Dear David,

You said, "... but it appears there is one group who are opposed to the open, non-discriminatory, tolerant nature of this facility and demand that it be for this group alone."

This is NOT TRUE.

All the Muslim students are asking is that the UNIVERSITY KEEP THE
PROMISE IT MADE TO THEM by providing them with a 'prayer room,' as the university said it would. The Muslim students don't object to the Multi-Faith Centre at all. In fact they can't see WHY the university can't have BOTH a Multi-Faith Centre and a Prayer Room.

And neither can I!

THIS IS A QUESTION OF AN INSTITUTION KEEPING A PROMISE THAT IT MADE TO
A STUDENT BODY THAT IT ACTIVELY SOUGHT, AND ACCEPTED, INTO ITS FACILITIES. THEY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THAT STUDENT BODY - AND ARE NOW BOUND TO ABIDE BY IT.

Dear Foxy
perhaps the difference between you and I on this issue is thatI went personally and visited the establishment and spoke to a leading identity in the community in question and the Chaplain.

A number of points should be made or re-iterated.

1/ The Spiritual centre is available for the community concerned, but not exclusively except when they book it for a certain time.
2/ The discussion 'on the ground' with those concerned was abundantly clear that they want a 'special them only' place as they feel non them would distract or pollute the place (which is an insulting attitude)

3/ The Uni appears to have promised something UNlawful in that it denies equal opportunity and is discriminatory.

4/ I am not denying that:
a)The university promised them this and that.
b)The University renegged on that (unlawful) promise.

It should be understood that Arabic sloguns were on the walls, and were removed when an RMIT staff member apparently made protest about this imposition of sectarianism.(presumably on the basis of equal opportunity law)

What I AM saying.. is that whatever the background to this issue in terms of promises etc.. you simply cannot embark on blatantly discriminatory use of public facilities at tax payer expense.

IF...they did, they would be liable for uncountable law suits and discrimination actions.

I would not have a problem with one of the normal rooms being allocated for prayer but not for the exclusive use of just one group.

When the rooms (which have been closed to the group) were available, they were only available for part of the day, like 8:00am to 5pm.. after that, they were general use.

The big problem here is, that if we pander to the cumbersome religious requirements of any group, we must do so for all.. and obviously that is impractical.

RESOLUTION. It is simple to resolve
1/ Explain to the group that such an exclusive permanent allocation of use is unlawful.
2/ Emphasize that if they desire exclusive use each friday from 12.00 to 1.00pm they can have it. (By booking)

Do you see any difficulty there?

It never ceases to not surprise me that you don't really know about what is lawful or not. Especially since you have not really established who exactly is being discriminated against.

Universities are not 'public facilities' in the sense that you appear to mean them to be. Not in the way of directly administrated government institutions are, like state schools etc. They are autonomous incorporated entities with their own governance and their own incomes, some of that income comes from government and taxpayers, certainly, but not all of it. This however, does not give every Tom, Dick and Bozo the right to say what goes on within these institutions.

The university can allocate space however it sees fit, within the law. Allocating space to a student body or organisation is not against the law. Alternatively, refusal to do so is not unlawful either, which I am guessing the petition was started- to indicate that they have support amongst the student body generally and to ask the administration to keep its promise. That many of the students in question are often full fee paying students and the universities get paid quite a lot for their education, they are entitled to at ask for what they consider a service. If the administration considers how much money they get from being attractive to students (especially international students), I believe that they should get a fair hearing.

Now, if the university believes that they will be "liable for uncountable law suits and discrimination actions", then they would have said so. But they didn't. Why? Because it's bull@#$%.

Dear David,

As Bugsy points out - a university is not entirely a public-funded institution. Student's fees (very high ones for international students)constitute a substantial part of their finances. And I agree with Bugsy, the university can decide what it wants to do with its spaces.

This IS a moral issue. If you take someone's money under false pretences - you must be held accountable.

In this case - the students were promised their own 'Prayer Rooms.' The university must keep its promise. I do not for one moment believe - that this is unlawful.
Nor that it's going to impact on anyone else on campus. The University Student Council speaking on behalf of the entire Student Body, agrees with the granting of these 'Prayer Rooms.'

I firmly believe that the university is giving in to 'Islamophobia'
and political pressure from certain other groups in this case.

They should have thought of it PRIOR to actively seeking students from the Muslim world ( The Gulf, Malaysia, Indonesia, et cetera),
and accepting them as students, taking their money, and making them a promise. Now they have to wear it.

Bugsy

"Actually Bronwyn, it appears that is exactly what BD is also saying."

What is it with you? Not so long ago you accused me of making up a statistic I'd quoted. Now you're telling me that my argument is exactly the same as BD's even though I've just spent 300 words clearly refuting his position. Quite apart from posting manners, you need to learn to read with a little more perception before you jump in and make sweeping statements about other people's arguments.

My position and it couldn't be clearer is that public money should not be spent on the provision of religious facilities at universities (or anywhere else for that matter). BD's position is that it's okay to spend public money on multifaith religious facilities, but not on facilities specifically for Muslims. They are two very different positions.

I stand corrected Bronwyn. But I still disagree with that position. For the same reasons outlined previously. Pretty much every university in the world has such facilities, public money or not. While I appreciate that God doesn't exist, many people think he/she/it does. It's about student welfare and what makes them comfortable, and unfortunately religion plays a large part in society and peoples lives. Let the babies have their bottle.