In New York, Elected Officials Call on MTA to Remove Anti-Islamic Advertisements
Thirty-four elected officials including
Public Advocate Letitia James, Council Member I. Daneek Miller, the lone Muslim
member of the City Council, and thirty two other council members sent a letter
to Metropolitan Transportation Authority President Tom Prendergast calling for
the removal of anti-Islamic advertisements which were recently placed and are
currently displayed on MTA property. The three ads, which have been approved
and paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, features headlines
touting “Islamic Jew-Hatred”, slogans which seek to equate Muslim-American
organizations to foreign terrorists and, previously, a caption reading
“Yesterday’s moderate is today’s headline” while juxtaposing images of a young
Muslim musician and an ISIS executioner standing over James Foley.
The elected officials, including every member of the
Council’s Progressive Caucus and their co-Chairs (Antonio Reynoso and Donovan
Richards), the Chair of the Council’s Jewish Caucus (Mark Levine), and the
co-chairs of the Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus (Rosie Mendez and
Andy King), note in the letter that the “ads sow hate, create discord, and
promote violence against Muslims and those who appear to be Muslim”. Citing the
MTA’s viewpoint-neutral advertisement policies, the officials claim that “the
MTA is well within its legal authority to remove the ads in part, and reject
additional advertisements”. They also note that transit systems and courts in
other states have rejected similar advertisements such as these, which the
American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) sought to have placed in public
spaces.
With hate crimes up throughout the City, particularly
against Muslim and Jewish communities due to overseas turmoil, the officials
write that “[b]y approving these ads, the MTA is complicit in allowing the
defamation and victimization of the Muslim community” and that “It is [the
MTA’s] responsibility to provide a safe environment for all riders and
workers”.
Following the letter’s release, the officials submitted the
following statements:
“These ads are patently offensive and have no place in our
city. They teach hatred, prejudice and bigotry while doing nothing to foster
dialogue and respect. At a time when hate crimes – particularly against Muslim,
Sikh and Jewish New Yorkers – are on the rise, we cannot condone the MTA
permitting such advertisements. I strongly encourage the MTA to reconsider its
policies and reject advertisements from groups that preach hate,”
said Public Advocate Letitia James.
“We as a City Council, while we recognizing first amendment
rights, absolutely demand zero tolerance when it comes to these provocative
advertisements. It is appalling that these messages have been allowed and
continue to remain posted.” said Council Member I. Daneek Miller. “As the
lone Muslim member of the Council, I find the ads particularly offensive and
not a true representation of the Muslim community, which continues to be a great
contributor to our City. We hope that the MTA will meet this challenge and
remove these ads, which only seek to incite and provoke, and are not in the
best interests of our great City.”
“A platform as visible as the MTA is no place to propel hate speech. The Progressive Caucus condemns AFDI's islamophobic ads that perpetuate dangerous stereotypes and threaten New Yorkers,” said Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Donovan Richards and Antonio Reynoso. “Residents, commuters and tourists should experience a positive and inclusive environment, not the hostile one that these ads provoke.”
"Hiding behind the veil of the first amendment to
spew hate is pure cowardice,” remarked Council Member Mark Levine, Chair
of the Jewish Caucus. “It's shocking and upsetting that the MTA's policies
force them to allow for such an incendiary anti-Muslim ad on our busses and in
our subway stations. These types of propaganda only divide us and ratchet up
already increasing animosity. The ads must come down."
“As one of the most diverse cities in the country and the world, it is incredibly important that we do not spread or promote hatred in any form. The slanderous and bigoted ads that have been plastered on subway stations and on buses have no place in our city,” saidCouncil Member Corey Johnson. “I will continue to speak out against racism and religious discrimination in all its forms.”
"AFDI's hateful rhetoric threatens to incite acts of violence that would harm the peace and safety of my district's South Asian and Muslim residents,” said Council Member Ruben Wills. “It is not welcome anywhere in our state, especially Southeast Queens. I join my colleagues in calling on the MTA to remove these vulgar ads, and prohibit them from being displayed in the future."
“The American Freedom Defense Initiative’s advertisements are inflammatory and promote an anti-Islamic message,” noted Council Member Andrew Cohen. “While I believe wholeheartedly in the freedom of speech, I do not believe that hate messages should be transported – quite literally – through the public transit system. New York City's subway system serves to connect our many ethnically diverse neighborhoods across the city. It is no place for prejudice and we cannot allow advertisements promoting prejudice on the subways.”
“No amount of revenue is worth the ill feelings that these advertisements will engender. We should be able to live in a City that is free of discrimination and an enforcement of stereotypes that communities are affected by on a daily basis,” said Council Member Rosie Mendez.
“The displaying of offensive ads, which target the Muslim
community, should not be tolerated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA),” added Council Member Inez D. Barron. “As elected officials
we have a responsibility to promote peace and condemn violence in all forms.”
“New York City is a reflection of the rich cultural diversity that exists globally. The United States of America was founded on several core principles, ranging from freedom of speech to freedom of religious belief. While both are sacred treasures of what we hold dear as Americans, we are also mindful of how all of these rights are interconnected. One’s freedom of speech should not impede on one’s right of religion. Since September 11th, rhetoric against members of the Muslim faith has heightened. We can never allow the heinous actions of a few to cast a shadow on the larger demographic of law-abiding Muslim-Americans. The recent decision by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to publish anti-Islamic advertisements, which can incite additional hate crimes in a city known for its rich diversity and tolerance, is a step in the wrong direction. We can never allow public space or encourage the use of private space to be used to defame members of our society,” said Council Member Laurie A. Cumbo.
EMalayalee Available in MediaAppUSA
Copyright © 2024 emalayalee.com - All Rights Reserved.
Webmastered by MIPL, Web Hosting Calicut Kerala
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror of the Mediterranean and a terrorised a large area of the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews to exorbitant ransoms. (Now we know where those starving, impoverished Somalis got this brilliant idea). Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast and allied to the Turkish (Ottoman Muslim) Empire – which presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.
Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets. Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.
Beginning in1784, seventeen years before he would become President, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States, rather than engaging them in war.
In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Bey (Turkish for King) of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s Ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered (please pay attention to this) that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Mussalman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800. Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything.
Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.
When Algiers and Tunis, both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the might to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli.
The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, They would forever be known as "leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on sole supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.
This should bother every American (and every citizen of the free world). That the Islamists have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged, Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from work-places because they "offend" Islamist sensibilities. Ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah, Public Schools are pulling pork from their menus, on and on in the news papers….
To verify and set all doubts to rest, just Google Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World or click this link: