Muslim students at the scandal hit Metropolitan Uni have reacted angrily to the uni's plans to ban alcohol from parts of campus on their behalf have issued a stinging rebuttal. They say the Vice Chancellor Professor Malcolm Gillies has used them as the excuse for not renewing expensive bar licenses - effectively scapegoating them. Muslim students now fear it's only a matter of time before one of them is assaulted.
"Continue reading" for the Muslim students articulate response...
How'd this come to pass? Last month the uni issues a statement saying "There are students who do come from a tradition that says alcohol is evil and they need to feel that they have a place at London Metropolitan University". The chancellor said it was an issue of “cultural sensitivity” resulting from a “high percentage” of students considering drinking “immoral”.
You can see where this is going and you bet the Daily Mail is over the moon.
The Muslim student council has issues an open latter saying “There has never been a demand for an alcohol ban on campus from Muslim or non-Muslim students. The Muslim population at London Met stands at approximately 20 per cent, so assuming all Muslims at the campus were in favour of the ban, this could not be imposed as it would go against the fundamental principal of democracy.”
“It is only a matter of time before a Muslim student is physically assaulted. We find your argument to ban alcohol on religious grounds baseless, divisive and irresponsible and we are concerned about the welfare of the students."
“Such an unreasonable proposal which clearly many non-Muslims view as an attack by Muslims against their way of life, is absolutely of no benefit to the Muslim students and the wider Muslim community at all. In fact it demonises them even more and it will be used as baseless evidence to show how Britain is becoming a ‘shariastate', particularly by far right groups such as the EDL who have already capitalised upon this and added it to their campaign against minority groups."
“To use Muslim students to justify cuts is not acceptable and certainly immoral. If the university finds that running the bars is not economically viable then you should put forward a ‘business case’ and not a ‘religious case’ to justify the closure of bars and the creation of an alcohol-free campus."
“Your undemocratic, ill devised and misleading remarks have caused tension within the university campus and in the wider society; therefore we demand a retraction of your comments and an unreserved apology.”
We imagine some backpedalling of the bland kind