In "Exclusive Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge Reveals Inside Details of Case" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller interviews Ernest Perce, who was attacked by a Muslim for wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume on Halloween. A judge then cleared the attacker and lectured Perce about Islam.
This is why anti-sharia legislation is so essential. What happened to equal protection under the law?Back in October, I reported on Ernest Perce, a parade-goer wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume while marching in a local Pennsylvania Halloween parade. He was viciously attacked and choked by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim (who was enforcing the sharia -- he assumed that it was illegal in this country to insult Muhammad). "He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," reported Perce.
Last week, an American judge in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark Martin, ruled on the case and sided with the Muslim, and said that the victim would have been put to death in Muslim societies for his "crime."
Martin told Perce: "Having had the benefit of having spent over two and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. ... In many Arabic-speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."
So what? This is America, where we don't have to obey the Islamic blasphemy laws -- at least not yet. But Martin went on to reveal why he was ruling against the victim: "Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." He now denies that he is a Muslim, but that's what he said
Ultimately, it is irrelevant if the judge is or isn't a Muslim. What is germane is his sharia ruling, which is worse if he's not a Muslim. In Islam, sharia supersedes all man-made laws. It is the law of Allah, so one might understand (though not condone) a Muslim judge defaulting to sharia. But an American judge admonishing an infidel victim while holding up the Koran is shocking. You hear the Koran slam down in the audio of the court proceeding. Martin also told Perce: "You're way outside your boundaries or First Amendment rights."
Perce had video of the attack, but Judge Martin refused to allow the video into evidence. The judge refused even to look at the video, saying that he had heard enough and that there were two conflicting stories. In sharia, in any conflict between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, the Muslim is always right. Martin ruled for Elbayomy.
It gets worse. Since his ordeal began, the infidel victim, Ernest Perce, has received 471 verifiable threats. Perce never released any personal information on Judge Martin or Elbayomy, but they released his, and now he has gotten threats at his home. He may also soon be spending time in jail because he released audio of the court proceeding. Martin is threatening to hold Perce in contempt of court for releasing the audio, even though Perce says he was given permission to release it.
Perce released the video because he believes that he was treated unfairly -- that Martin showed Elbayomy preferential treatment. He wrote to Bonnie Snyder, administrative secretary of the Cumberland County District Court: "I was in a recent proceeding and Judge Martin gave both parties the right/permission to record the proceeding on our cellular devices. I would like to know if it is allowed to put the recording online for listening purposes. If the answer is no, I'd like to know the case law which is being cited and the punishment for violating the case law."
Snyder responded: "Judge Martin only gave permission for the attorney or officer to record the proceedings. He did not give anyone else permission to record anything in the courtroom at the hearing held on December 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm."
Perce then asked her: "Are you instructing me via Judge Martin to destroy or delete and not use my audio recording?"
Answered Snyder: "Yes, since you were not authorized to make any recordings."
Are we living in a sharia state? Aren't court cases open to the public?
Recently I interviewed Ernest Perce and asked him why Judge Martin did not allow the video of the attack to be shown.
Perce: Judge would be offended! Yet they used comments made on the video at YouTube two months later to establish that I had a biased view toward Talaag Elbayomy. If the judge were honest, he would have said, "Attorney, the video is not entered as evidence, and therefore I cannot use the comment from two months after the supposed attack."
I called demanding to speak to the judge. He was always in a training session or in court. Finally, on February 16, I talked with the judge at 3:42PM, and he said, "I will hold you in contempt of court under section 42 of the Judicial System" if I didn't take down the audio. He also threatened to hold me in violation of 112 of the Rules of Court Section D.
He also said that I would be held in contempt of court. He denies this now, but this is what he told me. He was furious.
PG: Why did you decide to dress as Zombie Muhammad for Halloween in the first place?
Perce: Mainly to stand for the freedom of speech, and to show my disdain for such a hateful religion and culture. I have always made fun of Muhammad.
PG: When did you start receiving threats?
Perce: I started receiving death threats immediately after putting the video online of the parade. People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad. They say I will be found out and [hanged] in front of my family.
It's very easy to see who will be 'dealt with' first in society when the sharia compliance police come calling. No one likes a unbeliever.
This judge is not fit to make judgments, his pro-theistic bias is far too obvious.
At what point are our legislators going to stand up to Islamic intimidation and to utterly corrupt judges like Martin?
Evidently "Judge" Mark Martin thinks violence should rule his court, so long as it's Islamically justified violence against non-Muslims. Thus Martin foments disrespect for the law. Mark Martin's pseudo court should be picketed by a million atheists and a million Christians, if there were any sense. If Martin isn't removed from the bench for being a pseudo-judge and a pseudo lawyer, outrage should grow and grow until he is removed. He thinks he's angry. He should find out how angry law-abiding non-Muslim Americans are at him and his criminal behavior as a judge. He should be persona non grata anywhere in the U.S. His Sharia enforcement might pass in Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, etc., where Muslim majorities enforce their sicko dominance, but it must not go on in the U.S.
Just like Muhammad, Judge Martin thinks violence against those who insult Muhammad is justified:
In a core Islamic text, Muhammad says there is to be no punishment for murdering someone who insults him
From Sunan Abu-Dawud, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 38, Number 4348:
Another canonical hadith:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349:
Here's more of what Judge Martin evidently finds so adorable:
Quoting Islam
Dear brothers
Revival has come into the region of Algeria, here is a video of Muslims turning to Christ.
http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/02/28/algeria-muslims-turn-to-jesus-millions-to-christ/
We must always thank God in what He is doing in the nations today.
Blessings
Youssef
Somehow I can't help thinking that if it were just the "Pope" character who was assaulted by an enraged Catholic, that this story would be prominently splashed all across the mainstream media.
this thing is all over the news.
Muslim or not, Mark Martin judged this case incompetently by American standards. He judged consistently with sharia principles, even if not by the letter of sharia (which would require a much harsher penalty than just a verbal dressing down and warning to the non-Muslim plaintiff who mocked Muhammad). Martin should be removed.
This cannot be emphasized enough. What does it mean to have Sharia imposed on Americans?
Yesterday's piece, "Obama: Sharia Enforcer," and this one help the public understand how Sharia is indeed being imposed.
It is important, so that Mitt Romney's statement (commended by the left and by Muslim groups),"Well, first of all, of course, we’re not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts; that’s never going to happen; we have a Constitution and we follow the law," will not become conventional or accepted wisdom.
In "Exclusive Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge Reveals Inside Details of Case" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller interviews Ernest Perce, who was attacked by a Muslim for wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume on Halloween. A judge then cleared the attacker and lectured Perce about Islam.
...................................
Kudos to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer for continuing to cover this appalling case.
More:
This is why anti-sharia legislation is so essential. What happened to equal protection under the law?
...................................
*Exactly*. In both this instance and the case from a year or two ago in neighboring New Jersey—where a judge threw out a case involving wife beating and marital rape because it was part of the assailant's culture—we find Infidel judges willing to enforce Shari'ah norms on the grounds of the perpetrator's "Islamic beliefs".
"Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html
More:
Last week, an American judge in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark Martin, ruled on the case and sided with the Muslim, and said that the victim would have been put to death in Muslim societies for his "crime."
Martin told Perce: "Having had the benefit of having spent over two and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. ... In many Arabic-speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."
...................................
Yes—and Judge Martin didn't simply note this phenomenon—he clearly *admires it*. How is being exposed to this barbarism *beneficial*? Appalling.
More:
So what? This is America, where we don't have to obey the Islamic blasphemy laws -- at least not yet.
...................................
Not only is this inappropriately dragging foreign law into an American court—but it is dragging in the very *worst* kind of law.
Judge Martin is not citing the Napoleonic Code or British Common Law or some statute of the European Union, but the *savage barbarism of Shari'ah law*.
More:
But Martin went on to reveal why he was ruling against the victim: "Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." He now denies that he is a Muslim, but that's what he said
Ultimately, it is irrelevant if the judge is or isn't a Muslim.
...................................
Exactly so. The judge in New Jersey wasn't Muslim either—but that didn't stop him from condoning beating, marital rape, stalking, and death threats in an American court of law.
More:
It gets worse. Since his ordeal began, the infidel victim, Ernest Perce, has received 471 verifiable threats. Perce never released any personal information on Judge Martin or Elbayomy, but they released his, and now he has gotten threats at his home. He may also soon be spending time in jail because he released audio of the court proceeding. Martin is threatening to hold Perce in contempt of court for releasing the audio, even though Perce says he was given permission to release it.
...................................
This is terrifying. This is also the sort of thing that regularly happens in Dar-al-Islam—where an Infidel victim suffers death threats from the Ummah, and receives no protection from the authorities. Is anyone tracking down these death threats and prosecuting the threateners? It doesn't appear so.
More:
PG: Why did you decide to dress as Zombie Muhammad for Halloween in the first place?
Perce: Mainly to stand for the freedom of speech, and to show my disdain for such a hateful religion and culture. I have always made fun of Muhammad.
...................................
Just like the Danish MoToons, this is a seminal case of the defense of freedom of speech in the West. And just as with the MoToons, many in the West are utterly failing to uphold our core values.
And also as with the MoToons—and Charlie Hebdo covers, and Lars Vilks, and so many others—those failing the West and her defenders are actually pretending they are taking the moral high road.
Appalling appeasement, and worse than appeasement—actual admiration of barbarism.
Not in the mainstream media it's not.
The judge sems to have learned nothing from his two and a half years in a Moslem country.
Dear Ernest Perce:
I agree that Judge Martin was a oomplete and utter fool, and the sooner he is removed from the bench, the better. Yes, you are within your rights under the First Amendment to dress as a zombie Muhammad.
However, we no longer live in that kind of America. The whole culture in which things like the First Amendment "made sense" no longer exists. Unwritten rules about solicitude for the feelings of any group fortunate enough to be labeled in the MSM as "Third World" or "Fourth World" trump any ideas those dead white males who met in Philadelphia 1787-89 may have had. And I'm sure you'll agree that this new wordlview is surely more "progressive".
Take comfort. You may continue to insult Christians and their beliefs as much as you wish. Even while we are armed, we will only pray for your soul rather than haul you into court or ambush you on a dark night. I'm sure that the past several decades of American history have taught you that we're a safe target for innocent (and not-so-innocent) fun. The emerging legal and political culture which the Democratic Party seeks to foist on our land will protect your right to continue to insult the Christian faith which, after all, was the original intent of modern Humanist Associations and other kinds of organized science- and self-worship--oops! Atheism--Freudian slip showing, I guess.
But now you know that an insult to Islam and its adherents is now criminalized under our new, living, and unwritten Constitution. I doubt that Judge Martin is alone among modern, progressive American jurists who might hold such a view. Soon, it will be better still for you to make at least a pro forma profession of Islam to better protect yourself. Surely, while you probably won't sincerely believe, you'll agree that that will be the practical, truly rational thing to do in the coming new world order. You do have to look out for Number One, after all.
Your missive to Ernest Perce, Kepha, is evidence of why long ago (well before 9/11) I formed the conviction that the world would be almost infinitely better off if every Muslim awoke the next day a devout Christian (the other way around is almost too disturbing to contemplate). I would add here two other thoughts. First, Mark Martin thoroughly disgraces the American judiciary and, second, all those who are inclined to mock religion, be it Ernest Perce, Comedy Central, Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live or whoever, should very publicly announce that they will, for the time being, mock no specific religion until they can mock all religions without fear of bodily harm or death. This kind of silence would be deafening and only the most obtuse would not comprehend where the real criticism of such a silence was directed to. Hope you're doing well, my friend.
ACT for America are onto this case as well.
And they do have quite a wide membership.
Strikes me that every presidential candidate should be confronted with this case and asked: do they agree that Mr Perce had a perfect right under the First Amendment to dress up as a Zombie Mohammed - especially when taking part in a Halloween parade where all kinds of bizarre, ridiculous and/ or satirical costumes are traditionally permitted and indeed expected (just as at Mardi Gras) - and that the Muslim had no right to lay a finger on him and that the Judge had no right to lecture - and, indeed, harass and threaten - Mr Perce whilst letting his Mohammedan attacker get off scot free?
Where is the political journalist who will ask these questions of the candidates?
And for that matter: every sitting Congressperson and every Senator, both those in the State legislatures and in Washington, should be put on the spot as well.
This could be an excellent litmus test.
I would add that would-be critics of Islam have missed their chance this year as regards Mardi Gras costumes and parades (in places like New Orleans), but that Halloween 2012 should be the occasion for the appearance, all over the USA and Canada, of all manner of Zombie or Ghost costumes A. depicting persons assassinated by Muslims as 'punishment' for dissing Mo, the Gang and the Gang Code, both those who feature in the Mohammedan texts, such as Asma Bint Marwan and Abu Afak, and those known from recent history, such as Theo Van Gogh; and B. satirising figures such as Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden - and for that matter, although alive, Tariq Ramadan would be an excellent target for satirical representation as a Zombie, and so would Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Ihsanoglu, and Fethullah Gulen.
And if you are in a town or city where Mardi Gras parades with costumes - including satirical ones - are the norm, then, well, after Halloween 2012, then Mardis Gras 2013 is your next opportunity to publicly, loudly and luridly make your point.
Islam is to be considered a protected 'ethnicity' according to Pennsylvania Judge per CNN interview with Martin
Remove this judge from the bench NOW.
Wellington, old pal, the sarcastic missive I wrote shows that I am spluttering and downright dyspeptic with rage. In addition to Mr. Injustice Martin's travesty, the Obama administration's abject performance over an inadvertent burning of some defaced Qur'ans makes me wonder how my countrymen could be so stupid as to elect such a nonentity. May God forgive me for succumbing to the temptation to speak ill of leaders of my people! Then again, your list of supposed "daring" comedians and their unfunny blather tells me that our culture tanked long before our law and politics.
Somewhere in these pages someone--it may have been you--complained how Obama has great lacunae in his learning. My guess is that such lacunae in the mental machinery of Obama, Comedy Central, and so many of our icons is matched only by the firmness of their conviction that they represent the epitome of the cognoscenti.
Kepha,
I don't think Ernest Perce, who donned a costume mocking Muhammad and who knew something of the risks he was facing, needs to hear a lecture from you.
Does he feel safe criticizing Christianty? I'm not sure. But I'm quite sure you feel safe criticizing atheists.
Lastly: Atheists don't "worship."
Wellington,
"This kind of silence would be deafening and only the most obtuse would not comprehend where the real criticism of such a silence was directed to."
Does this mean you are going to stop criticizing atheists, from who you have nothing to fear?
typo, excuse, "from whom you have nothing to fear"
And no, this is not a request that you or Kepha stop criticizing atheists. It's just that, given that atheists and Christians in our modern western societies aren't killing each other over words and expressions, it seems arbitrary to only suggest that atheists ought to shut up about Christianity and not that Christians ought to shut up about atheism and atheists.
The idea that we should have priorities is correct. The idea that we (in the counter-jihad etc.) should only criticize those who directly threaten to kill us is, I think, unwarranted. There are numerous problems, and the threat of being killed by Muslim vigilantes is but one of them.
Your missing the entire point, Kinana, whether it's from Kepha or me. Really, it would be hard to be more clueless than your posts have indicated. Truly, you should stop embarassing yourself.
First of all, Kepha wasn't lecturing Ernest Perce but rather explaining that Christians are a completely different breed from Muslims regarding their capacity to tolerate criticism and that Perce never need fear Christians. Do you deny this?
And respecting any criticisms I have of atheists (I do where the denying atheists are concerned but not the mere believing atheists), don't you see that I don't have a forum as Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, etc., have? For those with a wide audience, desisting from criticism of religious belief, or the lack thereof, points a dagger at the heart of Islamic supremacism. I'm not in this category. Jeesh, I'm amazed you haven't figured this out.
The more I read about muslim and other related stories
the more I realize that money is involved.
This judgement is so unbelievable that it is clear for me
that he received money or has some friends
who asked him for a favor in return of whatever.
It is too obvious. He really should be suspended and removed.
This is a very annoying situation.
I tried to phone his office tonight and the phone numbers don't work. He is hiding.
He even tried to explain his judgement on CNN.
Only bad judgements need to be explained, he is hiding is relationship with the rich muslims who gave him some candies.
Kinana of Khaybar wrote:
Wellington,
...Does this mean you are going to stop criticizing atheists, from who you have nothing to fear?
.................................
Dear Kinana, Wellington *himself* is an atheist.
While he does at times take some atheists to task who claim that devout Jews and Christians present the same sort of threat to nonbelievers as do pious Muslims—what he is criticizing is moral relativism, *not* atheism.
Often Wellington has some kind words for the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well.
Neither of these points changes the fact that Wellington is a thoroughgoing rationalist.
He has said so here many times.
Wellington,
I know you're an agnostic. But you ought to know where I stand by now.
You write:
"First of all, Kepha wasn't lecturing Ernest Perce but rather explaining that Christians are a completely different breed from Muslims regarding their capacity to tolerate criticism and that Perce never need fear Christians. Do you deny this?"
The two aren't mutually exclusive. He was lecturing him (by his own account a sarcastic missive) on how Christians are different from Muslims. Anyhow, Perce is probably aware of this. This is not the time to be bashing Perce for being an atheist. Perce hasn't done anything wrong here that would warrant a lecture.
You wrote:
"And respecting any criticisms I have of atheists (I do where the denying atheists are concerned but not the mere believing atheists), don't you see that I don't have a forum as Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, etc., have? For those with a wide audience, desisting from criticism of religious belief, or the lack thereof, points a dagger at the heart of Islamic supremacism. I'm not in this category. Jeesh, I'm amazed you haven't figured this out."
I don't agree that those sources refraining from criticizing religion would counter Islamic supremacism. Their redirecting their focus off of Christianity and onto Islam might help. Anyways, actually, what you said, to which I responded, was this:
"First, Mark Martin thoroughly disgraces the American judiciary and, second, all those who are inclined to mock religion, be it Ernest Perce, Comedy Central, Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live or whoever, should very publicly announce that they will, for the time being, mock no specific religion until they can mock all religions without fear of bodily harm or death."
That's what I was responding to. You weren't referring to only major media figures. And in any case, my point remains: The idea that the sorts of people mentioned in your list (i.e., atheists in particular or critics of Christianity or of religion in general, including but not limited to pop media figures) ought to shut up (or announce that they are going to do so), is going too far. Yes we--all of us, whether in the media or not--should prioritize on criticizing Islam until such a time as it is brought under control and one can do so safely.
It's worse in canada because the head of canada's largest Police force just knuckled under to the islamic-supremacy thugs by making the Uniforms Shariah-Compliant to allow for the Hijab which just got 4-Brown females in canada murdered by the male muslims doing a Honour-Killing in the Shafia trial where daddy dearest was guilty and boasted about it.
Image the horror by oppressed muslims girls seeing how the MSM,Social Workers,Police,teachers had ignored the cries for help because they feared being an islamophobe and fired from their jobs if they spoke up and hinted that Shariah Law and its murderous traits were now in canada and about to get a girl killed.
These girls watch the TV and see the Conviction BUTTTT, they see Toronto's Police embracing the islamofascists and hired msulim females that condone and endorse Hounor Killings via Shariah law.
Why the hell call the Police if their muslim dad's threatens to kiil thenm when the PC Toronto Police send in a Pro Shariah Murdering muslim female Officer that will side with the dad and tell the abused or raped girl to obey the Quran and Muhammed.
CAIR canada actually wants more pro-Shariah cops to build bridges and know the Culture to handle Muslim issues.
BUT, my taxes should not go to creating an islamic-State in canada with an islamic Wing of the Police just like Hitler had his Muslim SS division in WW2. And the last thing a muslim daughter needs is a pro Honur killing muslim cop to arrive and take her statement and give it to the local Mosque's Imam to set-up a Lynch-mob of jihadists
to hang her as a trouble maker among them as they plot to bring Shariah law to all of canada.
I told someone that the Afro-American's had a right ot be angry and hate many White-folks, BUT....that was because the msulims hadn't screwed them over yet as we saw on 9/11 when islam slaughtered Blacks in N.Y. as islam does in Africa too. All the good people in the USA have a common enemy now and it's only the useful-idiots among whites and blacks that drank the Imam's Kool-Ade and Taqqiyah that islam=peace.
As for the Atheists , this guy had his eyes open to which faith in the USA is truely dangerous and eveil to get him killed one day when for now he just toleranted the naem calling as a hater or bigot.
Now if only the morons in Hollywood that demonize Christians will have THEIR eyes opened once the jihadist fire bomb their homes or attack them in public for mocking ALL faith including islam.
I really want to believe the islam was based on peace, by the 1.2 billion followers can be all wrong when they sanction violence,misogyny,homophobia and like iran...pedophilia because muhammed raped a 8 year old girl when he was 54.
This is what muslims tell us, not me, and it won't be long before the 6'000'000'000+ non-muslims get sick of the jihad thing to slaughter children and civilains as a favour to Allah because they can't murder all of us since most are self-segregated in islamic hell-holes and the USA has 2 million and canada aboout 700'000 .
Wait until the Judges daughter is raped by a muslim gang of supremacy yahoos that use the same Quruan to impose shariah law in US courts. THEN then judges will cry for the Marines to rescue him except Nidal Hussien will arrive and go Jihad to slaughter his whole family as he yells Al-a-Akbar , next Obama will claim that islam had NOTHING to do with the jihad.
Now the muslims screwed over Afro-Americans via 9/11 , good old whitey doesn't look so evil anymore as islam oozes hatred and death to theor brothers in Africa being slaughtered because they are not Arab msulims of pure blood
as the Super-race of idiots for allah.
runner7500 wrote:
The more I read about muslim and other related stories
the more I realize that money is involved.
This judgement is so unbelievable that it is clear for me
that he received money or has some friends
who asked him for a favor in return of whatever.
It is too obvious...
...................................
runner, I believe you severely underestimate the power of cultural relativism, "political correctness', and the perverse yet widespread phenomenon of cultural self-hatred in the West.
I live in California—in the San Francisco Bay Area—and am all too familiar with the grim phenomenon.
"Since his ordeal began, the infidel victim, Ernest Perce, has received 471 verifiable threats." ...
"Perce: I started receiving death threats immediately after putting the video online of the parade. People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad. They say I will be found out and [hanged] in front of my family."
He's received 471 threats? ..incredible! All because he portrayed muhammad as he truly was: a zombie freak. And that's quite a list of threats made by the zombie followers, too.
I've seen several TV debates on this issue. I think "Judge" Martin is on his own plus quite a number of backers from the Islamic community. He is definitely in trouble and with a very limited lifetime in the District Court. Another point, he appears to be back tracking about some of the things he said and which are on the tube for record, for instance he is denying calling Mr. Perce is a Dofus.
We have a right to a public trial as citizens. A recording of the trial is used on appeal. On what authority is the Judge pretending to prohibit the recording of the trial? I would appeal the ruling and submit a transcript (court reporters can transcribe the tape into certified copies) of the trial to the record, quickly before it is illegally confiscated.
"Just like the Danish MoToons, this is a seminal case of the defense of freedom of speech in the West."
This statement just about sums it up. I hope people jump on this with both feet.
This is the link,(hopefully), for a petition from the Forida Family Association to remove judge Mark Martin from the bench:
http://florida-family.org/take_action_form.php?message=63
I just watched the interview with this Martin fella. I'm not even going to stoop to calling him a judge. I was in the military. His service hasn't got jack shit to do with an assault charge. And he sounds like a mouthpiece for the OIC. Does he also condone all the child (rapes) marriages the military kept encountering over there? I was slack-jawed through the whole interview. He literally threw out the whole Constitution. Just threw it out!
This is the link,(hopefully), for a petition from the Forida Family Association to remove judge Mark Martin from the bench:
http://florida-family.org/take_action_form.php?message=63
"The judge sems to have learned nothing from his two and a half years in a Moslem country."..
or maybe he did...
One solution to this judge's myopia would be to populate his courtroom wearing t-shirts reading "F**K Mohammed." When braced by the judge or his bailiffs, hand them a copy of the SCOTUS decision in Cohen v. California(citation missing). That was the decision that stated that wearing a jacket with the words "F**K the draft" was an proper exercise of the first amendment.
This biased judge also said that it was only one man's word against another. He totally ignored the testimony of the Police Officer involved, who totally supported Mr. Perce's version.
This biased judge also said that it was only one man's word against another. He totally ignored the testimony of the Police Officer involved, who totally supported Mr. Perce's version.
This biased judge also said that it was only one man's word against another. He totally ignored the testimony of the Police Officer involved, who totally supported Mr. Perce's version.
Obviously, in "judge" martin's (sic) court, ignorance of the law, AMERICAN law, IS an excuse!
something does not make sense.
- did the prosecutor offer the video before resting, or during rebuttal?
-did the prosecuor lay an appropriate evidentiary foundation for the video evidence?
-the judge said that he heard two conflicting stories, and THEREFORE will not admit the video into evidence. That is not a proper ground on which to deny the exhibit. Besides, the Defendant would not yet have testified at that point in the trial when the video evidence is offered by the prosecution in its case-in-chief.
-was this a trial, or was it a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss? The story does not mention a verdict, which would be the result of a trial. It says dismissal, instead, which would be an order of dismissal following a hearing. If that is true, then the state may appeal
something does not make sense.
- did the prosecutor offer the video before resting, or during rebuttal?
-did the prosecuor lay an appropriate evidentiary foundation for the video evidence?
-the judge said that he heard two conflicting stories, and THEREFORE will not admit the video into evidence. That is not a proper ground on which to deny the exhibit. Besides, the Defendant would not yet have testified at that point in the trial when the video evidence is offered by the prosecution in its case-in-chief.
-was this a trial, or was it a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss? The story does not mention a verdict, which would be the result of a trial. It says dismissal, instead, which would be an order of dismissal following a hearing. If that is true, then the state may appeal
I didn't mean to suggest, Kinana, that criticism of religion should cease but rather poking fun at it for the time being should end by those who indeed have a large audience. If I didn't make that clear in a previous post, I'm doing so now. The mocking of Mormons or Catholics is so easy because such folks are not going to threaten anyone with death. Nor will religious Jews, Buddhists and so on except Muslims. Therefore, a widepread cessation of comedy directed toward ALL religious groups by major figures in the entertainment idustry would serve as a pointed reminder that the reason such a cessation occurred is because of one religion---Islam. I think it would be very effective, as well as the more decent thing to do.
I would close here by opining that I didn't think Kepha was bashing Perce but merely pointing out the difference between the Christian and Muslim mindset. I detected compassion in Kepha's statement, not scolding or anything like that.
Very well, Wellington.
My view is that there should be no period of cessation of criticism of Islam. (What you suggest might work to raise awareness; but it would have to be a very temporary measure). As long as the amount and degree of criticism of whatever religious or political ideologies is proportionate to the problems caused by adherence to such ideologies, that ought to produce the result that Islam is front and center in getting criticized, with relatively little said about the other religions.
That said, I do of course share your disdain for those mainstream media sources you mentioned, as regards their policy on Islam and their overemphasis on the others.
oops, excuse me; not "criticism" but "poking fun" (whatever mention I had re "criticism" in my prev. post should specifically refer to the "poking fun"/mockery form of it).
Judge Martin should receive sensitivity training in American culture, law, and ethics.
ladies and gentlemen
observe
The Mohammedan dementor above, Fayzal M, yet again attempting to pretend that an ideology - ideas inside someone's head - is the same kind of thing as one's DNA.
One cannot change one's dna - whether one has pale or dark-brown skin, and the shape of one's eyes and one's bone structure - because that is determined at conception.
Insulting someone because of something over which the person has no control whatsoever, *is* stupid.
But political ideas, and religious ideas, are not heritable. They are *ideas*. They can be changed, in modern free societies at least. Nobody is *born* pre-programmed to be a Mohammedan or a Christian or an atheist or an animist or, for that matter, a Democrat, a Republican, or a Communist.
Rationally criticising - or even raucously poking fun at - a particular set of ideas, is NOT 'racism' no matter how hard Mr Mohammedan F Mahamed tries to pretend it is.
Nor is it always and everywhere bigotry; to claim that, is an absolute nonsense.
Would it have been bigotry to condemn the Thuggee cult practice of strangling people with a cord, and call it evil?
Query: is Mr F M prepared to unequivocally condemn as barbarous, cruel and destructive of human health the practice of FGM, which is accepted by some African animist communities, and is regarded as obligatory by one whole school of Islamic jurisprudence, condemning millions of women to be horribly mutilated in girlhood? Or would that be 'bigoted'...? We must let the animists, and some foolish African Christians, and a whole lot of Mohammedans, slice up their little girls' genitals, because that practice is sacred to them...it would be raaacist to call it cruel and barbaric. SPIT.
And is he prepared to condemn - as cruel and stupid, which it is - the very common Mohammedan practice of wedding and bedding poor little prepubescent girls, to the great detriment of their psychological and physical health?
I will add a further remark.
In Western countries, too, it is not always that someone *outside* a political party or a religious group criticises or even makes fun of that party or that faith; it can be someone *inside* the party, or someone who is a *believer* in Christianity, say, or Judaism, who 'sees the funny side' of his or her *own* beliefs and practices.
Our local radio talk show host apparently gave a dissertation to his listeners Monday, explaining why this case is not the application of sharia, citing:
http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/the-irrelevance-of-anti-sharia-laws-to-the-zombie-mohammed-case/
and:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html
Listen, mohammedan, and listen well.
You say:
''1. That Tallag Elbayomy was an immigrant who was not fully aware about the freedom of expression in America.''
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
''2. That Ernest Perce should have been aware of the dangers that putting on a mock Muhammad costume would have offended and provoked some Muslim to attack him.''
Your disconnect from any civilised standard of behaviour is nauseating in the extreme.
That you would consider a physical attack on a person for 'putting on a mock muhammad costume ...' is a reasonable or appropriate action is a typical mohammedan and/or leftist response.
Not only do you say this moron scum was 'offended' but Mr. Perce's action 'provoked' him to committ the *assault*. Again, typical mohammedan/leftist claptrap - blame the victim !
You say:
''An analogy that Judge Martin provokes in me to show is a person going into Harlem and shouting "All Niggers ARE SHIT".''
Your analogy is ridiculous and tendentious rubbish. Mr. Perce was part of a *Halloween parade* in Pennsylvania. There was a zombie Pope, and many other costumes, as well as Mr. Perce as zombie mohammed. He wasn't parading through some muslim enclave. He was in his hometown. Exercising his right to free speech and free expression.
The fact this muslim scumbag attacked him for it is further proof, if proof were needed, that islam has no place in free societies. The fact that this 'judge' carried out such a travesty of justice is one of many, many reasons that we are all *sick to the backteeth* of muslims who behave this way, and the repulsive behaviour of thos who excuse/protect them.
Judge Martin won't have Obama and Holder in office to support his anti American sentiments after November elections. Maybe he and others with this anti Constitution/Bill of Rights types will be booted out soon after.
Good God. Fayzal Mahamad has now come to the point where he claims one is "racist" if one balks at being subjected to assault and attempted murder for mocking a historical figure.
Fayzal Mahamad's 'worst case scenario':
An analogy that Judge Martin provokes in me to show is a person going into Harlem and shouting "All Niggers ARE SHIT". How long would it be before an incenced black American violently attacks this person. 5 minutes? 15 minutes. After the attack this person has the audacity to say to the Judge I didn't expect to be attacked because it was my freedom of speech.
..................................
OK—let's take this theoretical case. The actions of the man with the sign would be both morally reprehensible and very, very foolish.
But Fayzal Mahamad seems to be under the impression that the attacker in this case would not only not be charged with a crime, but would would be praised by a judge under American law.
Fayzal Mahamad is mistaken. Such an attack would be *illegal*, and the assailant charged with assault.
Moreover—as many, many people have pointed out—ideology is *not race*.
The sad irony is that Fayzal Mahamed himself is flogging a point of view here—an ideology, if a poorly thought-out and contradictory one—that would have him branded a "racist" by his own criteria.
"Thank you Gravenimage. see it not so hard to agree with me when you put your mind to study my arguments."
That's nice, you have a victory in your own mind, despite the fact that you have little grasp of American law or what the word "racist" really means. Typical Muslim argument tactics.
Yes, it may be "foolish" to propagate hate speech (if that's indeed what this was), but you congratulated the judge in his action, meaning you agree with the beating and that it was somehow justified.
Fayzal Mahamed is just spamming at this point. This is not an uncommon tactic—"Horse" was very fond of it.
Just throw so much irrational verbiage around that most of the posters get tired of responding...
Wellington and Kinana: I'll try to be nicer in the future, and less sarcastic.