Response to NHP Courier’s “Our Views” 4/26/13 edition: “No Threat to Free Speech Here”
Your “view” or your reporter’s view, begins with stating your respect for both synagogues, the one where Pamela Geller was to speak originally, Great Neck Synagogue, as well as the one she did speak at, Chabad of Great Neck, on April 14. You then directed that the congregants of both of these houses of worship should be ashamed that Ms. Geller was invited to speak.
Really? Within the first two sentences of your ‘view,’ you’ve cast shame upon them? And your title is “No Threat to Free Speech Here”?
Oh yes, this certainly is a question of free speech. While you refer to Ms. Geller as a ‘flame-throwing hatemonger,’ I’m prompted to wonder if you are really aware of what it is that Ms. Geller opposes – that is if you can pull yourself away from the heresay.
Ms. Geller’s original invitation to speak was being anticipated by Great Neck Synagogue – but then – threatening e-mails were sent to several organizations by Habeeb Ahmed, Human Rights commissioner, the content of which is widely known at this point.
He states, “we need to stop her from coming to Great Neck…do we do a petition on the stationary of council of churches, The Interfaith Alliance and The Holocaust Center?? Her view are well known…she is the personification of an Islamophobe!!! Brothers and Sisters what do you think?? Regards, Habeeb.”
All of this was followed with his title and address, and his position as the Human Rights commissioner.
No threat to free speech, you say? I can assure you that Ed Mangano’s office got a lot of heat, urging him not to reappoint such a person who threatens this way! That being said, and with the threats that ensued, Rabbi Polakoff certainly did receive heat from parents who were fearful for their children.
If this was your ‘house,’ wouldn’t you have cancelled under such threat? I think so.
By the way, after the event took place at Chabad of Great Neck on April 14, Habeeb Ahmed stated to the media that his opinions were ‘only his own’ and that he used his title and position only for identification purposes.
Oh, I think not, Mr. Ahmed. Your threatening e-mails didn’t suggest they were only your own thoughts, by writing to neighboring organizations that “we have to stop her from speaking…”, and comparing her to a Nazi or Klan member.
I ask this paper: Are you surprised that a counter-protest was expected? It does not take a rocket scientist to answer that.
The burning question for me is: Does your reporter and your paper know what Pamela Geller is actually opposed to? There is a billboard that she had authored which states the following: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Do you agree with this?
I am not Jewish and I agree with the statement on this billboard. Many of us do agree. Do you call this religious intolerance of any particular religion? I certainly do not.
I ask you: is this exploitation of September 11? Is Ms. Geller denouncing an entire religion as your view suggests? Is Ms. Geller to be compared with a Nazi or a Klan member as your paper and Mr. Ahmed did?
Absolutely she is not.
You accused Ms. Geller of having a legacy of hatred. If you listen to her and not the heresay, you would see that she exposes hatred.
If you really and truly knew what it is that Ms. Geller opposes, I’d like to think you’d be ‘on board.’ Truth is not hate speech.
Ironically, the day after Ms. Geller’s speech, the Boston Marathon massacre took place. Does this not intensify the importance of such a dialogue?
I do not need a pep talk from the newspaper about religious tolerance. I am 100 percent tolerant of all religions, just as I was the day before the Boston bombings.
What I am opposed to, and I’m in good company, is the ideology of radicalization.
This is America. We do not have to be tolerant of that ideology here.
Rosanne Spinner
New Hyde Park
