Vice Chancellor Malcolm Gillies
Submission
London Metropolitan University is considering closing its on-campus pubs. Reason? It is because Muslim students, who comprise some 20% of the student body, object.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128788/London-university-considers-stopping-sale-immoral-alcohol-campus-offends-Muslim-students.html
He added: 'That's what education's actually about, modeling diverse behaviours so we create liberal students in a liberal intellectual environment.'
What's next? Will all co-eds have to wear burkas and hijabs? We they have gender-segregated classes? Will non-Muslim students be prohibited from wearing any religious-identifying symbols? No crosses, no yarmulkes? What is next Mr Gillies? Why don't we have all non-Muslim students pay an increased tuition to go to the Muslim Student Association-a sort of Jizya tax, if you will?
Reading the words of this pusillanimous weenie makes me want to vomit. How is it that 20% of the student body dictates that no alcohol can be served on campus? Who is running your university, Mr Gillies?
More than any other country, Britain is prostrating itself to a supremist faction of Islam because they have thousands of idiots like Anjem Choudary and his thugs running around demanding the world-and getting it. Sharia courts, sharia zones. Where does it stop?
Here in the colonies, my campus at UC Irvine is the only one in the UC system that has a pub-a great one at that, which I happen to frequent. So what happens when our MSU demands it be closed down because it offends their sensibilities? Considering the leaders we have in the UC system, I imagine it will be closed down.
Which will not sit well with our Turkish students, I assure you.
13 comments:
Two things:
1. The article said that they're "considering" it - not that they have done it or are going to do it.
2. Closing down a pub on campus is "liberal"? Sounds pretty conservative to me.
What do you think conservatives don't drink?
Not at all. But banning alcohol in a university is more of a conservative position than it is a liberal one - if you use the actual definitions of the words instead of conservatism being things you like and liberalism being things you don't like.
News flash for you. Letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others is a conservative point of view.
Cutting down on people's freedoms to please a particular group-like Muslims in this case-is a liberal point of view.
How dare they call themselves British? No beer? They are not British by any standards.
Carrie Nation would have been proud.
Was she a liberal, a conservative, or just an evangelical Christian on a mission? (Time was the Methodists would have expelled Gary for his drinking).
There are "conservative" philosophies that are quite antithetical to letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. "Conservatives" denounced Lawrence v. Texas for example, although gays have become really popular on such circles, since it turns out Muslims hang them. There is nothing "liberal" about"Cutting down on people's freedoms to please a particular group." Gary, do you EVER read history of anything prior to the 21st century?
Britain could do with about ten years of Prohibition, just based on how they all booze and vomit.
But as a libertarian, I agree that Muslim students are no more entitled to have all the pubs closed than American Christians are entitled to have the play "Corpus Christi" banned. Still, we are talking about the empire here, not the former colonies.
"Letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others is a conservative point of view."
So legalizing pot and allowing gays to marry are conservative points of view now? They fit that description. (Maybe the first one is if you're a Ron Paul supporter, I suppose.)
"Cutting down on people's freedoms to please a particular group-like Muslims in this case-is a liberal point of view."
If anything, it's politically correct, and the people I know whom you would call "liberals" despise political correctness and would not support this.
Legalizing pot is a long convoluted subject. I oppose it because it is a harmful substance as I oppose other illegal drugs. At some point society has a right to try and stop our country from becoming a nation of zombies. I don't believe in jailing drug users, rather I support prosecuting traffickers of drugs-including pot.
As for gay marriage,it's also a long subject. At this point, I really don't care. I think we have more important issues to deal with. I do think we should think and discuss this carefully before we turn a 5,000 year old custom upside down. It seems inevitable, so maybe it is time to move on.
I'm glad you know liberals who despise political correctness, but it is liberals who gave us PC.
I am not trying to get you to defend your positions on these issues. What I'm saying is that both of these causes are generally taken up by liberals, and they would argue for them using the same statement you made about letting people do what they want so long as they don't harm others.
Maybe words like "liberal" and "conservative" don't really mean all that much in today's political climate.
Different Anonymous jumping in here: pot is a harmful substance but alcohol isn't?
Families of drunk-driving victims or those who have died of liver failure might disagree...
You raise a good argument about alcohol, a subject with which I am intimately familiar. We tried prohibition, and it didn't work. I could argue that responsible people do not drink for the purpose of getting drunk (high) while everyone who lights up a joint is trying to get high, but I realize that argument only goes so far. But where do we draw the line-on cocaine, lsd, heroin, meth?
Anonymous,
I don't think it is so much conservative or liberal, but libertarian. I think libertarians have a lot of good ideas and a lot of bad ideas. Drug legalization is a bad idea.
Here is an interesting question that gets into all three philosophies. If a government can pass intrusive laws for the "common good" (like more taxes and govt. health care), can it pass drug laws for the "common good"?
Interesting debate.
"But where do we draw the line-on cocaine, lsd, heroin, meth?"
Why is allowing marijuana a gateway to these things but alcohol isn't? Alcohol is far more harmful than marijuana anyway.
But again, so what if people smoke pot in order to get high? Unless you can prove that it's harming somebody else, then you are being the exact same kind of person you complained about in the original post.
Post a Comment