http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/were-muslim-student-union-free/
(New University (UCI newspaper)
I call attention to a quote from a student at UCI (Alaa Alomar), which complained about the removal of an MSU announcement of their week's events from UCI's marquee
in May 2009.
"Although MSU submitted their events to Anteater Weekly--an e-mail sent to all students on campus informing them of the events taking place on campus that week--their events did not appear in the e-mail. MSU also submitted a list of their events to appear on the marquees around campus. The events appeared for four days until the administration, under Zionist pressure, removed the title of the week without any warning to MSU."
Thus, I would like to respond to Ms Alomar's words belatedly in connection with the controversial UCI marquee of May 2009.
The above marquee announcing MSU's week of anti-Israel events in May 2009 is what raised objections. As a result, the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism (an organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, not promoting Zionism) contacted the university to object that the school was actually in violation of state law. As you can see from the photos, it gives impression that UCI was placing its imprimatur on the title, "Israel-the politics of genocide". Was that the official position of UCI when that marquee was showing the announcement? How were Jewish and or Israeli UCI students supposed to feel about that?
ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 92000-92001:
“92000. (a) The name “University of California” is the property of the state. No person shall, without the permission of the Regents of the University of California, use this name, or any abbreviation of it or any name of which these words are a part, in any of the following ways:
(1) To designate any business, social, political, religious, or other organization, including, but not limited to, any corporation, firm, partnership, association, group, activity, or enterprise.
(2) To imply, indicate or otherwise suggest that any such organization, or any product or service of such organization is connected or affiliated with, or is endorsed, favored, or supported by, or is opposed by the University of California.
(3) To display, advertise, or announce this name publicly at, or in connection with, any meeting, assembly, or demonstration, or any propaganda, advertising, or promotional activity of any kind which has for its purpose or any part of its purpose the support, endorsement, advancement, opposition, or defeat of any strike, lockout, or boycott or of any political, religious, sociological, or economic movement, activity, or program…..”
So I say to Ms Alomar, don't blame the "Zionists". If you want to blame anybody, you can blame this gentile.
8 comments:
Pardon me Gary, you mentioned the California Education Code, governing the actions of the UCI/MSU in this case of signage. Under sharia law, this message would be OK. The MSU is a part of MSA, a Muslim Brotherhood organization that wants to replace our laws with sharia law. So, the MSU must feel it is OK to place its propaganda in any spot on the UCI campus.
Squid
Must be that "sharia compliance" that Feisal Abdul Rauf talks about.
Gary, both you and Squid are starting to remind me of this guy.
This is getting worse than your deliberate obtuseness when it came to the term "peer review".
lance,
Where in the world did you find that guy and that article? What does it have to do with the post?
It has to do with what Squid wrote and your response to it.
And it's from The Onion. I wouldn't expect you to recognize actual satire, seeing as how you think that Ann Coulter is a satirist.
Mr. Fouse, your analysis is eminently reasonable, and appears to conform to applicable law.
Applicable law does not include (a) any of the vaguely defined and conflicting versions of Shariah, (b) the better defined, and in recent centuries more modestly asserted, canons of the Roman Catholic Church, (c) kosher, or the 613 mitzvoth (which don't apply to gentiles in any case, (d) The Seven Aphorisms of Summum.
But you spoiled it when you tossed off that gratuitous and voluntarily ignorant remark about Feisal Abdul Rauf.
He meant that in the United States, we make better provision for the poor among us than any member of the OIC, that women are in fact, not just in theory, better respected here, that we make greater efforts to extend health care to all, and to reduce corruption, etc.
Siarlys,
Which except for charity has very little to do with shariah-which is unneccesary in America.
Who said it was necessary? The Beatitudes aren't necessary in America. The Golden Rule isn't necessary either. But, it we sometimes actually measure up to such high standards, why not give ourselves a pat on the back for it?
Post a Comment