The Sharia state of Pennsylvania

Posted by: Phineas on February 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm

**Posted by Phineas

This is absolutely disgraceful:

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy’s sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Read the rest of McCarthy’s post,which includes a link to video of the judge’s stupid remarks. PJM’s Bryan Preston has quotes from the judge’s dressing down of the victim, which includes this beaut:

“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.

Wait, let me get this straight: Is Judge Martin saying that, since it was okay for the Muslim to assault the victim, which is clearly against our law, it would have been okay in the judge’s view for the Muslim to kill him? After all, the guy insulted Muhammad and hurt the Muslim defendant’s feelings. Sharia says kill the guy, so why not go all the way? (1)

Newsflash for Judge Martin: they’re called “unalienable rights” because they are inherent from birth in all men, “endowed by their Creator.” They are universal, even if Islamic countries are too benighted to realize it.

And then there’s this little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

…which has been incorporated into state law for centuries.

I don’t care if this guy dressed up as “Muhammad the transvestite” and shouted at the top of his lungs that Islam’s “prophet” committed lewd acts with the dead. (2) It is immaterial that the Muslim defendant’s feelings were hurt; the victim had the right to act like a jerk, and the defendant had no right to assault him.

The only way “free speech” matters is if we protect speech even when we or others find it offensive. Whether it offends religion, country, or your favorite TV program, it doesn’t matter. As long as it does not directly and deliberately incite violence, it is protected speech.

And it is appalling that an American judge, one who both as a judge and as a soldier swore oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and those very same unalienable rights, should trample on the right to free speech in a fit of cultural relativism.

I’m not sure what the law is in Pennsylvania is for removing a judge, but somebody needs to start working on this jackass’ case right now.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, in the biographies of Muhammad and canonical hadiths (his sayings and deeds), we know for a fact he had people assassinated for criticizing him.
(2) Which he may well have.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

18 Responses to “The Sharia state of Pennsylvania”

Comments

  1. Sefton says:

    Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam

    There’s your precedent – at least in his mind.
    Islam isn’t just a religion it’s also their law, and a law that supercedes anything else. Meaning any oath Martin would’ve taken before or presumably since is now negated.
    Sharia law is the pandora’s box to our way of life in the U.S. We as Americans had better get our heads out of the ground before it’s too late. Our PC condition will end up being the end of us.

  2. Mr Evilwrench says:

    Don’t know quite how it is in Pennsylstan, but here at least I can still protect myself from the guy assaulting me for being a jerk. I have to admit I say some pretty obnoxious things about the diaperheads sometimes, but I also carry a .45, so only one of us would be walking away from that one.

  3. JohnAnderton says:

    Let’s see what the appellate court has to say about this. Assuming an appeal, of course.

  4. Joe says:

    This ‘doofus’, the magistrate has to step down. In saying its THEIR law doesn’t mean it’s our law, which it isn’t. The towel head committed a crime, plain and simple. If the magistrate wants to mitigate the punishment due to his bias, so be it. But punishment should be ruled.

  5. Dave Dooling says:

    Impeach. He has clearly violated his oath to uphold and protect the laws of the land. It is his right to hold these as personal views. It is not his right to impose them as law of the state.

  6. Drew the Infidel says:

    My sentiments exactly, Mr. Evilwrench. However, you’ve got the drop on me. I just carry a .40S&W; but I do use Cor-Bon hollow points.

  7. CoolDude9366 says:

    Un-freakin-believable. In a sane world this would be an election issue. It won’t be, cause the MSM has covered it up and the gutless repubs will just put it in the “Jeremiah Wright” file.

  8. Bill says:

    If Islam is a “way of life” this judge had the moral obligation to recuse himself because of the bias he brought to the case.

  9. Kate says:

    If this was a local magistrate (an elected position) then it has an automatic appeal attached because they know these guys in most case don’t know the full complexity of the laws they are supposed to be ejudicating. So it will go to the next level of Common Pleas.

    I would call on the local community to throw the bum out the next time he is up for election. I wonder if anyone in that district is preturbed at all about the judge’s comments.

  10. Kate says:

    After viewing the original news cast…it seems that there was a pope zombie and a mohammed zombie in an athiest parade of sorts. So I wonder if an irate Catholic jumped out of the crowd and harrased the zombie pope and was arrested, would the same judge use a different standard and convict the Catholic of assault? It seems he is using the Sharia standard instead of the Constitutional standard he is sworn to uphold!

  11. Phineas says:

    It seems he is using the Sharia standard instead of the Constitutional standard he is sworn to uphold!

    That’s exactly what he’s doing, Kate, which I should have made clear in the post. Judge Martin is taking the Islamic supremacist position that Allah’s law, Sharia, trumps the laws enacted by Man or even those we consider “natural rights.” It’s a repulsive thing for an American jurist to do and, were I a PA legislator and impeachment were an option, I’d be filing the papers on Monday.

  12. Carlos says:

    There should be a way to remove that doofus from the bench immediately and let him cool his heels while he contemplates exactly which law he swore to uphold when he became a judge.

    And he is also a prime example of why there are more and more of us “islamaphobes” out here. In his case it’s easy to tell he was lying through his teeth when he swore to uphold the Constitution. Who’s to know if the next muslim appointee is lying or not? After all, if it advances the cause it isn’t lying, according to them.

  13. EBL says:

    Link

    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?

  14. Joseph says:

    This judge needs to be removed from the bench, and fast. Otherwise, he may end up on the U.S. Supreme Court if Obama is reelected.

  15. Marilyn says:

    The man dressed in the “Zombie Mohammad” costume was well within his rights under the law and constitution of the USA.

    The man who attacked “zombie Mohammad” was well within his rights as well…after all, he was only acting on his sincerely held religious beliefs. Aren’t those protected by the constitution as well?

    ;-)

  16. Jim McDonald says:

    Not every young American who goes to War is a hero. Sadly, some do become traitors. This creature needs to be removed from the bench now.