Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
Offline Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
Words almost fail.
The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.
The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.
That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.
It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
- Login to post comments
OK. I'm fairly liberal in my views about freedom of speech, but here in the United States, attacking another person for any reason other than physically defending yourself or another is the only reason I would give-in to such violence. Which by the way, isn't "freedom of speech". It was those who dressed up like the zombies who were expressing their freedom of speech.
This judge is a douche who is biased in his views on justice. He should be removed from the bench and not allowed to ever sit on a case, even if it was traffic court. In fact, I'm so outraged out the violation of the 1st Amendment here that I would go on to say that he should be put in jail for such an action.
If any one as further information on this case please post it.
Here is the blog post of the actual court proceedings.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
After listening to the court proceedings I came to the following conclusions:
1 - The judge is wrong. This is not an Islamic country ruled by Islamic law. It would wrong if people said "I'm a christian and the bible says.. blah blah blah so I'm justified in attacking them" so why is it ok for islamic people to attack non-believers?
2 - The defendant did physically accost the plaintiff. Look at the :48 second mark and the shadow of the defendant comes from behind.
3 - The plaintiff is a moron and lacks any common sense. While I support his decision to dress as a muslim zombie the fact he was shouting out "who he was" and carrying a sign is deliberately done to provoke others.
4 - The prophet Muhammad did not rise from the dead.
This story has been out for a couple of days. But yea, this judge pisses me off. He is basically saying it is ok to take the law into your own hands merely because you were offended.
I don't care that the Judge is Muslim. "No religious test" allows him legally to hold that office. But that dip shit needs to read rulings like "People vs Larry Flint", and as much as I hated Falwell, even he tried to settle that in the courts and not in the streets because someone picked on his mother.
The Supreme Court did agree with Falwell that Flints fake add that poked fun of Falwell fucking his own mother WAS offensive, but the court rightfully concluded "SO WHAT". They said it didn't meet the burden of liable or slander because no reasonable person would believe that he actually did that to his mother.
It is a dangerous game for a Judge or lawmakers to set up a society to set up taboos. Once we get into that game long term, it can set up an monpoly, BY ANY GIVEN LABEL. You cannot play thought police or morality police because when you do, it does not take into account long term, that power shifts over time and your government majority may not always like what you have to say. As such dissent, even the offensive stuff, has to be protected.
Religion especially, in a free society, must be open to scrutiny and even blasphemy. It is why we don't live in a theocracy. This Muslim judge benefited from our open society and if it were not for the First Amendment and no religious test and freedom of speech, there ARE many Christians who would treat him like he treated this atheist and say "RESPECT ME OR ELSE".
Whatever good intent any person has in saying "cant we all just get along" cannot involve law makers or judges throwing out common law because of an emotional reaction to merely being offended.
This same Muslim would throw the book at any atheist or Christian if they did they assaulted a Muslim. This judge needs to apply the law and our common law is the same. You have NO RIGHT to put your hands on someone outside self defense. Merely being offended is not a license to physically assault someone.
Otherwise I should have the right to punch someone for equating me to Hitler.
I REALLY DO get down on well intended people on the left who have a noble idea of "cant we all just get along"
YES, but the only way to do that is to understand that taboos are not the way to do it, that common law is the only thing we have. There are no laws, nor should there be, laws forcing people to like you, or only say nice things about you. But no matter what label you hold, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist or whatever, we can agree that no one likes to be physically harmed. We can also agree that we like to complain and even bitch about things we don't like. COMMON LAW, not taboos.
I don't know if this judge will ever read this. But he is shitting on the very Constitution that prevented a majority that could have excluded him from his office and many are even today offended just by the fact that a Muslim is a judge. If he is unwilling to convict someone who clearly broke the law, he has no business being a judge, ALL LABELS ASIDE.
Judges have not business cherry picking what laws get enforced and which ones don't. That is a bad attitude and to this judge I say, imagine if the majority of Christian judges took that same attitude.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't give a shit if that atheist said "Mohammad takes it up the ass". That was mere name calling, it was not a call to violence, nor was it an act of violence. Name calling is not enough to give someone the right to assault you, otherwise I would have the right to punch someone who calls me Hitler. I don't know how long you have been on the boards, but I cannot tell you how many people have done that. And even Jean pisses me off and offends me. But unless someone is making a direct threat to me, merely calling me names is not a crime.
There was a case in Michigan where an atheist and Christian got into a debate. The Christian got so offended that he assaulted the guy and murdered him. What did that do for anyone? It got one person dead, and him put in jail. It solved NOTHING.
We are not going to bring the Middle East, or this judge for that matter, into the 21frst century by allowing honor crap and thought police to rule government.
YOU ARE NOT entitled to be free from being offended. That is theocracies do, that is what state fascism of North Korea does. It is the alpha male saying "you cannot pick on me".
If western societies never had developed governments that protected dissent, that judge would have never taken office.
And again, if they claim, like all the major three do, that their deity is all powerful, then that deity is a wimp if it needs a human to protect it. AND with all the shit that humans suffer from, I find it sick and petty to claim a god whose top priority would to worry about being called names. What can calling a deity names do to it if it is all powerful?
When I hear about shit like this it always gives me the image of a midget standing spread eagle in front of the Terminator shouting "Dont pick on my daddy, you might hurt him".
You have the right to be offended, and you have the right to tell the person who offended you that you were offended, but you dont have the right to lay your hands on them. You can only control your own behavior, you cannot physically force someone to like you. THAT is why we have common law. Because it is not based on thought police, but the over lap of only taking action against a person when they physically harm someone. You cannot legislate morality or have government play thought police.
And please tell me in any case what either the guy dressed up did that was criminal?
I think any person who views their deity as having the right to beat you up for merely being offended is sick and for that reason alone that atheist was proving his point.
HONOR crap is from the stone age and no one benefits from it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
NOW TO THE MUSLIMS READING THIS,
Why did I blaspheme your hero?
Not because I hate all Muslims, I do not personally know all Muslims. Anymore than you personally know all atheists, or we personally know all Christians.
MY POINT IN DOING IT is a demonstration that civility cannot be forced on others out of some tribal sense of honor. It can only be done through common consensus. It is because of common law that that Muslim judge sits on that bench. Many in this country would ban him from such, NOT ME. My only objection was his refusal to enforce the law, not the fact that he was a Muslim.
We have Muslim Keith Elleson in OUR Congress because we have a Constitution that PROTECTS dissent. If it were not for that protection he wouldnt have had the opportunity to compete for political office.
CIVIL society cannot be one of force. You cannot force your fellow human to always like you. But you the Muslim, and Christians and Jews and atheists living in this country HAVE learned to live with our differences and even blasphemy WITHOUT killing each other.
To the Muslims who have migrated here from your own tribal beefs. Think about just the mere act of speaking out as a minority Sunni or a Minority Shiite. Without even being called names, just the mere act of dissent is seen in many places in the Middle east as equally offensive as the blasphemy I committed here?
Is that how you want the west to view you? How is it I can handle being called Hitler and communist by Christians without killing them or assaulting them, but you cant handle blasphemy yourself? Why don't you get with the times and grow up. If something offends you FINE, say something, that is what free speech is for. But merely being offended is not the worst thing in the world.
Muslims living in China and even Christians have it far worse than this Muslim in this case. Christians and atheists living in Iran have it far worse. If Muslims want to move into the future with the rest of the world, AND I WANT THEM TO AS WELL, then we cannot beat each other up merely over name calling. We are not kids in a sandbox in a school yard.
I do not expect you to like what I have to say. I don't even expect you to personally like me. But I do, just like you would want for yourself, expect that my government will protect BOTH you and I from physical harm.
If you want to combat bigotry towards Islam, use your voice, not your fists, lead by example, not by fear and intimidation. Any Shiite who lived under Sadam's Sunni minority rule, can tell you what oppression is. Any Sunni living in Iran under their Shiite majority, can tell you what oppression is.
In America, we have learned to live with hearing things we don't always like. We have learned that it is better to be offended and protect the common law of not physically harming others, than to live under a government that plays thought police.
Freud said it best "The first person to hurl an insult instead of a stone started civilization". Having your feelings hurt is far better than being dead.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm also offended by this reporter who obviously delibrately removed a portion of the quote to protect the judge. She removed the "I'm a Muslim" from the quotation.
A good example of biased reporting.
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/cumberland-county-magisterial-district-judge-berated-over-case-dismissal/article_e8813f3c-6036-11...
I agree, but I see a difference between freedom of speech and provoking others. While the constitution protects freedom of speech, where do you draw the line? How far can a person go with their speech? Is it legal to say, "I'm going to kill the President of the United States" Nope. If I went out and said that I would be wrong and I would be arrested. If I said, "I'm going to kill this worm", I'm allowed to not only say this, but if I killed the worm no one would care.
Before 1960 it was illegal to wear the USA flag as an article of clothing, but today it is totally legal. Is it legal to burn the flag? Is it legal to shout "fire" in a crowded public room filled with people, like a theater? Where is the line drawn? Today is that line drawn differently than it was 50 years ago?
I don't believe this atheist went out and said "I'm going to do this in order to get a muslim to attack me". He did it because he really believed in the freedom of speech and thought he was protected.
My point of view is that "I wouldn't" do it because I find it immature. I might go dressed as a Zombie Jesus because Jesus did come back from the dead and therefore is a zombie. Muhammad did not come back from the dead. He was never a zombie (yeah a technicality).
I already told you where the line is. The line is you cannot advocate physical harm to anyone. That is common law and is such the case even outside the issue of race or religion or sexual orientation. It is just as illegal to call for the harm of your spouse or your neighbor as it is to call for the harm of someone because they are Muslims or atheists or Jews,
But merely saying "I hate atheists" Or "I hate Muslims" or "I hate Jesus" or "I hate Allah" is NOT a crime. Setting up taboos in any case won't prevent people from saying those things, it will only push it under ground.
Again, I have been equated to Hitler and Po pot merely because I am an atheist. And if someone wanted to burn a copy of Origin of the Species, OF COURSE it would offend me, for example, but that would not give me the right to act out in violence. PERIOD.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Awww, come now Brian, you are FAR worse than Hitler or Pol Pot... lol
Fuck, you got me. I have recorded the NFL without their permission and have ripped the tags of my mattress. You Buddhists really piss me off sometimes. DAMN YOU!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Found this link with some very interesting information.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/02/27/outrage_judge_dismisses_charges_against_offended_muslim_who_assaulted_atheist
I especially like the part about the recent burning of the quran. I think that there are many muslims who act with out thinking or to say that they have a one track mind about what or how things should be handled. And by saying "with out thinking" I mean that they are programmed to act that way because of their belief.
This is no different than any other religion or belief system which people use as a scapegoat for their actions. "Oh the devil made me do it" or "my god demands satisfaction".
The judge in this case as ignored the fact that the officer who gave the infraction was told by the defendant that he did attack the plaintiff. The defendant now feels justified and the next time this happens maybe he will take it a step further and kill a person in the name of his god.
Yet if I punched someone for equating atheists to Hitler I'd do time. Fucking dickhead judge. Hey, while you are at it asshole judge, lets get rid of speed limits and child labor laws, because we can all find excuses to do stupid shit.
THIS JUDGE GETS MY ASSHOLE OF THE YEAR AWARD!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If there really is a fire I would damned sure hope so. But if there isn't and you do, then that is causing a potential panic which could lead to injury.
That is not the same as simply saying "fuck you" or "I don't like you". That atheist was NOT physically provoking anyone and had every legal right to do what he did, he was NOT breaking the law. He was not physically threatening anyone or calling for people to harm Muslims. He was simply poking fun of their hero.
Again civility in a pluralistic society is not based on forcing people to submit to you. Civility is not based on setting up taboos. Civility is controlling yourself physically, not trying to physically control others when they are not breaking the law.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I still have mixed feelings about this portion of it.
Did the plaintiff go out of his way to single out muslims? the judge didn't prove this so his ruling is built on his own personal opinion.
Did the plaintiff go out and say "I'm going to fuck with the muslims. I bet there will be muslims there and I'm going to provoke them".
Did the defense bring forth any witnesses that said "Hey he was calling out to the muslims saying, HAHAHA your prophet is a zombie and your religion sucks"" Nope. Didn't prove this either.
Did the defendant go to the cop and admit to attacking the plaintiff? Yep, sure did and what did the judge do? He said, fuck off cop. I don't care what you wrote in your report. I'll decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.
The video does show contact between both parties.
Was the plaintiff stupid for what he did? Personally I believe he's a douche and he could have handled it better.
Was he within his rights to speak the way he was during a Halloween parade? Yes and with the decision from this hack judge now it gives support to others to lash out non-believers because they find them offensive.
Doesn't matter if he did single them out. There is not one adult in the west that has not bitched their complaint at another label, you do it here too, does that mean you should be hit? You've made comments about Christianity.
AGAIN we cannot live under a government that plays thought police or morality police. We cannot live under a government that forces us to only say nice things about each other.
As a minority atheist I am NOT going to hand that kind of power over my government. THE LAWS are already in place that government can act on. You call for the physical harm of someone else, you get arrested. You physically harm someone else, you get arrested. BUT NO ONE has the right to hit you merely because you offended them.
I do not want tha
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This reminded me and Brian37 of some crap going on in the UK at the moment.
here is a relevant link:
http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/intolerant-islam/
RIchard Dawkins spoke at the rally, among others. (The Rally to defend free expression.)
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I'm against all violence.
I'm against the government, any government, which plays thought or morality police for the people.
Oh my. What a fun read that was!
I found the Jesus and Mo comic very funny.
I think this one sums up the way I view the religious.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/06/14/death2/
I'm baffled by the radical muslims who follow this shit about "mo" being some kind of perfect human and that he can not be represented in a drawing. It's amazing that they take it so extreme over a subject which is really lacking in any sort of substance. I mean, isn't there better things to focus on like doing good in the world? Helping out the poor? The sick? Stopping war?
They seem so hell bent on starting fighting over any thing which offends them and those things which offend them is based on what some else has taught them.
No one is born a muslim, catholic, jew, neo-nazi, hater, lover, murderer, etc. People are trained and influenced by their surroundings and eventually settle in to what they are comfortable with; yes I believe genetics pre-disposes some people to having a higher percentage of one or the other.
Religion is such a lost cause.
Then you should not be condemning the atheist for poking fun of Islam. WHEN you take it into context, he was standing next to a guy dressed up as the Pope. The image WAS offensive, I am NOT going to deny it. But to me what he did was no different than when my mother shouted at me when I said or did something stupid, "Wake up,"
If Jefferson had made his claim about Jesus being in the same class as Minerva today, he would have been treated with the same scorn as that atheist.
You need the ability to blaspheme and offend. It is WHY we no longer believe the earth is flat. It is why blacks are no longer slaves. It is why women today are not in mass treated like property, although you still have pockets of society still clinging to the past.
I am every harsh on religion without apology, and NOT because I am a bigot, but because it will always need a leash, because just like any human run organization, without checks and balances and the ability to criticize humans can create monopolies of power and go on to harm others in mass.
I have always accepted that I cant create an atheist utopia anymore than 7 billion people can be forced to be Muslims or Christians. But their claims do not deserve taboo status.
The most important goal I have for myself as an individual, and I even do it with you, is try to get people to the point where they can separate themselves from the individual claims they make. I think you claiming to be Buddhist, can see that in me. I think you know that if I am honest with you and say "Damn it Beach, you don't need it, you just think you do", that does not mean I hate you personally.
I do hate ANYONE of any label who thinks, in our pluralistic society, that by threatening me with their god, that I will back off and put up with it because they don't want to be offended. But if all a person is doing is saying "I believe" I may hate the claim, but that does not mean I hate everything about that person.
Obama is a Christian and Beyond Saving is an atheist. I am NOT going to simply side with Beyond because he is an athiest, even he has claims on certain issues that drive me nuts.
Being offended is not the worst thing in the world. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. And offending someone is not the same as actually hating them. You CAN offend someone's claim without hating them, even if you do hate the claim.
Person x claims "The Chargers won the Super Bowl this year"
Me, "Bullshit, are you nuts? The Giants did".
Harsh and blunt but STILL TRUE.
Once you get beyond the fear of being offended, you can make arguments without wanting to kill someone or assuming the person who is offending you wants to kill you. What it does is creates a society where everyone can live without physical fear and still allow everyone on all sides the ability to bitch.
The Sunnis living in Iran, and the non-Muslims in Iran of all labels are oppressed. This Muslim who assaulted the atheists was the aggressor, not the atheist.
You don't fight fascism or oppression by setting up taboos or thought police. That is not good for anyone who values a pluralistic society.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well that should have been considered by the judge because he said that the muslim was offended by the "mo zombie". He said nothing about the other religion nor that the atheist does not need to follow the rules or regulations of another religion. Basically the judge decided that the muslim point of view is more important than any other religious belief. So if I eat pork and in front of a muslim who thinks pork is a sin, then is that muslim allowed to attack me? I think not.
All religions will hopefully cease to exist in the future. We don't need them.
You misunderstand buddhism, or at least my following of it. You don't seem to understand that I do not follow all those things which you speak negatively about; I follow only the 4nb and even if you remove the labels I can't change the fact that the 4nb's are not mine to claim. I heard them, I believe in them, I follow them. I must give credit to the buddha who first said those words to the world.
I agree, the muslim should have left the parade and gone home. he has a belief system which is not followed by others.
I have done some research on the Qu'ran and I can find no reference to the so called "laws" or "requirements" of the muslim faith which says "do not have any depictions of the prophet muhammad. If any one can add to this I'd love to see some info. I looked in several websites claiming to have an online version of the qu'ran and there isn't a single reference to this law.
YOU KEEP MISSING MY POINT!
I don't care if that atheist said the Koran mentioned elves or Mickey Mouse and had a poster claiming it.
IN A CIVIL SOCIETY we don't assault someone merely because we get offended! PERIOD!
As an atheist yourself you damned well should appreciate that.
THE JUDGE WAS WRONG for dropping the charges. He does not get to decide which laws are enforced and which ones are not. There was one victim here, the atheist, not the jackass who assaulted him.
What that dad should have told his kid is "I don't like what that atheist is doing and I find it offensive and I wish he wouldn't do that"
NO he assaulted that atheist which sends the message to the kid that it is ok to act out in violence when you get your feelings hurt.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I didn't miss your point. I understand that the muslim should not be allowed to attack the atheist. I understand that no one should be allowed to attack another person even if it is the most offensive verbal or act every in the history of mankind. Attacking the other person is worthless and undermines the processes whe have in place in our country.
The judge is a douche bag. I just saw a video with an phone interview of him and what he said was completely illogical. He is obviously a biased individual who is using muslim laws to dictate the dismissal of the case. I hope he gets his ass handed to him and they boot him out of the seat.
The judge also ignored the cop and the video which stated differently the truth of the situation.
Saying you can't provoke other people is clearly dumb when anything you say or do could be called provocation, but he apparently threw out the case for lack of evidence. If you look at the video you can't really see anyone being assaulted.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The video is questionable, but the police officer took a statement from the defendant who said that he came up to him and admitted attacking/grabbing/whatever the plaintiff. Seems like an open and shut case. Obviously the judge is biased in his opinion.
I found this on CNN.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/judges-dismissal-of-atheists-harassment-claim-against-muslim-makes-waves/
I have no idea what the law dictates should happen. I'm just talking about what you posted.I didn't see where the defendant admitted anything. Your links say that he was charged with harassment based on the other guy's complaint and the judge threw it out because it was one person's word against another's with no other evidence.
I don't think anyone should commit assault or even be a Muslim but there has to be evidence in a trial for someone to be convicted.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I had previously posted this, or thought so, you can skip to :50 and hear it directly from the cop who wrote the defendant up on the charges. Obviously, the word of this cop means nothing to the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE&feature=player_embedded
Ok, strap in everyone I'm about to agree with Gauche. It is pretty standard for cases like this to be dismissed. The officer filing the charges didn't even consider there to be enough for assault hence the harassment charge which rests mostly on my word vs your word testimony of the parties involved and biased 3rd parties. Since no one was injured it really amounts to a very minor conflict that simply isn't worth the time and expense of putting through trial.
These types of conflicts happen all the time, you've probably witnessed them in other contexts say a couple people get in an argument in a bar and a little shoving or something happens. The police might make an arrest but it usually amounts to charges of disturbing the peace or harassment which are often dismissed. Peoples tempers are going to flare and they will do stupid things, it isn't worthwhile locking everyone in these cases up or even having a trial as after the incident things calm down and everything is fine. So as far as the judges legal decision I don't think there is anything outside of the routine.
There is the issue of what the judge said. I think the blogs are being a little dramatic about it. I don't think the judge in any way was suggesting that Perce didn't have a right to do what he did. I think the judge was simply expressing his opinion that in exercising his rights Perce shouldn't be such an asshole. I interpreted the judges comments along the lines of yes you have the right but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Agree or disagree but judges often use their position to voice their opinions on the case.
I kind of agree with the judge, I don't think this type of speech helps promote atheism and is extremely immature. Yes you have the right to do it, but I don't think you should do it because it does make you look ignorant, childish and offensive. The judge wasn't trying to implement sharia law and I don't think he treated the case any differently than he would have if the scuffle happened in a non-religious context.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Wow. Well, every one is allowed their opinion.
This judge went out of his realm of the courts and passed in to a personal point of view. He could have just said, "hey, there is no evidence that you were attacked, case dismissed" but no, that isn't what he did. He went out of his way to attack the plaintiff for his point of view and freedom of expression. The judge made a mockery of the system by saying that muslims are not accountable for their actions because their belief system is "infused" in to their lively-hood.
What a crock of shit.
Sure, I'll agree that I wouldn't do something like this because I do find it immature and I do find it offensive, but that isn't the way the 1st Amendment works.
Also, the Qu'ran says nothing about depicting Muhammad in any form or fashion. It is a "law" added long after he died. He was done by other religious leaders who claimed that depicting Muhammad might evoke sexual desires. Yet, not all muslims believe this, it is a very specific "law" laid down by one sect of the religion. There are other sects that DO allow depictions of muhammad, yet we don't ever hear of these muslims being attacked by other muslims over the pictures. Oh. I forgot. White anglo saxon european people are assholes and they aren't allowed to voice their opinions.
And I have seen this on the show Cops countless times, even before it gets to court. The cop gives a lecture to someone asks if either wants to press charges, if no one does they leave.
STILL NOT THE POINT
Why did that judge in any case, basically send the message to that Muslim, moreso his kid, that it is ok to put your hands on someone merely because you got offended.
Do you think I should have the right to touch some fundy nut if they say "your going to burn in hell", even if the charges are dropped?
Simple rule outside of law or what cops or judges do. HOW ABOUT you control your own damned body and dont touch anyone? Pretty simple.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Judges often express their personal point of view when rendering a decision. I've been to court three times in my life and all three times the judge voiced their opinion about me, sometimes less than flattering even when ruling in my favor. The only difference between this and any other random altercation is that it was over religion. The cries over free speech are bullshit, Perce is not facing any legal action for what he did. And I see the cries of SHARIA! as nothing but fear mongering. The judge was quite clear that the defendant didn't have the right to put his hands on Perce but there simply wasn't enough evidence to meet the legal standard for harassment.
The only thing the judge is guilty of is lecturing, which anyone who has spent any amount of time in court rooms is commonplace. The judge that issues a ruling in one sentence would be the exception. If the altercation had been over anything but religion this ruling wouldn't have been noticed.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The judge did not say it was ok, he said the exact opposite,
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I completely disagree.
The judge has the right to dismiss the case for the reasons given, but he has ignored the fact that the defendant went to the cop and said that he did grab the plaintiff. I've provided you previously with the link of the interview with the cop.
As for the response from the judge, he is allowed to lecture, but he went beyond doing so, and yes I have been in court to and heard both sides from the judge.
Normally one would expect a judge to say that he thinks dressing up is wrong but he didn't "lecture" the defendant. He focused on the plaintiff for SIX minutes. Huh? Wait a minute. Why would the judge lecture some one for six minutes if nothing transpired? The judge is obviously ticked off that this guy dressed up like a prophet and claims that he provoked the other guy to attack him. It's almost as if "hey you deserved what you got". He also supports the claim that the attack did take place because of his six minute rambling.
This is bullshit. The judge is wrong. He was biased in his decision.
Maybe the judge's decision was wrong it's difficult for you or me to say because we're not legal experts and we weren't there. If the police charge you then they probably think you're guilty. It doesn't necessarily mean a court will agree and that's a good thing. Even if you think there was something patently unfair about it - which I don't - you still have to look at the situation realistically. The guy was trying to antagonize a bunch of people and then he went into court with no witnesses, no injuries and a video that doesn't show dick.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
The issues at hand are that the judge ignored the police testimony that the defendant stated he did accost the plaintiff. The judge also made it clear that he doesn't like people dressing up as the prophet muhammad. The judge also used six minutes of his time to discuss how dressing up like the prophet was a bad idea, but failed to discuss with the defendant how attacking others is wrong (oh, I forgot, he was innocent of the charges). The judge also stated that he was a muslim (hear it in the recording) but now there is "damage control" saying he was a lutheran.
Why did the muslim attack? Oh, yeah, I forgot. People who are muslim are so involved with their belief system that it must be in their DNA. They have no control over the anger that is produced inside their mind. It also must be in their religion not to leave the area of the offense (turn the other cheek). They must save face and attack the other person. Oh, who was running the parade? The atheists. So these muslims knew that the parade was taking place and their would be atheists there who MIGHT offend them.
The judge would need to PROVE that the intent of the plaintiff was to provoke a fight/argument. The judge didn't even bother to do this because he is biased.
Do I agree with the atheist who dressed up like mohammad, no. I wouldn't do it and if they were a friend of mine I would try to discourage them from doing such a thing. If they were going to go through with it I'd at least try to get them not to wear the sign around their neck. It sort of takes away from the whole premise of being a legitimate zombie.
You don't know that he did ignore the testimony of the police. Sometimes the police believe there's enough evidence to convict someone and they are wrong. Conviction rates for harassment are very very low. The fact that police say someones confrontational behavior was harassment doesn't necessarily mean they'll be convicted because confronting a person isn't automatically a crime.
The fact that the judge was religious and lectured the guy about being disrespectful to others to me seems completely irrelevant. I can't imagine many judges would want to rule in your favor if you do things like that. If you have enough evidence to force him to rule for you then I think that's great. This guy didn't.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This isn't the issue. let's roll play.
1 - There is a parade with an atheist who dresses up foolishly as the prophet muhammad. It is unknown if he is dressing up to provoke others or to exercise his right of free speech. He could have dressed up as any other form of costume, but he picked the prophet. During the parade he holds a sign around his neck letting people know who he is because a beard and a turban could be any costume, even Osman Bin Laden. The atheist even shouts out, I am the prophet muhammed and I've come back from the dead as a zombie.
During the walk there is a confrontation. A muslim person with his friend comes out on to the street to confront the individual. This is true and with or with out the video (which there is one) they argue about the costume. You can hear the discussion and both voices are recorded. After the altercation, they go off and find a cop who then asks, "ok, what happened?"
The defendant says, I didn't like the way he was dressed so I went out and grabbed him/pulled on the sign/told him to take off the sign and the costume/what ever (either way, he tells the cop, yes I did grab him).
The cop files a report and charges the defendant with harassment.
Judgment day comes and they go to court. They both speak there minds.
The defendant says, "I was offended. I went out to tell him that he should take it all off. blah blah"
The plaintiff says, "He grabbed me/pulled on the sign/blah blah blah".
They show the video. They provide testimony from witnesses. The cop too.
The judge at this point can say, "Look, there isn't any real evidence here, it's a "he said, he said". Violence is wrong and Mr. Defendant if I found out you did this again you will get the book thrown at you if I am your judge. Mr. Plaintiff maybe next time you can pick a better costume and present it in a better way which is less offensive."
That would have been the end of this entire trial. No one would be talking about it. No news stations would have bothered with it.
2 - You have every thing you had in trial #1 but after the cop speaks you have this...
The judge goes off on a 6 minute tirade telling the plaintiff that if he was in another country he would have been killed. He never lectures the defendant on any thing. He shows his true colors by defending the rights of the defendant to "attack" another individual because he is a muslim. He justifies violence.
He points out that muslims are different and they don't need to justify their actions because their religions dictates violence.
He might have misspoken, but he says that he is a muslim (yes, I've heard the audio recording).
The judge is a moron. He is an idiot. He lacks common sense. I don't care if he is a muslim or a lutheran. He's wrong in the way he handled the situation. He shouldn't be on the bench. I hope they investigate him. I hope they remove him from the bench. He is a disgrace to the word justice.
This interview says every thing about where this douche bag is coming from mentally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-mUpY_4WHk&feature=related
I think this website called "Above the Law" really provides a good review of the court case.
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/the-zombie-mohammed-judge-lets-discuss/#more-139229
Apparently, hyperbole makes for a nice viral news item. The "protester" made a point of squealing to pigs that his rights had been violated. If anything, he should have taken a few "how not to bitch of such insignificant things" classes.
At the same time, it does require a look at the grand "you do not have a right not to be offended" issue, anger-management problems or not.
You do not have a (legal or moral) right to not be offended. Fairly basic libertarian stance 101, I would think. Sure, there is a question of "good taste", but it is a separate issue from law.
Well, Beyond... that (apparently) is sometimes the whole point. People will "demonstrate" and gripe and moan about all sorts of things to the effect that most pragmatists walking by will either respond "why should I care", or "what difference does any of this make to me". The "asshole" approach is common amongst groups of activists who feel some innately overwhelming need to speak "truth to power" in a deliberately juvenile and reactionistic manner. Obvious examples include PETA and female followers of Catherine McKinnon. In my mind, it is just more free schadenfreude. I would think that PETA and radical feminists serve as great examples of how not to act as an activist, but I'm in the minority.
In the same way I don't feel the need to give evangelicals, fundies, militant feminists and 'idiot idealogues' the time of day in most instances, I also don't feel to pay reactionistic activists any heed. Most people who have seen me post over the past year should know this, but it pays to repeat it. At the same time, I support confrontationists. Because, in a day and age where a crazed Filipino man will jump into a lion's place at a zoo to "convert" said lion, a group of militant religious cranks calling themselves the "Army of God" will mail (fake) anthrax letters off to Planned Parenthood drs and a pope will claim to speak with near-absolute religious authority, confrontations are needed.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The judge has apparently announced that he's not a Muslim. He's a Lutheran. Isn't that one of the religions with the zombie?
Thandarr
Thandarr
[email protected]
Awesome. That sets legal precedence for me to assault any theist who insults my lack of beliefs. I'll have to remember that next time I'm in the US.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No it doesn't and if you did and I was a judge and you did what that Muslim did, it would not matter to me that you call yourself an atheist, no matter how much I might sympathize with the emotional reaction. Civil society depends on the rule of law, and that requires EVERYONE on all sides to keep their hands to themselves, even in the face of insult and blasphemy.
My concern is that not that it sets any precedence, but what message it sends to that Muslim's kid and what that kid might do when he grows up.
I know you are being sarcastic, but just saying for those who read this.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"You have been trolled, newbie"?
Srsly u guise... 'Assault an American after 9/11, get jail time + deportation'. Is vastet really that stupid... hmmm. I'm gonna go with "no" for the time being.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
POINT OF VIEW, what you call "antagonizing" that atheist would call blasphemy, and I agree it was just Blasphemy. Do you want to foster a country where simply offending people is enough for them to silence you? Being outnumbered by theists, I don't think that is a good attitude to foster.
If you want to call it "antagonizing" think about that the next time you make a post on this site that has spent the past 7 years blasting religion and god claims. Do you want theist to have the power of the word "antagonize"? Do you think if they had the power of law on their side they would leave a site like this alone?
Jefferson blasphemed religion all the time, Jesus being in the same class as Minerva, his Jefferson's bible "priests dread the advance of science" would cause Christians with that kind of mindset that Muslim had to act out in the same type of physical assault. Jefferson, and the First Amendment are why Christians DONT for the most part do what that Muslim did.
In this country sometimes you are going to see and hear things that piss you off. If I acted like that Muslim every time Rush Limbaugh said something that pissed me off he'd be in the hospital and I'd be in jail. BUT since I know it is my responsibility to control my own actions and not his, I simply stick to using my own voice and call him a fuckwad.
NO ONE deserves a pedestal. That atheist was not calling for murder or violence. He was merely offending that Muslim. If we all got to assault people for offending us we would look like the Taliban.
Bottom line, what makes the west civil, isn't taboos or pedestals, what makes us civil is that we have learned to allow bitching while agreeing not to get violent while bitching.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think you would be. I for one do everything I can to encourage PETA babes to keep protesting.
Support PETA protests, eat beef!
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
It doesn't matter what you call it. If Rush Limbaugh wanted to prove you harassed him in court he'd need evidence too. If his case were thrown out because he had none and he began ranting about the judge being atheistic and changing the law that non-believers can now attack believers he'd look ridiculous as well.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I had heard that previously, but I find it disturbing the audio of his comments. What would possess a person to say such a think from his position during a trial. The audio is clear enough not to miss.
In either case it is about setting precedence, not only to other people in the judicial system but for the public and that young muslim man.
I agree, civil society depends on the rule of law and not sharia law, this is america and it is important that this judge understand that rule.
BTW - He is now under protective custody/watch. There have been over 200 death threats against him.
Gauche, don't be a fool. This isn't what happened.
As I mentioned previously, even if he didn't think there was enough evidence he shouldn't have spoken out the way he did against the atheist. He should have spoken to both the defendant and the plaintiff in the same manner. He didn't.
I would have been satisfied if the judge used a 6 minute rant on both of them but he didn't.
This judge is biased.