Beetle Beat

Comments:

Are we sure that Andrew Quinio is not the liar, because I picked up this list of events on Oct 6 from the Office of Student Life's website on upcoming group events:

Nonie Darwish
10/22/2007 7:00:00 PM to 9:00:00 PM in 0010 EVANS
Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish, author of Now They Call Me Infidel, will speak about her experiences with Islamic Jihad during her youth, and how she became an advocate for America, Israel, and freedom.

Film- Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against...
10/23/2007 7:00:00 PM to 9:00:00 PM in
As part of Terrorism Awareness Week, the Berkeley COllege Republicans will be showing this film, which presents to viewers the realities of the threat from Radical Islam.

Fighting the War on Terror From Home
10/24/2007 7:00:00 PM to 9:00:00 PM in 0160 DWINELLE
As part of Terrorism Awareness Week, the Berkeley College Republicans will hold a panel discussion on law and public policy used to fight terror. The panel will feature faculty and guests who are experts in law and national security.

The Voices of Terror
10/25/2007 12:00:00 PM to 1:00:00 PM in
As part of Terrorism Awareness Week, members of the Berkeley College Republicans will be reading quotes from leaders from various terrorist groups.

Sounds pretty detailed to me, unless there has been a change in plans.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:47 PM, October 11, 2007

The third event there was not mentioned at the meeting, so it may have been canceled. I also think it's being called Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, now, rather than Terrorism Awareness Week.

But no, I'm not sure who the liar is, and if he wants to defend himself, Quinio usually reads this blog, too. It wasn't really relevant to my point whether he was right about calling him a liar or not, and I tried to make it clear that I wasn't making an assertion about it.

# posted by

Beetle Aurora Drake : 4:26 PM, October 11, 2007

My point is that Andrew's claim is based on the idea that nobody knew what BCR's planned events were, and that the responses and criticisms were presumptuous. But people have had an idea of what the planned events were for a while, and all the suggestions for the week are available online at terrorismawareness.org.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:29 PM, October 11, 2007

You do realize that BCR has no say over what it is suggested that they do by a national organization, right? It would make more sense to condemn the manner in which the nationwide week was presented by the "Terrorism Awareness Project," rather than the local version of events, which haven't occurred yet, and haven't been presented. For example, there is no sit-in planned for the Women's Studies department (as far as I know), which, I would assume, was something BCR decided not to do.

Should Shams's bill be judged by World Can't Wait's rhetoric, since they had suggestions for how to fight it?

# posted by

Beetle Aurora Drake : 4:45 PM, October 11, 2007

Of course, these are "suggestions," but almost all of the events are in-line with those suggestions, if not exactly taken from them.

Also, it has no say about what BCR has to do. But my understanding is that the David Horowitz Foundation has placed certain demands on student organizations for funding. One of those is the name "Islamofascism Awareness Week." If I am wrong, then somebody should correct me--but this is what I heard from somebody who appears to be credible.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:20 PM, October 12, 2007

So folks had an objection to every possible "stance and manner" of presentation for every event suggestion?

The OSL website you quoted called it Terrorism Awareness Week. So if that's the "stance and manner" of presentation folks are pissed about, the Islamofascist Awareness Week complaints are out of place. My question, then, is how had it been presented, in what stance and manner, such that Nadir needed to get a bill out to condemn it. If the presentation that is so offensive is just that OSL website, then I'm not impressed with the need for condemnation.

In general, we are still before the publicity blitz for the event, and my opinion is that it hasn't been "presented" at all, much less in a condemnable "stance and manner." The bill reeks of prejudice, and suggests that BCR is being condemned not for their actions, but simply for being BCR, because that's how they're stereotyped as behaving. It means that there would be no way BCR could address the issue without being condemned, since they apparently get condemned before actually doing anything. And this seems to mean that folks just don't want this issue addressed at all, and that is a pathetic position for a university student government.

# posted by

Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:56 PM, October 12, 2007

The week has a "stance and manner" that BCR can't escape because of its association with David Horowitz. This alliance is something that BCR will be open to criticism for no matter what it actually ends up doing. You can't say the form doesn't matter.

I find it strange that you are trying to claim that there is nothing anybody can reasonably make a judgment on regarding this week and BCR's presentation of it, since according to you BCR is not bound to anything and could potentially do whatever it wanted. True, I guess, but I don't really expect BCR to come out against the war in Iraq tomorrow. Many of the people involved in putting this event on--Andrew in particular and Ross as well--have long paper trails in the California Patriot. I don't really expect them now, unless they've had sudden changes of heart, to stop employing the same fallacies that plague the general hawkish and anti-Muslim narrative and the one that David Horowitz espouses. Maybe the timing of this particular bill seems strange to some--but, honestly, are you going to be any less opposed to it if it comes the week following the fanfare? I doubt that, I think you're opposed to the bill in principle, so I don't know why you're dwelling on the other points, which seem to me to be tangential.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:35 AM, October 13, 2007

If the bill honestly addressed it like that (that is, "Whereas, the stuff Horowitz, Lingenfelder, and Quinio have done in the past is bad, therefore be it resolved that anything they do in the future we condemn") then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The bill is actually condemning the people behind the event, not the "stance and manner," but the honest description would make the ASUC look even worse, because I don't think it's appropriate for the ASUC to take its members' money and turn around and use it to condemn them for expressing opinions. Shouldn't it be returning the hundreds of dollars it forced from Andrew and Ross over the years before it pulls a stunt like this? As you say, the bill is not really based on this particular event, but on Ross and Andrew's past rhetoric. It could just as easily simply read "SHUT UP!" The way the bill was written was dishonest, and calling it such is perfectly legitimate.

The fact that I think the bill makes the ASUC look like shit on one principle doesn't mean that other principles upon which the ASUC looks like shit are "tangential." I'm not opposed to the bill in the "I don't want it to pass" sense, because it's an ASUC External bill, and doesn't really matter. But the ASUC is making a fool out of itself on this, and in three different ways, none of which is really tangential to the others.

# posted by

Beetle Aurora Drake : 8:13 AM, October 13, 2007