Boston.com ~Daily Mail"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?"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
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..
---> 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.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."
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.
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.'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.'
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.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|