What's new

YWC still stands against Sharia law

Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

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 there was insufficient evidence, refusing to allow a grainy video of the incident to be entered in. But then he suggested to Perce 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.
:wacko:
 

UPDATE: This commentary has been corrected to reflect the judge's official reason for throwing the case out. Also, even though -- in the recording of the proceeding -- the judge seemed to say he is a Muslim convert, Judge Martin is in fact a Lutheran.
COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote 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, threw the case out after ruling that there was insufficient evidence. But then he berated the plaintiff in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The commentary/article has been updated. That was simply a flame by the author. The actual reason for throwing out the case was cited as lack of evidence.
 
The commentary/article has been updated. That was simply a flame by the author. The actual reason for throwing out the case was cited as lack of evidence.


From refusing to let evidence to be entered. And he is still on record for his statements which ought to have him removed.
 
From refusing to let evidence to be entered. And he is still on record for his statements which ought to have him removed.
I have not read the case so I can't offer an opinion. I only looked at the article and saw the correction. It was obviously an inflammatory commentary intended to incite. It has hit its mark with many I see.
 
I have not read the case so I can't offer an opinion. I only looked at the article and saw the correction. It was obviously an inflammatory commentary intended to incite. It has hit its mark with many I see.


You offered an opinion.
Mad as this Muslim guy got over the fellows garb doe not negate the law and an attack by him on the parade participant. The judge should support the law which he did not instead of basically telling the victim 'you asked for it'.
Judge needs to go with an attitude like that.
 
I have not read the case so I can't offer an opinion. I only looked at the article and saw the correction. It was obviously an inflammatory commentary intended to incite. It has hit its mark with many I see.
Here is the transcript of the judge's remarks explaining the dismissal of the case:

National Review Online:
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, 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 cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is — they are so immersed in it.

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.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether 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’re 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.

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

As an aside, Judge Martin is Lutheran. He served two tours of in Iraq as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. That is where he learned about Muslim culture (source).

Finally, this is what the judge had to say about the case in a subsequent inteview:

The Boston Globe - Judge's dismissal of harassment charge goes viral:
Most of the complaints he's fielded suggest he went easy on Talaag Elbayomy as a fellow Muslim, and argue he should have recused himself, Martin said.

"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?"

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. Court records spelled his first name Talaag, an online listing had Talaat and Perce's video called him Talaaq.

Before he ruled, Martin told Perce he had misrepresented tenets of Islam, which made him "look like a doofus."

"It's unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others," Martin said on the audiotape. "I don't think that's what our forefathers really intended."
 
Jewish divorce caught in Florida Sharia law fight

Florida state bill could bar Orthodox couples from using Beth Din.

A Florida state bill targeting a supposed threat from Islamic law may instead end up preventing Orthodox couples from using Jewish religious courts, or batei din, to arbitrate their divorces, according to legal specialists and some Jewish groups.

The Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases bill is considered likely to pass the Senate before the end of the legislative session on March 9. Observers expect Governor Rick Scott to sign the proposal, which has already passed the Florida House of Representatives, soon afterward.

The bill is part of a wave of legislation against Sharia, or traditional Islamic law, that has swept the nation in recent years. Though many of the bills differ, they are largely styled on model legislation drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Orthodox Jew who lives in New York.

<snip>

The new, more targeted bill specifically applies only to divorce, child support and custody hearings in family court. It states that arbitration is unenforceable if a tribunal bases its ruling on a “foreign law, legal code or system” that does not grant people the same rights as the Florida state or U.S. Constitutions.

The bill’s supporters acknowledge that their proposal is aimed at Muslims. But David Barkey, an Anti-Defamation League attorney specializing in church-state issues, said that the bill will affect Jews. Because only a man can grant his wife a Jewish divorce, or get, Barkey said, a beit din —singlular for batei din — may be seen as violating state and federal equal protection principles, which bar discrimination based on gender.
 
This is the same mentality that makes people beleive Jews control the world. The exact same thought process. Once you come up with some actual proff that 1% of the population is going to force the other 99% to follow sharia law let me know.
Like I said many times, continue to sleep. I've lived it. I've lived in Europe in the 70s, and knew their mentality as being "anti-American". You are just giving into that sentiment, but are either trying to hide it, or can't see it.

Now go catch up on your Zs, or face the reality that you are doomed, or you are a Muslim! 🙄
 
Back
Top