If someone got physically violent on the Metro in Washington, DC, they would get kicked off the train or bus. Similarly, if someone indecently exposed him or herself (as noted in the new Metro ads threatening action against indecent exposure ) or yelled incendiary, racist or bigoted comments at riders, they would get ushered off. <\/p>\n
Yet, that is exactly what Metro will do to its riders, thanks to a court order by US District Judge Rosemary M Collyer forcing it to run the violent, indecent and incendiary ads by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) beginning Monday, October 8, 2012. The ad makes a sweeping generalisation about all Muslims, referring to them as savages and contrasting the savages with the civilised. <\/p>\n
It is paradoxical. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) can prohibit riders from listening to loud music or consuming food or drink - the former of which is ostensibly out of respect for others, the latter is because of health and cleanliness concerns - and yet it cannot prohibit vitriolic ads, which hurt and harm, and are unhealthy. <\/p>\n
The ad that WMATA, to its credit, tried to delay and that is already running in New York City's subway, states: \" In Any War Between the Civilised Man and the Savage, Support the Civilised Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad .\" <\/p>\n
Since the ad makes no distinction between the majority of Muslims who use jihad non-violently and the small minority of Muslims who use violence and cite jihad as their defence, the ad intentionally creates a hyper-polarised, good-versus-evil frame through which to understand Islam. <\/p>\n
Nor does the AFDI ad make any distinction between the greater, internally oriented jihad, known as Akbar jihad , or the lesser externally oriented Asghar jihad . The former is an internal struggle that instructs a Muslim believer to be more righteous and pious; the latter is an external struggle that instructs a Muslim to defend against religious persecution. Neither is explicitly instructed to be violent and for the AFDI ad to intimate that anything jihad - and thus anything Muslim - is savage and must be defeated, the ad categorically calls all Muslims savages. <\/p>\n
Prior to the US District Judge's court ruling the Washington Post editorial board , disappointingly, defended the \"offensive ad's right to offend\", citing free speech. Contrast the Washington Post's approval with countless Jewish, Muslim and Christian organisations that have come out in protest of New York City subways' running of the very same ads. <\/p>\n
The freedom of speech argument is spurious. Why? Because if it were a different race or religion we'd have a whole different conversation and a lot more public protest. The US has a racist and discriminatory political pecking order that allows some prejudice to continue while prohibiting others. <\/p>\n
Take, for example, the Washington Redskins or even the Cleveland Indians . We'd never allow - nor should we allow - a Washington Blackskins or a Washington Yellowskins. Nor would we have the Cleveland Jews. And yet, thanks to our prejudicial pecking order, we somehow justify keeping Native Americans - and in the ad's case, Muslims - at the bottom of societal barrel, treating them in ways that we'd never tolerate for another race and religion. <\/p>\n
It is ironic, in fact, that the US District judge is ordering WMATA to begin running the ads on Monday, which coincidentally is Columbus Day , a day that marks the man who began the genocide against indigenous Native Americans. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Read the original: If someone got physically violent on the Metro in Washington, DC, they would get kicked off the train or bus. Similarly, if someone indecently exposed him or herself (as noted in the new Metro ads threatening action against indecent exposure ) or yelled incendiary, racist or bigoted comments at riders, they would get ushered off. Continue reading
\n'Free Speech' on the DC Metro<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"