PDA

View Full Version : Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge



Odysseus
02-28-2012, 05:00 PM
February 28, 2012 Exclusive Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge Reveals Inside Details of Case
By Pamela Geller (http://www.americanthinker.com/pamela_geller/)
This is why anti-sharia legislation is so essential. What happened to equal protection under the law?
Back in October (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/muslim-attacks-zombie-muhammad-in-halloween-parade.html), 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=youtu.be).
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 alsosoon be spending time in jail because he released audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=player_embedded) 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?

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/) and the author of the WND Books title Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (http://superstore.wnd.com/books/Current-Affairs/Stop-the-Islamization-of-America-A-Practical-Guide-To-The-Resistance-Autographed-Hardcover).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/02/exclusive_interview_infidel_victim_of_pennsylvania _sharia_judge_reveals_inside_details_of_case.html at February 28, 2012 - 01:47:21 PM CST

Odysseus
02-28-2012, 05:03 PM
Continued:


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.

PG: Did you report these threats? If so, what response did you receive?

Perce: I have reported several of the threats.

PG: What is your reaction to the judge's telling you that what you did was offensive to Muslims?

Perce: When I first heard Attorney Thomas, the defendant's attorney, telling me to read the Koran and the judge stayed silent, I was stunned. Then when the judge said, " I have a Koran; I challenge you to show me where it says Mohammed [rose] from the dead," I was stunned. I remember thinking "In America, what does it matter what interpretation a person has about a ruthless book?" I thought, "I'm not going to challenge you to a debate, and who in the hell are you to require me to read a Koran?"
This is America! Freedom of speech is our birthright. This judge trampled on the Constitution. At that point I forgot I was recording. Do you think he thinks that being offended justifies harassment? There is no doubt that he believes that offensive speech warrants harassment.

PG: What do you think of Judge Martin's office denying that he is a Muslim?

Perce: Remember, a Muslim can lie to a nonbeliever, a kaffir. He spoke Arabic to the defendant and his friend. They answered back. If he claims he isn't a Muslim, then why does he have a Koran? Why did he challenge me to a debate on the interpretation of the Koran? Why get mad at me and insult me? Why then go on a six-minute rant against me? Why value Islam above Christianity? He said, "They pray five times a day, towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca." Christians pray all the time, Jews pray all the time, Buddhists follow the basics of karma. Humanists will do no harm to anyone.
There is so much wrong with his preference for Islam. I've never met a Christian who got offended at a person dressing as Muhammad or wanted to debate them, or who told another person, "As-Salamu Alaykum."
His staff can say what they want, but there are only three possibilities: he just got saved, or if he has nothing to hide, why threaten me with contempt and order me to destroy the audio? Or third, he's a Muslim who is backpedaling because he got offended and had a slip of anger, and he knew he couldn't physically attack me!

PG: What do you plan to do now?

Perce: I am going to organize a protest against Judge Martin. I'm going to buy a billboard featuring Martin's photo, saying, "You're outside your bounds of the First Amendment! I'm Mark Martin, I am a Muslim and I'm offended." Victims are not the antagonists. Women do not deserve to be raped because of how they dress. A woman who has been abused doesn't warrant further abuse. I'm angry that an official of a court would say this.

PG: Is there any possibility you could try to press any further criminal or civil charges against the attacker?

Perce: I am not able to file criminal charges against the attacker because of double jeopardy. I am considering a $50 civil suit or asking for a public apology. Martin's decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence. Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.

PG: What do you want people to know?

Perce: I will say to Muslims: "I will not allow you put fear in my mind or [the minds] of those whom I know! I will not be silent. I am an American atheist, and I am not afraid to deal with you openly. While so many others draw Muhammad in private, I am Muhammad in open public!

PG: Are you worried about being attacked or getting death threats?

Perce: I'm more worried that if I stay silent, the energy and emotion within me will be worse to me than being attacked, or even death threats or death itself! So do your worst, and I will do mine! Only my worst is standing up against Islam!

PG: Has the media expressed interest in this story?

Perce: The media has expressed little or no interest. I hope they do, because this judge needs to be out of office.
This is why we must have anti-sharia legislation in America. Equal protection under the law. There is no equal protection or justice for non-Muslims under the sharia. Nor was there for Ernest Perce in Mark Martin's sharia court.

JB
02-28-2012, 09:00 PM
In the United States of America:

Guy dresses up as Zombie Mo for Halloween. Muslim whackjob assaults Zombie Mo guy for insulting Mo.

Muslim admits in open court that he attacked Zombie Mo guy because he was dressed as Zombie Mo and that shit's insulting.

Whackjob judge dismisses charges against whackjob Muslim and openly berates guy dressed as Zombie Mo and basically blames the assault on the guy, on the guy.

Is this what went down and is it true? ie, Has it been verified?

PS - A friend of the guy dressed as Zombie Mo went to the same party dressed as Zombie Pope. As of this writing, no one cared.

fettpett
02-28-2012, 10:04 PM
this judge should be thrown out on his ass and disbarred for that shit

Odysseus
02-28-2012, 10:07 PM
In the United States of America:

Guy dresses up as Zombie Mo for Halloween. Muslim whackjob assaults Zombie Mo guy for insulting Mo.

Muslim admits in open court that he attacked Zombie Mo guy because he was dressed as Zombie Mo and that shit's insulting.

Whackjob judge dismisses charges against whackjob Muslim and openly berates guy dressed as Zombie Mo and basically blames the assault on the guy, on the guy.

Is this what went down and is it true? ie, Has it been verified?

PS - A friend of the guy dressed as Zombie Mo went to the same party dressed as Zombie Pope. As of this writing, no one cared.

It seems to be. The audio was included in the story.

Kay
02-28-2012, 10:12 PM
In the United States of America:

Guy dresses up as Zombie Mo for Halloween. Muslim whackjob assaults Zombie Mo guy for insulting Mo.

Muslim admits in open court that he attacked Zombie Mo guy because he was dressed as Zombie Mo and that shit's insulting.

Whackjob judge dismisses charges against whackjob Muslim and openly berates guy dressed as Zombie Mo and basically blames the assault on the guy, on the guy.

Is this what went down and is it true? ie, Has it been verified?

PS - A friend of the guy dressed as Zombie Mo went to the same party dressed as Zombie Pope. As of this writing, no one cared.

Thank you for giving us the Cliff's Notes version.

JB
02-28-2012, 10:29 PM
Thank you for giving us the Cliff's Notes version.No problem. Even though I still can't get my mind around the fact that it actually happened. Just chalk it up to one nitwit judge somewhere for now.

What is intriguing about this story is that the judge blamed the victim for being assaulted because of the way he was dressed. I thought we were passed that line of thinking when we blamed female rape victims for being raped because they dressed too provocatively.

So where is the outrage against the Mo assaulter? Because we should be outraged.

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 11:23 PM
So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

The video wasn't allowed in the court because it was ruled as inconclusive. You can't see any indication of violence whatsoever in it. The supposed scene is almost entirely dark and consists of the guy screaming "he's attacking me!"

Does the man screaming that count as conclusive evidence that he was being attacked? Let's think about this: if you have a video of a person being pinned down by police, and you can hear them screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY!", is that conclusive evidence of police brutality taking place?


Without the video, the only evidence left in court was one guy's word vs the other guy's word. That's hardly enough to decide a case on. When you have a case that is nothing more than he said, he said heresay, what else can you do besides dismiss it?

That is hardly a case of "sharia judge" imposing islamic law onto Americans.

As for the judge scolding the guy about offending other cultures. It is not unusual that judges take the chance in court to lecture the people who enter their court on doing the right thing, It's not officially part of the legal process, it's an informal gesture that is pretty common. Young men in inner-cities often get stern-talking to's about right and wrong, respect, and making good decisions when they find themselves in front of a judge.

I agree his opinions about multiculturalism are irrelevant in the application of US law, but there's no evidence that those opinions influenced the application of the law.

Bailey
02-28-2012, 11:30 PM
So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

The video wasn't allowed in the court because it was ruled as inconclusive. You can't see any indication of violence whatsoever in it. The supposed scene is almost entirely dark and consists of the guy screaming "he's attacking me!"

Does the man screaming that count as conclusive evidence that he was being attacked? Let's think about this: if you have a video of a person being pinned down by police, and you can hear them screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY!", is that conclusive evidence of police brutality taking place?


Without the video, the only evidence left in court was one guy's word vs the other guy's word. That's hardly enough to decide a case on. When you have a case that is nothing more than he said, he said heresay, what else can you do besides dismiss it?

That is hardly a case of "sharia judge" imposing islamic law onto Americans.

As for the judge scolding the guy about offending other cultures. It is not unusual that judges take the chance in court to lecture the people who enter their court on doing the right thing, It's not officially part of the legal process, it's an informal gesture that is pretty common. Young men in inner-cities often get stern-talking to's about right and wrong, respect, and making good decisions when they find themselves in front of a judge.

I agree his opinions about multiculturalism are irrelevant in the application of US law, but there's no evidence that those opinions influenced the application of the law.


Will you say the same thing if a women accuses a man of rape and only has her word on it?

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 11:34 PM
Will you say the same thing if a women accuses a man of rape and only has her word on it?

If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.

JB
02-28-2012, 11:35 PM
So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?

Wei Wu Wei
02-28-2012, 11:41 PM
Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107630/Judge-Mark-Martin-dismisses-case-Muslim-attacked-man-dressed-Zombie-Muhammad.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/02/28/judges_dismissal_of_harassment_charge_goes_viral/

fettpett
02-29-2012, 12:04 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107630/Judge-Mark-Martin-dismisses-case-Muslim-attacked-man-dressed-Zombie-Muhammad.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/02/28/judges_dismissal_of_harassment_charge_goes_viral/

ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

Boston.com ~
"In actuality, I'm a Christian," Martin, a Lutheran, told The Associated Press. "Does that mean I should recuse myself in all cases that involve Christians?"

Daily Mail
Judge Mark Martin - a recent Islam convert - ruled there wasn't enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harassment as it was one man's word against other's

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107630/Judge-Mark-Martin-dismisses-case-Muslim-attacked-man-dressed-Zombie-Muhammad.html#ixzz1njiHjFga

NJCardFan
02-29-2012, 12:05 AM
If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.

Stop the presses. Me and Wee agree on something.

Wei Wu Wei
02-29-2012, 12:23 AM
ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

Boston.com ~

Daily Mail


There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..

MrsSmith
02-29-2012, 12:48 AM
There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..

Exactly how did the judge know the video was too dark to see anything?

And when was the last time you saw a rapist get off the charge after admitting in court that he had committed the rape?

JB
02-29-2012, 12:50 AM
...From your boston.com link:


Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade.

"The judge dressed (Perce) down, (and) as far as I was concerned, that was the right thing to do," Thomas said. "This guy was obviously the antagonist."
---> Perce was dressed as Zombie Mo. So not only are there judges in Pennsylvania that forgot the text of the 1st Amendment, there are lawyers that have forgotten too.

And as someone already pointed out your other link has the judge as a muzzie convert, which the judge denies, so that story lacks credibility.

Odysseus
02-29-2012, 01:15 AM
So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

The video wasn't allowed in the court because it was ruled as inconclusive. You can't see any indication of violence whatsoever in it. The supposed scene is almost entirely dark and consists of the guy screaming "he's attacking me!"
If it's inconclusive, it's still evidence. The judge was obligated to admit it and then allow the jury to determine if it was conclusive.


Without the video, the only evidence left in court was one guy's word vs the other guy's word. That's hardly enough to decide a case on. When you have a case that is nothing more than he said, he said heresay, what else can you do besides dismiss it?
In that case, you've got both sides agreeing to the assault, as that was what Elbayomy told the cops when they initially responded to the complaint. Remember, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".


That is hardly a case of "sharia judge" imposing islamic law onto Americans.

As for the judge scolding the guy about offending other cultures. It is not unusual that judges take the chance in court to lecture the people who enter their court on doing the right thing, It's not officially part of the legal process, it's an informal gesture that is pretty common. Young men in inner-cities often get stern-talking to's about right and wrong, respect, and making good decisions when they find themselves in front of a judge.

I agree his opinions about multiculturalism are irrelevant in the application of US law, but there's no evidence that those opinions influenced the application of the law.
Here is what the judge actually said:



'I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what's on our mind, not to p*** off other people and cultures, which is what you did.

'You are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

'You've completely trashed their essence, their being. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive.'




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107630/Judge-Mark-Martin-dismisses-case-Muslim-attacked-man-dressed-Zombie-Muhammad.html#ixzz1njxXoLGn

The first statement is pure multicultural blather, but the second and third statements are clearly at issue. In the second statement, the judge is stating that the victim of the assault doesn't have a First Amendment right to mock Islam. In fact, he does, just as his pal had the right to mock the Pope. There is only one legal code in which Islam cannot be criticized or mocked, and that is Sharia. However, with the third statement, the judge clearly expressed bias in favor of the defendant. The judge's statement that he found Perce's expression of his opinion offensive, and therefore not worthy of protection, was completely indefensible.


If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.
But it's not based simply on hearsay. There were witnesses to the crime, as well as the defendant's own statement, made before he realized that he'd confessed to assault.

There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.
It mattered enough to the judge for him to bring it up in court.


Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..
Uh, no, the judge's statements made it quite clear that he was interpreting the First Amendment as not protecting statements that offend Muslims, such as himself. One of the critical things that the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on is that any criticism, mockery or derogatory statements about Islam are criminal conduct. OTOH, US law holds the exact opposite. The judge's commentary demonstrated that he could not dispassionately apply US law, and he had a clear conflict of interest in the case. He should have recused himself if he was offended, but since he didn't, he violated his duty to apply the law.

fettpett
02-29-2012, 01:30 AM
The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.

JB
02-29-2012, 01:35 AM
The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.fett, please...don't ruin a good weewee defense of lunatic muslims, while we watch him circle the drain, with a dose of common sense. You'll frighten him off.

fettpett
02-29-2012, 01:43 AM
fett, please...don't ruin a good weewee defense of lunatic muslims, while we watch him circle the drain, with a dose of common sense. You'll frighten him off.

pft...it'll just make him come back for more :rolleyes::rolleyes:

NJCardFan
02-29-2012, 01:48 AM
Why did the judge not admonish the other guy for dressing like the Pope? Oh, because it's perfectly fine to offend Christians and Catholics. :rolleyes:

JB
02-29-2012, 01:54 AM
Why did the judge not admonish the other guy for dressing like the Pope? Oh, because it's perfectly fine to offend Christians and Catholics. :rolleyes:
This could take a while because all the Catholics are at the bar deciding what to do about Zombie Pope's punishment.

Arroyo_Doble
02-29-2012, 10:44 AM
This could take a while because all the Catholics are at the bar deciding what to do about Zombie Pope's punishment.

Here is another version of events, JB. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happen ed_113293-2.html)

Just for the halibut.

noonwitch
02-29-2012, 10:52 AM
I'm not sure if the judge is enacting Sharia law or just political correctness gone awry.
Either way, I would bet he gets overruled on appeal.


The only part of this case in which the perp's religious motivation for attacking the guy dressed as zombie Muhammed is in the sentencing phase, not the trial phase. It's a possibly mitigating (or aggravating) factor for the jury or jurist to consider. It has nothing to do with establishing guilt or innocence.

Rockntractor
02-29-2012, 09:29 PM
Here is another version of events, JB. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happen ed_113293-2.html)

Just for the halibut.

That's a good contribution Dolby.

JB
03-01-2012, 01:53 AM
Here is another version of events, JB.Here's the thing AD:

If I have to listen to chants of "From Portland to Greece, fuck the police" or watch some other nitwit light up a flag and then I end up in court (as the victim) for wearing a Zombie Mo costume... I don't want some dink judge dressing me down as to whether or not I made the right decision that morning on what is CLEARLY protected speech. And for the record your honor, I was the freaking victim.

There's a lot more to this case that is coming out as to what happened, what didn't happen but I'll just chalk it up to who the hell knows at this point in time. And then hope this is an isolated incident. From our judiciary, that is. I expect we'll see violent Muslim outrage should Mo appear in a chicken nugget. I'm eating mine. No way am I putting it up on ebay.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 02:28 AM
Here is another version of events, JB. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happen ed_113293-2.html)

Just for the halibut.

Cathy Young is usually pretty level-headed and reliable, so it looks like I was had.

I guess that belligerent atheists aren't above a little taqqiya either.

NJCardFan
03-01-2012, 03:43 AM
I expect we'll see violent Muslim outrage should Mo appear in a chicken nugget. I'm eating mine. No way am I putting it up on ebay.
That'd be one sure way to get me off of chicken nuggets.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 12:34 PM
It's unfortunate that Perce is just as nuts as his attacker, because if he had not tried to implicate the judge, he would have had a great argument about the lack of tolerance for dissent in Islam. Unfortunately, he appears to be a militant atheist whackjob, and his entire case is now suspect.

On the plus side, at least we know what Wilbur is up to.

Novaheart
03-01-2012, 01:37 PM
Here is another version of events, JB. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happen ed_113293-2.html)

Just for the halibut.

The judge and his staff have been moved to another location. It's not as good as seeing him fired, but in the world of operations (ie how a schoolmarm rules the world) he is now the problem in the view of his superiors.

The point in case you missed it, is that this judge crossed the line. He has no First Amendment protection while he is wearing that robe. If he wants to make stupid remarks on his own time that's his business. But no judge is supposed to be chastising an American for being disrespectful to Islam. Islam is a cancer.

Odysseus
03-01-2012, 02:37 PM
The judge and his staff have been moved to another location. It's not as good as seeing him fired, but in the world of operations (ie how a schoolmarm rules the world) he is now the problem in the view of his superiors.

The point in case you missed it, is that this judge crossed the line. He has no First Amendment protection while he is wearing that robe. If he wants to make stupid remarks on his own time that's his business. But no judge is supposed to be chastising an American for being disrespectful to Islam. Islam is a cancer.

We don't know that he crossed the line. The information on what he said is now conflicted, and it's not being disputed by the usual suspects. If he actually said, "I'm not a Muslim, and I'm offended," instead of "I'm a Muslim and I'm offended," then what he was saying is that the plaintiff's conduct offended him even though he had no personal religious beliefs at stake in the case. It's still prejudicial, and not appropriate for a judge to state, but it's not a deliberate attempt to undermine our legal system by introducing Sharia precedents.

Novaheart
03-01-2012, 04:07 PM
We don't know that he crossed the line. The information on what he said is now conflicted, and it's not being disputed by the usual suspects. If he actually said, "I'm not a Muslim, and I'm offended," instead of "I'm a Muslim and I'm offended," then what he was saying is that the plaintiff's conduct offended him even though he had no personal religious beliefs at stake in the case. It's still prejudicial, and not appropriate for a judge to state, but it's not a deliberate attempt to undermine our legal system by introducing Sharia precedents.

Oh, I didn't think Sharia had anything to do with his ruling- the Sharia shit is just a catchy headline. I think if he was upset enough to lecture Perce on respecting Islam (May ALlah be fucked by a camel) , in a case where the feelings of the defendant are utterly irrelevant, then I think he's clearly not objective, which is indeed required of him. Calling someone a name or insulting him is not a just cause for ignoring the evidence that he attacked you. That's not what "fighting words doctrine" means.