El-Mohtar. I am sorry for their problems. To the extent that I can find out about their situations, they seem “blameless” and do not deserve the troubles they have. However,
    – There are American citizens who have had much worse problems.
    – Airline security is a complex system with many moving parts, run by humans. It will screw up. Enough SF people come and go to and from America that it is bound to catch some of them. Actively working to vote down American Worldcon bids won’t change that and won’t help them, and like I suggested above, seems disproportionate.
    Re: Watts. A border guard told him to get on the ground, and he didn’t do so. He’s admitted this. “Failure to comply with a lawful order” is a thing, and it’s a felony. This is all on him.
    Re: @ Cora Add to that fans and pros who simply will not attend a WorldCon in the US, while the current government is in power.
    If you don’t like Trump and don’t want to come to America while he’s president, that’s your business and your privilege. But working to vote down American Worldcons for the duration means that you are trying to make that decision for other people.

    Many people on this forum chastised Hugo voters for voting for or against a work for any reason other than the merits of the work. I can’t see any principled difference between that and voting for or against a Worldcon bid for any reason other than the merits of the bid.

    @Rick Kovalcik’s post accurately captures what has been going on in my head. If WSFS turns anti-American in a significant way, don’t be surprised if American fandom turns anti-WSFS. That would be bad for WSFS and Worldcon.

45. Bill, most of us are saying we should have worldcons both in the U.S. and outside it, while lamenting the border issues. It sounds like we actually agree with you, so why are you acting like we don’t?

    Except I wouldn’t say Peter Watts’ situation was all on him. From what I’ve read, the border guard went way overboard and should never have given him that order. The fact that he refused it is on him, but not the entire situation. However, neither of us was there.

46. Bill:

    “Re: Watts. A border guard told him to get on the ground, and he didn’t do so. He’s admitted this. “Failure to comply with a lawful order” is a thing, and it’s a felony. This is all on him.”

    This is an argument against Worldcons in US, right? Because in most countries, border police do not mace and assault people when they are slow to follow an order. They give several chances, they have a policy of non-escalation.

47. Also with regards to the americans that have had much more problems… What worldcon are you talking about here and what problem did they have at the border?

48. @Bill

    If you don’t like Trump and don’t want to come to America while he’s president, that’s your business and your privilege. But working to vote down American Worldcons for the duration means that you are trying to make that decision for other people.

    I never said this. Instead, I (and pretty much everybody else) explicitly said that there should still be WorldCons in the US, but perhaps not as many as in previous decades. It’s perfectly okay if the US only has a WorldCon every second or third year. Australians and Europeans used to get only one WorldCon per decade until fairly recently, while other parts of the world never got one at all or still don’t get one.

    And when there is a viable bid for a WorldCon that I can attend (meaning mostly Europe) I will vote for this bid over a bid for a WorldCon that I cannot attend. I suspect many people do the same, regardless of their location. Usually, if the only bid is for somewhere I likely cannot attend (e.g. San José or New Zealand or very probably DC), I don’t vote at all.

    As for Peter Watts, I didn’t follow the case closely. I have never met the man and don’t know what he is like in person, though I don’t much care for his books. However, as I understand it, he was a white Canadian citizen crossing the US-Canadian border after visiting the US town across the border for the day. Basically, Peter Watts was engaging in what is called local border traffic in Europe, i.e. people living near the border crossing regularly to go to work, shopping, visit friends, etc… and usually return on the same day. Local border traffic is subjected to no or very casual checks, usually you just get waved through and this was already so long before the Schengen era. And besides, the US-Canadian border isn’t exactly a hotspot for illegal immigration or criminal activity.

    So Peter Watts was crossing a border where he should have been waved through or at most have been asked to show his passport (and probably was on previous occasions). Now the border guards might have had a reason to stop him and search his car – maybe they’d gotten a tip that someone driving a similar car was trying to smuggle drugs or something. However, when you’re normally waved through and suddenly you’re stopped at a border and someone wants to search your car, you tend to get irritated and ask why. Remember my experience as an 18 or 19-year-old at the Dutch border, at a small crossing I’d crossed a hundred times before with no problem, when I suddenly got stopped for being young and having an old car. I got out of the car, but I also asked the border guard why and what the problem was, because this was highly irregular. And I might have been a tad indignant, once I grasped what they were looking for, because this border guard had just insinuated that I looked like a trashy, drug-taking person to them.

    However, in Europe no police officer or border guard would ever ask someone to lie down on the ground (why, for heaven’s sake?) unless maybe they were a bank robber or terrorist or something like that. They certainly wouldn’t ask that of a person they’d stopped at a border crossing and whose car they were trying to search. And if someone told me to lie down on the ground, I also wouldn’t comply at once and probably ask why, because I am not a criminal and I’m not going to lie down on the dirty ground, because it’s is disgusting. Also, why didn’t they just ask him to step away or pat him down or something. There was no reason to tell Watts to lie down on the ground, unless he had a gun or was actively threatening the border guards.

    So while I don’t know what exactly Watts did, whether he was rude, etc… it’s pretty obvious that the border guard completely overreacted. Besides, US border guards are infamously rude. The trial and conviction was a complete joke, because the whole thing should have ended, when the border guards determined that Watts was not a threat (and there was no evidence that he was, e.g. he didn’t have weapons or drugs or something) and let him go home.

    And crap like this is why many people are reluctant to visit the US and were even before Trump came into power.

49. Cora Buhlert: The trial and conviction was a complete joke, because the whole thing should have ended, when the border guards determined that Watts was not a threat (and there was no evidence that he was, e.g. he didn’t have weapons or drugs or something) and let him go home.

    Where does that come from? Even Watts never claimed that.

    Unfortunately, none of the source news articles about the trial are still online, only my summary in this 2010 post —

    Watts himself testified on March 17 in the afternoon, as did the passenger in his car on the date of the border-crossing incident.

    Watts said he was returning home to Toronto after helping a friend move. He had just paid his toll on the American side of the international bridge when he noticed a “flicker of motion” outside his car window. The motion, as other witnesses had testified, was a border officer attempting to wave his vehicle to a stop for a random inspection. Watts said the wave was “ambiguous.”

    Watts said he stopped after his passenger, Marcus Kumala, told him to, and when he rolled down the window, the officer said: “‘When I go like this (Watts put up his hand), I’m not waving hello.’”

    Watts said he responded “I guess we’re not in Canada, because in Canada that sometimes means hello.”

    Times Herald reporter Lis Shepard’s article adds: Watts said he became irritated by the officers’ search of the car and bags in the back seat and got out of the vehicle because he wanted to know what was going on. Watts heard an officer twice order him to get back into the vehicle, but he didn’t immediately comply. An officer grabbed his arm and he pulled away in a “flinch response.” Watts said he was starting to get back in the vehicle when Officer Andrew Beaudry grabbed him and tore his shirt.
    Watts said he was trying to comply with orders as things seemed to escalate.

    “I was trying to get the hell back in the car,” he said. “It turns out I had company in the car.”

    Watts said he remembers feeling leather in his hands, but doesn’t remember grabbing the officer and might have been trying to fend him off.

    “My own recollection of this is kind of frenzied because I was under siege,” he said.

    Watts’ post-trial statement on his blog is here.

50. Re: Watts. A border guard told him to get on the ground, and he didn’t do so. He’s admitted this. “Failure to comply with a lawful order” is a thing, and it’s a felony. This is all on him.

    See, this attitude (which appears to be common in US juries) is a reason many people are uncomfortable with US law enforcement, and take steps to avoid contact with it. People react to the policies and practices in place (or indicated), which may be a reason to dislike the politicians currently in power.
    Like most here, I think having some Worldcons in the US is still appropriate.

Comments are closed.