TheAgitator.com
Man Is Assaulted by a Muslim Offended by His Halloween Costume. Pennsylvania Judge Lectures the Victim About Religious Tolerance.
Saturday, February 25th, 2012I was waiting to see if there was more to this story. Alas, it appears to check out.
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death.
Even if Judge Martin was right on the law in dismissing the assault charges and refusing to allow the video to be admitted into evidence (and I’m not arguing he was), his admonishment to Perce was way out of line. It’s extremely difficult to discipline or remove a judge over a ruling, and perhaps there’s good reason for that. But it seems to me that Martin’s decision to use his courtroom to scold a man who had been assaulted over his Halloween costume—and to imply that the right not to be offended trumps the First Amendment—gets more into the realm of judicial conduct and temperament.
From Martin’s comments:
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. 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 . . .
“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it . . .
“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. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say.”
This is a badly mistaken district court judge in Pennsylvania. And again, I think he should lose his job over this case.
But it is merely one badly mistaken district court judge in Pennsylvania. The worst part of this may be that in his asinine effort to protect Muslim sensibilities at the expense of the Constitution and Mr. Perce’s rights, Martin has served up a gift to the Sharia is coming! crowd. They’re already lapping this up. Don’t be surprised if we see fallout from this in the form of yet more anti-Muslim legislation in state legislatures across the country. Judge Martin probably just made life more difficult for American Muslims. (Who, despite what you may have read, have been doing pretty darned well.)
More local news coverage here. And this video has the audio of Martin’s remarks.
This is the sort of case that could cause an uproar big enough to turn the tide against this sort of nonsense.
For all the purported religious tolerance we have in this country, we are NOT going to tolerate a sitting judge bypassing the normal course of law in favor of Sharia law (or any other religious law).
Would the judge have said the same thing if a Jew attacked a man in a Hitler costume? The answer is obviously no, even if the judge was Jewish.
What an idiot. To give you an idea of this judge’s understanding of Islam, “wa-laikum as-Salâm” isn’t a greeting, it’s a response to a greeting. The greeting is “as-Salamu-aleikum” (may peace be upon you) and the response is “wa-laikum as-Salâm” (and upon you be peace).
His understanding of the First Amendment and a judge’s proper role in adjudicating a case appear to be even worse.
Wow. I grew up in Mechanisburg. Never thought it would fall so far.
Is anyone else tired of all the protected classes in this country.I believe everyone should be measured by their actions.Also,I have never understood doing harm due to religious disagreements.Many that have no basis in their religion.It seems a large part of the world believes otherwise
Did you know that the judge is now trying to put the victim in jail on contempt charges for posting that recording on YouTube?
Someone needs to inform the judge that this isn’t a Muslim country. Nor is it a Christian one. It is a secular nation with laws that allow us to make fun of whoever the hell we want to so long as no one is physically harmed. Will the innocent man appeal? Is there anything in the works to remove this judge from the bench? Judicial Inquiry Commission complaint maybe? Mass protests outside the court?
“and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet”
I thought Islam was a peaceful religion…
will he appeal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8
Here’s the video of the event. It is damn hard to tell what actually happened. If I were judging the case, I would probably dismiss the assault charges also, but without the lecture.
F*ck Allah, F*ck Islam, F*ck Mohammed the pedophile prophet (may he burn in hell). Oops, am I going to get arrested for offending muslim sensibilities?
@8 It was a summary offense of harassment. No appeal possible. I’m not even sure the charges can be refiled.
@9 That’s probably why the charge was harassment and not assault.
This story is an example of what not to do if you are a judge. There is a quality called judicial temperament. This person on the bench lacks it.
I would assume there is double jeopardy here. But that does not mean the judge cannot face some Pennsylvanian judicial council.
I am not into xenophobia or suggesting all Muslims want to impose Sharia law on us all. But your fears that this might be lapped up by the “anti Sharia” crowd are not the issue (unless we are talking examples of them assaulting Muslims). The fact is we have gotten to the point that You cannot criticize Islam without facing violence. That is intolerable. That is fascism of a sort.
While i agree that the “sharia is coming” hysterics are premature, there is a disturbing trend among some legal minds to want to refer to laws common in Europe that should have no traction in the United States. Less of a Sharia movement than the old elitist complaint of “they do it better in Europe”. The successful industrialists of the Gilded Age were prone to this idiocy, and the Progressives of the 20th and 21st centuries have it bad. It needs to be stamped out.
Re #10.
It’s really depressing to see this kind of anti-Muslim filth on Radley Balko’s blog. I hope he says something, because bigoted, collectivist hate speech has no place in a libertarian forum.
A little googling tells me that all judges in Pennsylvania are elected (http://www.pmconline.org/choosingjudges/judicialelections).
The peculiar American practice of elected judges will often rsult in this sort of buffoon ending up on the bench. I’m a great fan of elective offices whenever possible — being a New Englander I’ve seen people elected to very minor boards and positions, but being a judge requires some additional qualifications over an ordinary elected official. Having appointed judges, subject to legislative approval, seems to work much better in practice.
…
…because there are no instances of Muslims being mistreated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30640.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbM1pal9kqM
Many states elect judges. And it generally works fine. Most states will give new judges some direction on the dos and don’ts. And other judges are available to offer assistance. I would rather have the citizens have the last word.
New Jersey, as an example, does not but that is because of past corruption. NPR had a great story on how the machine in Chicago picks judges (you pay money and have strong Democratic Party roots and usually an Irish surname to be considered there). Although it did note most of the judges even under a blatantly corrupt system still do a decent job. The point being any system can be corrupted.
A Muslim judge should be able to fairly rule on the evidence, let the trial progress and do his job, just like Christian, Jewish, and judges of all sorts of faiths (or no religious belief) do all the time. The issue here is one judge who does not get what his job is. It sure as hell is not to lecture from the bench, act as an advocate, or make up law as he goes long, or rely on the Koran as a basis of his decision.
Another reason why the arrogant aristocrats (judges) must be required to run for re-election, often.
What if a Cathloic judge lectured a jewish defendant on the valuable lessions Jews should have learned from the Inguisition? The media would go nute, the Judicial Standards (watered-down) would start an investigation, The Chief Justice would be quoted.
But not this time because the power hungry jurist is Muslim.
This is exactly what I thought when reading this. From a practical standpoint, the unintended consequences are so obvious – it’s like “the unintended consequences of setting yourself on fire is smoke up your nose.”
From a philosophical standpoint, if you want religion, you must support free speech to the bitter end. Ameen.
Well, glad to see that Muslim judge assimilating so well!
He sure seems to understand the American concept of individual liberties.
Who knew that we had the right to assault those who offend us.
But, I keep forgetting – only Muslims have that right, evidently now wherever they live, including here.
But I was attacked on these pages for being a bigot to suggest that the Muslim intregration story was not the success Radley claimed it to be.
If we keep trying not to “offend” Muslim sensibilities in this country guess what you call that.
Sharia law.
But I’m just a bigot so what do I know.
“Martin has served up a gift to the Sharia is coming! crowd. They’re already lapping this up. ”
That tends to happen when you have groups promoting anti-blasphemy laws at the UN and other places. Judge should be tarred and feathered and rode out on a rail.
If a person is to be persecuted by the State for insulting islam, then we must ALL insult islam.
Sounds like a Judge letting his religious bias into the court. Everybody draw zombie Muhammad day!
There you go, reminding liberals and libertarians that actual Islamic societies not only don’t support their values but firmly oppose them.
Which raises an interesting question: what could a typical immigrant from a country that has a culture that is completely hostile to most American values contribute to our culture?
There are many things wrong with both Judge Martin’s Constitutional law beliefs and his actions but, first off, Martin should have disqualified himself from hearing the case, because of his religion and considerable personal bias. Certainly a Muslim would’ve been disqualified in any valid jury selection process for bias against an atheist, had the atheist actually been the person on trial for assaulting a Muslim!
@22 It’s worse than that. This is a US citizen who joined the military, got sent to the sandbox, and went native, converting to Islam. It’s not like this is a born Muslim who immigrated, won citizenship, then got the job as judge.
http://tinyurl.com/7fndwsc
# snicker
“If a person is to be persecuted by the State for insulting islam, then we must ALL insult islam.”
As I said, this kind of collectivism has no place here. None whatsoever. It’s repugnant.
“Martin has served up a gift to the Sharia is coming! crowd. They’re already lapping this up.”
People always use individual instances of injustice to claim that there is a trend that needs to be reversed. There are even blogs devoted to spotlighting, to use a completely random example, police militarization.
What would you say to someone who argues that complaining about abuse by police is merely a bigoted attempt to promote anti-police legislation and sentiment?
“Martin should have disqualified himself from hearing the case, because of his religion and considerable personal bias. Certainly a Muslim would’ve been disqualified in any valid jury selection process for bias against an atheist, had the atheist actually been the person on trial for assaulting a Muslim!”
What? If a black person is assaulted by a white person, are blacks or whites more likely to be biased? Should black judges not be allowed to hear the case, or should whites not be allowed to hear it? Bias can go either way, you know.
What about laws challenged on the basis of discriminating against homosexuals? Are homosexuals more likely to be biased against it, or are heterosexuals more likely to be biased for it? Does the judge have to be someone who is neither homosexual nor heterosexual?
@Adam, #14 & #31 –
Where were your passionate, stirring calls for ‘religious censorship on a libertarian blog!’ when the good commenters here were bashing Romney and Santorum for their ‘radical, out of touch, dark ages version(s) of Christianity’?
Or does that not count? And as far as your claim that your defense of islam is a repudiation of “collectivism”….LOL. Take a good look at a city street anywhere in the moslem world at prayer time. Hundreds if not thousands of people doing exactly the same thing, exactly the same way: head on the ground, ass in the air, chanting the magic spells in unison. But that’s not collectivism, ‘cuz they’re *rugged individualists*!! Each one freely and randomly taking an identical path to….nonconformity. Uh-huh.
What a laughable hypocrite you are, old sport.
el coronado, your post is so ludicrously stupid that I can’t tell if you’re being serious.
First of all, you don’t appear to understand what collectivism means. It’s not people doing things together, it’s viewing individuals as though they’re simply parts of a greater whole – a whole that we then treat as a living thing with a single mind. Saying that we need to attack Muslims because of this idiot is collectivism, just like it would be collectivism to say that we need to attack black people based on the crime rate among blacks.
Second of all, I have no problem with people criticizing a person’s theology. Santorum’s version of Christianity is repulsive. Just like I have no problem with someone saying that bin Laden’s version of Islam was repulsive. That’s not what’s happening here. People are saying we need to be offensive and hurtful towards people who haven’t done anything because of the actions of one man. That’s vile and, yes, collectivist – as if all Muslims are responsible for this idiot.
Third of all, asking Radley to say something is not censorship. Let me explain using small words. Censorship is the government preventing you from speaking. A private blogger criticizing something you said is not censorship. It’s not even vaguely similar.
Fourth, not that your comparison makes any sense (as explained above), but as for “where I was” when other things were being said – believe it or not, I don’t actually read every word written on this blog, or any other. I believe that demanding that someone write about some obscure fact or event and then accusing them of being hypocritical because they don’t is called the “Balloon Juice Fallacy.” Now, where did I see that one coined… let me think… Oh yeah, it was RIGHT HERE ON THIS BLOG (http://www.theagitator.com/2010/12/20/the-balloon-juice-fallacy/).
I realize that this will all be over your head, but maybe someone who thought you had a point will read my post and think wait, no, he really didn’t at all.
““If a person is to be persecuted by the State for insulting islam, then we must ALL insult islam.”
As I said, this kind of collectivism has no place here. None whatsoever. It’s repugnant.”
Yes, we should ALL join together to condem this crass collective condemnation of a collective dilusion based on the gibberish spewed out by a 7th Century Pedobear!
“The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form”
Bullshit!
I’m not a fan of extra laws, but I could almost get behind a law that bans as a defense of a crime, any mention of a religion, it’s customs, or “the book” of that religion.
Whether christian, muslim, or jewish (or pastafarian)… if you violate the rights of someone who doesn’t agree with your religion… tough shit. Do not pass go. Go straight to jail.
What would you say to someone who argues that complaining about abuse by police is merely a bigoted attempt to promote anti-police legislation and sentiment?
I would tell them to get some perspective, because the two aren’t remotely comparable. We have one instance of one judge who made one stupid ruling.
Tell you what, when we start getting reports of Muslims in U.S. government attempting to implement shariah law (which, by the way, is a term that’s ambiguous to the point of uselessness) at one one-hundredth of the rate we get reports of police abuse, I’ll entertain the possibility of our encroaching dhimmitude.
Yes, Adam, we’re all a bunch of precious little snowflakes. We can take that on the great authority of our kindergarden teachers and mommies.
Radley,
I would be genuinely curious to know what you think about the Dearborn, Michigan incidents involving Acts 17 ministries. The police appeared to have knowingly shut down perfectly legal Christian religious activity because it offended Muslim sensibilities.
#38,
That’s really not necessary. What happened here was already illegal without exception.
Though we do need to bring common law “provocation” back as a defense for violent crime. That served a useful function of controlling idiots by making it so that if you did something that a reasonable person would know would provoke a reasonable person to violence, you are at least partially liable for their violence.
If Muhammed was a pedophile, then who was his victim, exactly?
I would remind all of the Cultists of Anti-Islam that child-marriages were quite common and accepted 1500 years ago. And that includes the Christians of the time.
Frankly, if you are going to call Muhammed a pedophile, then you will also need to do the same to many Byzantine emperors and Christian kings as well, many of whom married their wives at an age quite unacceptably young by today’s standards.
So you don’t like Islam? Well, there are religions I don’t care for either, but I don’t spend my time trying to stir up pogroms against their followers. Which you are obviously trying to do by insinuating that “certain” immigrants aren’t capable of assimilation. Such was done to the Jews and other ethnic groups in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by the Know-Nothings, and you’re doing it today.
I happen to disagree with this judge for not following the Constitution, and I DO think he should lose his job for it, but I’m not going to extend this to an entire religious group.
Volokh Conspiracy has a statement from the judge. Apparently he’s not a Muslim. And that’s not the only thing that’s been misreported.
#43,
His youngest wife was 9 when he took her virginity. The youngest that was normal back then was typically about 12 for pagan cultures and 14-16 for Christian. It would not have been uncommon for a man to have a wife betrothed to him when she was 9, but it was very uncommon for her husband to be to actually marry her and consummate the marriage at that age. Believe it or not, they did actually have some understanding of the idea of pedophilia back then as something to suppress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage
#43 Gersan: “I happen to disagree with this judge for not following the Constitution, and I DO think he should lose his job for it, but I’m not going to extend this to an entire religious group.”
Well said. This judge was simply out of line, no matter what his religion was. His personal bias in this case made him a liability. If he can’t judge a case based on the facts when a Muslim is involved, he should have recused himself in advance. Or better yet, he should not have become a judge. But since it’s too late for that, he should be removed from the bench by the State of Pennsylvania for stomping on the rights of a citizen.
Things are not always as one person reports them:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/mainfeed/~3/oIblZVU2kO8/
I don’t understand the flap here – all the judge was doing was demonstrating that it is important to tolerate cultures that do not tolerate intolerance while it is intolerable to tolerate cultures that do tolerate intolerance. Which is why those Bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, in-bred, retarded, child-molesting, right-wing theocratic fundies should all be shot – they are intolerant of others.
It comes down to if you are white and male you are wrong no matter what. Everyone else is special and has to be treated as such is what it seems like now a days.
Wait Wait stop. I can’t stop laughing out of shock. You mean this happened in the US? There has to be an avenue to get this fucking tyrant out of his position.
He actually scolded the “victim” and then referenced how he would be put to death in other countries??
Can you imagine if the victim was Jewish? Isn’t being Jewish illegal in these state bastians of tolerance? The Judge would have probably had to bite his tongue not to sentence the victim to death.
I listened to a video purporting to be of Judge Martin. In it, the man clearly stated “I’m a Muslim”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs
Is this all a hoax? Is this video edited or wrong in some fashion? This story is probably worth an investigative write up.
I believe that everyone on this board has not just a right, but an obligation to insult Islam. Except Mike T, who’s just being a hypocrite.
While we’re on the subject of how coddled those Islamo-fascist-pigs are by our liberal media, here’s Exhibit A. I mean, why doesn’t the NY Post just admit that it’s a propaganda tool for al-Qaeda?
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/25/abject_bigotry_at_the_new_york_post/singleton/
@ 43&45: Thor had a wife of appropriate age. As did Spider-Man.
If that harpy Pamela Geller (and every other neocon/theocon loser) needed a gift for her to go on one her “Islam is taking over America” rants this was it. Oh and this statement was spot on
“Judge Martin probably just made life more difficult for American Muslims.”
This is one of those stories where it seems that everyone who touches it comes out looking worse. My turn.
After reading the Volokh blog entries for further clarification, it seems to me that the judge ruled, probably arguably, maybe correctly (but ianal) given the circumstances he had to work with, but then stupidly decided to scold the dickhead who was assaulted instead of just dismissing it and moving on, and now because the audio of his scolding is a little garbled the media is leaping on it with the assumption that he’s a Muslim defending his faith…and the commenters get to claim that this would not have happened if these were Christians because Muslims are a protected class (never mind that the story would never have made the news if the dickhead defending his religion in the first place had been a Christian because those charges getting dismissed would not have been nearly so sexy, and if you think that Christians have never physically attacked someone mocking their faith…) and so on.
Long story short: The guy who thinks it’s right to assault someone for attacking his faith: dickhead. The guy who parades around costumed in asinine provocations: dickhead. The judge who thinks it’s his place to scold someone for being a dickhead when he hasn’t broken the law: dickhead. The media that share this story while playing up false and exaggerated angles: dickheads (though I’ll give some, like Herr Balko, the benefit of the doubt and I do appreciate their attempts at restraint and nuance, so some of them I’ll say are just jumping the gun because they are afraid of missing the boat.) The voces populi who claim this story as an indication of anything other than one judge who needs to be checked: dickheads.
I’m done. Call me a dickhead.
Get this: at about 11:20 into the the linked youtube video, a responding police officer says, on the stand, that the defendant (the muslim) admitted to the cop that he’d laid hands on the zombie muhammed.
I suppose I understand how that wasn’t an automatic assault conviction if the prosecution went for harassment… so was this just a bungle by the prosecution or did the judge really dismiss the word of a sworn-in cop? (not that such dismissal would be a bad precident overall, but I doubt that to be the case)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs
Scuse me, 11:10.
There is more to this story: Eugene Volokh gets an email from someone telling us about what happened… So did Judge Martin email Professor Volokh? Does this explanation square with what we heard on the partial tapes?
Well, well, well. Looks like the lefty libertarians are finally waking up that Big Islam is as big a threat to our liberties as Big Government. We’ve been “harping” on this like Ayn Randist Pamela Geller for years over at Libertarian Republican. And now it takes an Atheist getting his rights stripped by a Muslim judge under Sharia Law to finally get the king of the left-libertarians Radley Balko to finally report on it.
Don’t be fooled. Balko has been shamed into reporting on this. If it hadn’t been for us pro-defense libertarians like Geller, myself, Cliff Thies, Roger Stone, Wayne Root and the Libertarian Defense Caucus, pointing out the gross hypocrisy of left-libertarians on Islamism, Balko (and Gillespie at Reason), would be completely free to ignore stories like this.
As it is, they’ve been called out. Progress finally. Even left-libertarians can no longer ignore the threat of Big Islam.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
Shut the fuck up, Eric.
Bwahahahaha! We’re laughing at you all.
This little issue has put you all in a bind, ‘eh? You left-libertarians are passionately pro-Atheist, nothing wrong with that. But you’re also loathe to criticize Islam.
So, what to do. What to do, indeed.
Report on it, but hope and pray no right-libertarians catch you on it.
Bizzzzzzzzzz! (Buzzer sounds). Too late. We caught you on it. And we’ll be watching from here on out.
Boy, I wouldn’t want to be you all. You’re screwed either way. If you finally acknowledge the threat of Big Islam, we pro-defense libertarians are gonna say, “We told you so…” til the cows come home. If you ignore it, we’ll be relentlessly pointing out your uttery hypocrisy.
Go take an ibuprofen. You’re gonna need it with all the headaches you all are about to have….
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
So who’s going to be the first to dress up as a zombie judge and stand around outside the court house?
Unlike the rest here, I’ve never claimed to hold tolerance as a value. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to criticize me, my beliefs or my behavior. The flip side of that is, I will frequently mock the beliefs and behavior of others when it suits me. The difference is, I try to withhold judgment of the individual himself/herself which is something that you tolerance mavens are virtually incapable of doing when you feel justified in attacking someone.
Donderooooooooo sounds like a 12 year old on facebook.
“if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don’t have a lot to worry about.” Ron Paul.
Anybody calling me “left” is an idiot and a fucking commie to boot.
Last time Dondero put up one of his “where have the left-libertarians been on this issue?!?!” posts–I believe it was about a persecution in Iran–I pointed out to him that “left-libertarians” had beaten him to the story by several days.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-martin-responds-on-zombie.html
The Judge responds. He is a combat reservist and a Lutheran (not a Muslim convert). He claims that he is being taken out of context. But is he being taken out of context? Do those taped comments we heard from the protester square with what the judge is saying now?
The blogger platform is behind as far as dates go. If you put something in the queue a day or two before, it gets posted under that date. Thus, Radley Balko’s mistaken perception that he “beat me to the punch” on that story. He was actually tipped off by fellow left-libertarian Thomas Knapp to our chiding “TheAgitator” on not covering it, and vallah! an hour later it appeared at this site.
Blogging can be manipulated, and the un-informed can be easily fooled.
John J.,
Judge Martin not only recited into the court record that he is a Muslim, I heard audio of him stating as much with my own two ears.
You’re right, Dondero. Thomas Knapp, with whom I’ve never had any previous correspondence, tipped me off.
He also tipped off Reason. And he tipped off the dozens of people who posted comments to those posts with timestamps that predate your post. You see, we all coordinated together to manipulate multiple platforms of blogging software. We also tricked Twitter into making our Tweets for those stories appear to have happened days before your post went up. We also coordinated with the dozens of people who retweeted those Tweets, so that they too could manipulate their timestamps.
And pulled all of this off within just a few hours of your post going up! The dozens of us who conspired to do all of this did it because we all hold you in such high esteem that we were thoroughly embarrassed by you calling us out . So we really had to do something to save face, to preserve at least some modicum of respect for us in your eyes.
Or, here’s an alternate theory: You’re a fucking idiot. And you didn’t bother to check my site or Reason’s before putting up your childish “why aren’t left-libertarians covering this?” post.
#27 | Mike T: “Which raises an interesting question: what could a typical immigrant from a country that has a culture that is completely hostile to most American values contribute to our culture?”
Relief?
[...] Radley Balko: Man Is Assaulted by a Muslim Offended by His Halloween Costume. Pennsylvania Judge Lectures the Vict… [...]
I suspect that the judge meant to say “I am NOT a Muslim, and I find this offensive”, or “I am a LUTHERAN, and I find this offensive”, but that he had “Muslim” on the brain since he keeps saying it during his long-winded rant from the bench.
Muslim, Lutheran or veteran, whether biased or not, and whether there was enough evidence to convict the defendant or not, the guy’s lack of understanding of the right to free speech is plenty of evidence that he should be bounced off the bench.
Hi all,
A few things that make this case a little more complicated.
- The charge was harassment, not assault. No one was arguing that any actions by Elbayomy came close to meeting the criteria for such a charge.
- In addition to being dressed as a zombie mohammed, Perce was wearing a sign that said: “Only Muhammad can rape America!” It appears the zombie pope was not wearing a similar sign.
- From Perce’s video, the “attack” could have lasted *at most* 15 seconds. The video is super dark and it’s hard to tell what actually happened. Plus, after the attack ends, Perce seems completely ok and continues walking down the street just as he did beforehand. He doesn’t seem rattled at all.
- Perce seems like a bit of a dick. In his video’s comments, he states that he hopes some people take a dump and see Mohammed in the toilet.
- Sgt. Curtis was both a witness and acting as the prosecutor in the case. He did not offer Elbayomy a chance to file a written statement, although he did make the offer to Perce. When Curtis is cross examining Elbayomy and accusing him of lying, Elbayomy responds that he said that Perce may have pushed *him*. Seems at least plausible that Curtis is not a neutral witness.
- Elbayomy’s attorney makes a plausible sounding argument that even if incidental physical contact occurred, Elbayomy did not have the intent to harass (which would be required for him to be found guilty).
- The judge makes the point that he’s surprised that no one else there stepped in if the confrontation was as aggressive as Perce claims.
All in all, rather than this being the onset of Sharia, it seems more as if the Judge was annoyed at Perce and was giving him a lecture about not being a dick. Probably more because of the time he’s spent as a soldier in Islamic countries than anything else (2 tours of duty in Iraq, 23 years in the military). Think about it this way: if Perce was dressed up as Zombie Jesus and was wearing a sign saying, “Jesus rapes America!” and an Irish Catholic came up to him and said, “Do you really need to dress up like that in front of my son?” would it have become this big of a deal? Even if that Irish Catholic had pushed him a bit (from Perce’s video, the maximum amount of physical contact that could have happened is less than a typical rush hour subway ride).
Watching the video and listening to the trial, my impression is that Perce is a bit of a publicity hound (the “help, help, he’s attacking me” sounds particularly fake). Also, posting the video and publicly insulting muslims before the trial is pretty stupid; yes, Perce has the right to do that, but doesn’t exactly enhance his credibility. I can definitely see favoring the 46 year-old family man’s account of the evening.
It really seems like the worse conclusion that you can draw from the facts is that the Judge favored his co-religionist over a dickhead. And given a fine or community service would be the harshest punishment possible for Elbayomy’s offense, it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.
I have no problem with dressing up as a zombie religious figure. Associating a religious figure with rape at a community event, while perfectly legal, is not a nice thing to do. Frankly, using rape in any comedic manner at a community event is not a particularly nice or mature thing to do. Again legal, but really? If Elbayomy had actually assaulted Perce (which no one is claiming), he should have been punished. That Elbayomy got up in Perce’s face when he was accusing Mohammed of rape is not something Perce should be surprised at or upset about.
-Bruce
SNAP! Mess with the bull and get the horns. :)
To hell with their culture. All cultures are NOT equal. Some are MUCH better than others. This crap is what we get from multiculturalists. We now exist in an acultural society that has no concept of good and evil.
Muslims have thin skin. Too bad they never learned:
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
People have the right to be dicks or bigots or whatever. The dick in this case did not draw first blood, the azzole did. The judge should be removed from office and banned from ever working in law again.
I’ve read the Koran and know all the horrible things it permits or requires to be done to nonbelievers.
Here’s how Mohammed makes his claim to authority.
In the Bible, Christ stated he would be sending another to watch over believers. This was to be the Holy Ghost. Mohammed claims to be this Holy Ghost and claims Christ prophesied Mohammed would come. So in this case Mohammad says Christ told the truth.
Now, the Koran states explicitly that Allah had no sons or daughters. This of course contradicts Christ’s claim as the Son of God. So Allah, who had no son, cannot be the God of the Christian who sent his Son to Earth. Mohammed’s claims make Christ a liar.
So, either Christ is a liar in both instances or He is not. The muslim cannot have his cake and eat it too. Mohammed can only be a liar because IF Christ was not the Son of God, then the second koran statement is true but if it is true Christ is a liar, and the first claim about Christ sending a helper, the Holy Ghost, must also be a lie. Or…….
Shit like this really makes me want to burn Korans and draw Mohammad. I’m not going to make any blanket judgment about Muslims, but any that thinks like this judge or defendant does can go fuck themselves.
As obnoxious as it can be to insult someone’s religion, I think that this is one of those “use it or lose it” situations. We must keep insulting Mohammad lest threats of violence erode free speech.
@77 Your whole chain of logic rests upon the unstated assumption that the Bible as we know it today is a true and accurate recounting of the words of Jesus, and that Muslims accept it as such.
As far as I can tell, there is reason to be skeptical that either of these things are true.
The judge’s rant was ass-damp and offensive to anyone who cares about First Amendment law.
However — and this is not a defense of the judge, just a comment about perspective — being a litigator of any sort is about putting up with judges, a significant percentage of whom indulge themselves in ass-damp ignorant no-basis-in-law rants all the time.
I’m not saying this was right. It was wrong. I’m not saying the judge isn’t biased. He is. I’m saying that if you think that Sharia is what is causing this judge to be a choad, I think you’re jumping to conclusions. Stupid censoriousness may just be the vector of his previously ingrained choadishness, a choadishness that some black-robe wearers indulge in regularly.
Radley, this post deserves a good follow up. The whole thing was mostly a heaping dose of stupid rage bait meant to draw attention to the plight of an atheist with a chip on his shoulder. And draw attention it did. Almost every significant factor in your original post looks to be untrue, misleading, or irrelevant. First Amendment wasn’t an issue. The charge was harassment, not assault, the judge is not Muslim, it’s looking like Perce is the man stirring up the Sharia is coming! crowd for whatever reason he has. Once you factor out the “judge is a Muslim” angle, the whole thing becomes utterly uncontroversial matter of a case of harassment being dismissed for lack of evidence.
#81 Shecky.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I personally know the atheists involved in this incident. They have a small group, the Parading Atheists who participate in local parades all over central PA. Mr. Perce is NOT stirring up any Sharia BS, that is not is aim or goal. They are atheists who simply want to point out that the public that we (atheists) are among you. It was a Halloween parade and Mr. Perce was in costume. He was attacked by a religious zealot.
What the atheists community in central PA is up in arms about is not about ANY particular religious dogma, it’s about that the fact that this judge refused to follow the law. He excused a religious zealot because he feels Mr. Perce was out of line for “offending” someone.
Get a clue Shecky. You have no right not be to offended.
Just when I thought the judge’s explanation was more plausible, Volokh today (get your own link) references an interview where the judge steps into his cluelessness all over again.
The piece at Volokh is interesting, but it doesn’t seem firmly authenticated as actually being from the judge, so I await further developments.
If it’s accurate, then part of the problem is that the physical evidence (an undamaged styrofoam sign) doesn’t match Perce’s account.
Ridiculous! Christians are offended all the time…should they kick their offenders a$$es? Judge rules for defendant…what the heck is happening to US?!?!