Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network This story comes from the Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s most popular websites.
COMMENTARY | 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.
I repeat, if you go to Turley's blog, you can see what happened, with a portion of the actual transcript that shows what the judge actually said. And indeed, he was 'way out of line and did himself and his faith (which Turley confirms, even though the folks at Randi don't seem to believe it) no favors.
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm Posts: 13580 Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
Jonathan Turley's blog does include a story about that incident, apparently by Turley, calling the case the "perfect storm of religious tension."
The video consists of words prefaced by a few images. The "attack" does not seem to have been very effective, as the "Parading Atheist of Central Pennsylvania" is heard proceeding down the street (for three blocks) proclaiming that he is the Prophet Mohammed risen from the dead. Muslims make no claim that Mohammed rose from the dead.
The reference to the cultural motivations for assaulting Perce seems to raise a type of cultural defense. I have spent years discussing this issue with state and federal judges on the proper role of culture in criminal and civil cases. This is not a case where I would view that defense as properly raised. There are certainly constitutional (and yes cultural) norms that must be accepted when joining this Republic. One is a commitment to free speech. If culture could trump free speech, the country would become the amalgamation of all extrinsic cultures — protecting no one by protecting everyone’s impulses. Those countries referenced by the court took a different path — a path away from civil liberties and toward religious orthodoxy. It is a poor example to raise except as an example of what we are not. The fact that this man may have formed his views in such an oppressive environment does not excuse his forcing others to adhere to his religious sentiments.
Martin’s comments also heighten concerns over the growing trend toward criminalizing anti-religious speech in the use of such standards as the Brandenburg test, a position supported by the Obama Administration.
There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture.
I can understand the judge’s claims of conflicting testimony on the crime –though it seems to be that the officer’s testimony and the tape would resolve those doubts. However, I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct.
It would probably have been sufficient to dismiss the case on the grounds that the incident did not rise to the level of assault, and the arresting officer acted only upon a complaint, not upon what he witnessed.
Incidentally, atheists: this is not how to win friends and influence people. "Doofus" is not a judicially temperate term but was accurate.
_________________ "Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.
It debunks the portion of the story that claimed that the Judge is a muslim. That part, and the "sharia" crap, is clearly alarmist nonsense.
Based on my read of the transcription of the audio, there were at least three flaming assholes involved - the victim, the defendant, and the judge. Dressing up as zombie Mohammad is deliberately inflammatory and offensive, and a family Halloween parade isn't the place for that. Physically confronting someone, grabbing their sign, whatever, because they insulted your religion is not the kind of shit that should be tolerated in America. And the judge should have a reasonable understanding of what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect. Throwing out the charges for lack of evidence is one thing. Berating the victim at the same time is something else.
_________________ "If it was a legitimately stolen election, Romney's body would have had ways of shutting that down. Also, if a usurpation happens, even in that horrible situation of a stolen election, it was God's will." -A Legal Lohengrin
I repeat, if you go to Turley's blog, you can see what happened, with a portion of the actual transcript that shows what the judge actually said. And indeed, he was 'way out of line and did himself and his faith (which Turley confirms, even though the folks at Randi don't seem to believe it) no favors.
Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm Posts: 13580 Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
Jonathan Turley has a bit of history of decrying "creeping Sharia law" in the U.S. and the supposed imposition of Sharia law in countries that have been freed of their dictators.
_________________ "Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.
Frankly, this strikes me as the kind of minor scuffle that routinely gets dismissed. I do not believe the judge was correct to castigate the victim, at least at the length he did. It seems to me he doesn't care terribly for atheists, or at least the kind who was the victim in this case. At the very least, if he castigated the victim, he should have also castigated the probable perpetrator and informed him he's in America and, yes, it's legal to behave like a jerk here and, with nothing else at issue, illegal to physically attack someone for doing it.
Without hysterical "Sharia law" kooks and involving nothing other than this scuffle, in any other context, we wouldn't even be hearing this story.
_________________ L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
