Zombie Muhammad

[Guest Peeves]

It's not the religion, but the individuals who commit the deed. If you can find a way to separate someone's religion from all the other influences that make them prone to violence, then let us know.

I might add that the individuals often commit the 'deed' while shouting their religious mantra of Allahu Akbar.

In such case, particularly in an assumed presumption of blasphemy by an adherent, as in naming a bear Mohammad, or dressing as Mohammad for Halloween, there should be a first amendment right to blaspheme.

Of course exercising that right to offend is optional, and might well bring more attention than desired.

Still, there is no justification for siding against an offender if they are not breaking a law.

This is certainly an interesting thread and some of the responses are truly worth the read.

BTW I think the judge and the zombie are looking for attention. The Muslim needs to have a course in freedom of speech in Western democracies.

[Michael Hardner]

I might add that the individuals often commit the 'deed' while shouting their religious mantra of Allahu Akbar.

In such case, particularly in an assumed presumption of blasphemy by an adherent, as in naming a bear Mohammad, or dressing as Mohammad for Halloween, there should be a first amendment right to blaspheme.

There is a first amendment right to blaspheme as far as I know.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course exercising that right to offend is optional, and might well bring more attention than desired.

Still, there is no justification for siding against an offender if they are not breaking a law.

In this instance, the judge "sid[ed] against the offender" because of lack of evidence - and there's every justification for that.

[Guest Peeves]

In this instance, the judge "sid[ed] against the offender" because of lack of evidence - and there's every justification for that.

Agreed. In general terms I find all too often our human rights tribunals (here), take cases where no law is broken.

Here's a doozie.

Excerpt.

The woman, Pamela Howson, has a tale of sorrow and woe that is hard to hear. She had asked Ottawa to allow her to build a parking pad on her front yard, but the city told her she’d need to apply to the minor variance committee. But she wasn’t having any of that, and who can blame her, given the ordeal she’s had to endure.

She was practically forced to turn to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to address the city’s callous discrimination against her — it turns out that her car is 2.25 metres wide, but in order to get to her parking space behind her house, she has to pass through a driveway that’s only 2.6 metres wide. That’s a mere 6.7 inches of clearance per side. Can you even imagine such cruelty?

So she claims discrimination! The cost ??? We bear it as her costs in such case is covered.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/06/matt-gurney-ottawa-woman-launches-lamest-discrimination-claim-ever/

And, all too often judges want to write the law rather than enforce existing laws and then use their bench as a soap box.

[kimmy]

Yes, the editorializing. Not the decision.

As I pointed out, his discussion of Elbayomy's intentions was *part* of the decision.

And while people may find it highly objectionable, wouldn't that fall under the category of free speech?

The judge has a right to free speech, but things that he says on the job may not be appropriate (consider an on-duty cop telling racist jokes, a teacher teaching students that are completely wrong, a waiter calling customers fat, etc). The stuff you say when you're on the job may leave people wondering if you're competent to do your job at all, and that's what Mr Martin did.

When he's behind the bench he's acting as a representative of the law, and his comments reveal a very questionable grasp of the laws he's supposed to be enforcing.

However, that may not be too surprising. From what I'm reading here one needn't be a lawyer to become a magistrate in Pennsylvania, all you need to do is take a four-week course. It is apparently common for this level of judge to not have a law background at all; these guys normally handle small claims, traffic, and summary conviction offenses-- jaywalking etc. Perhaps Mr Martin was an MP when he was serving with the armed forces.

Since that was the charge, that's what the trial should have been focused on. I've already asked you what other charge you think would have applied. I'll ask again. What do you think he should have been charged with?

Since both the judge and the defense attorney focused on the question of the defendant's intent, it seems to me that a charge relating to physical contact, as opposed to intent to harass, would have been more likely to result in conviction. I'm not a lawyer, so I really can't say what would be most appropriate.

However, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh says something similar:

Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal harassment, which requires an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,” and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not qualify, see the pen-grabbing discussion in this case.

And GWU law professor Jonathan Turley says "While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment."

Way to dismiss what the bloggers and message-board writers are saying/doing. But who exactly do you think is holding them to the same standard? And again, the judge appears to have made a sound decision, based on the law.

You're the one who was saying that what people were writing about the case wasn't any better than what the judge said. Which gave the impression that you somehow thought there was a comparison.

As for how solid the judge's ruling is...

Jonathan Turley again:

Martin’s comments also heighten concerns over the growing trend toward criminalizing anti-religious speech in the use of such standards as the Brandenburg test, a position supported by the Obama Administration.

There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture.

I can understand the judge’s claims of conflicting testimony on the crime –though it seems to be that the officer’s testimony and the tape would resolve those doubts. However, I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct.

Volokh again:

The judge — who stated that he found the speech to be offensive — spent a good deal of time berating the victim for what the judge saw as the victim’s offensive and blasphemous speech, which seems to raise a serious question about whether the judge’s acquittal of the defendant was actually partly caused by the judge’s disapproval of the victim.

Really. Is that what I meant? So why not tell me who I meant the other side is, too? Or better yet, why don't you tell me who you think is threatening Perce and who you think is threatening the judge?

Well, Perce said that he was threatened for blaspheming Mohammed, so if he is telling the truth it's clear who is threatening him. The threats against the judge, on the other hand, I have seen no information and could only speculate.

You, on the other hand, sound like you have solid information, so I'm hoping you'll share with us.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

As I pointed out, his discussion of Elbayomy's intentions was *part* of the decision.

Umm. Yes. And I pointed out that it should have been, as "intent" is relevant to a harassment charge. However, that's not what I was commenting on - I was pointing out that the judges editorializing is what's angered a lot of people, not his decision.

The judge has a right to free speech, but things that he says on the job may not be appropriate (consider an on-duty cop telling racist jokes, a teacher teaching students that are completely wrong, a waiter calling customers fat, etc). The stuff you say when you're on the job may leave people wondering if you're competent to do your job at all, and that's what Mr Martin did.

So he left some people wondering if he's competent to do the job - I doubt that's the first time a judge has been subjected to such scrutiny. His decision was a sound legal judgement - that's the only thing that is necessary for a "competent" decision.

The rest, whether one considers it "appropriate" or not, is within his rights. I don't even follow how your examples of inappropriate comments are applicable here.

When he's behind the bench he's acting as a representative of the law, and his comments reveal a very questionable grasp of the laws he's supposed to be enforcing.

I disagree. I didn't find anything he said indicative that he doesn't understand the law. He said that Perce was acting within his constitutional rights. His decision was based on lack of evidence, and based on the evidence, it was a sound decision. What exactly is it that you question he doesn't grasp about the laws he's supposed to be enforcing?

However, that may not be too surprising. From what I'm reading here one needn't be a lawyer to become a magistrate in Pennsylvania, all you need to do is take a four-week course. It is apparently common for this level of judge to not have a law background at all; these guys normally handle small claims, traffic, and summary conviction offenses-- jaywalking etc. Perhaps Mr Martin was an MP when he was serving with the armed forces.

They have to have the legal training you refer to and have to have passed a test - and they have to have continued legal training. It's more than you or I have had, yet, quite frankly, I can't see where he could have made any other decision. Again. There was no evidence, other than the allegations. There were no witnesses. None have since come forward. You keep ignoring that as if it weren't true. A crowd was watching a parade - yet there are no witnesses.

Since both the judge and the defense attorney focused on the question of the defendant's intent, it seems to me that a charge relating to physical contact, as opposed to intent to harass, would have been more likely to result in conviction. I'm not a lawyer, so I really can't say what would be most appropriate.

However, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh says something similar:

And GWU law professor Jonathan Turley says "While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment."

"Intent" - ie: intent to cause bodily harm - is part of the legal definition of "assault," too. If there was no "intent" to harass, there sure doesn't seem to be intent to cause bodily harm. There was no injury to Perce. Furthermore, the judge had to rule on what the charge was.

You're the one who was saying that what people were writing about the case wasn't any better than what the judge said.

What I said is that people who are running off with it, making it into something it wasn't, aren't any better.

Which gave the impression that you somehow thought there was a comparison.

I do think there is a comparison. I already said that I don't agree with what the judge said while editorializing - and I don't agree with people sensationalizing this to make it into something it's not, either. I don't see it as any better.

As for how solid the judge's ruling is...

Jonathan Turley again:

Volokh again:

I honestly think they are contradicting themselves in the two sets of quotes you provided - they both seem to say that there wasn't grounds for harassment, then go on to say they question the reasoning of the judge's decision.

Well, Perce said that he was threatened for blaspheming Mohammed, so if he is telling the truth it's clear who is threatening him. The threats against the judge, on the other hand, I have seen no information and could only speculate.

Seems to me you are speculating about the former, so you could just as easily speculate about the latter. I, however, have not speculated at all about any specific group. I simply said that extremists on both sides of the issue are behaving just as badly - and I also said that I was referring to extremists of all persuasions.

You, on the other hand, sound like you have solid information, so I'm hoping you'll share with us.

I do have solid information, which I've already shared with you. Both Perce and the judge have received threats. Extremists on both sides of the issue have made threats. But if it's Muslims threatening Perce, as you said, it would follow that it's non-Muslims threatening Judge Martin. Do you disagree?

[kimmy]

So he left some people wondering if he's competent to do the job - I doubt that's the first time a judge has been subjected to such scrutiny. His decision was a sound legal judgement - that's the only thing that is necessary for a "competent" decision.

His comments undermine confidence in the judiciary. As you saw, real actual legal experts are critical of Magistrate Martin because his comments invite speculation as to whether the ruling was influenced by inappropriate political correctness.

The six minute lecture about how bad it is to insult Islam because Muslims take religion very seriously and it's not just insulting their religion it's insulting their culture, etc etc, was ridiculous. He gave that whole fiery sermon essentially advocating self-censorship-- "I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to use the first amendment to piss people off", explain how finally said 4 words acknowledging the alleged victim's right to do what he did-- "you have that right" --and immediately add "but you're way out of bounds on First Amendment rights."

So, a six minute lecture to a guy who everybody knows was completely within his rights.

And not a word of explanation for the accused, who (by his own account) didn't understand the law, and was infuriated enough by this exercise of free speech that he (again by his own account) ran into the street to confront Perce.

The judges' comments give the appearance that his primary concern was sensitivity.

And the judge's explanation of his remarks...

When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community.

...does little to dispel the idea. He does emphasize that his ruling was based on lack of evidence, then goes right back to shooting himself in the foot. He says one of his aims in lecturing Perce was to make sure the incident doesn't happen again. It sounds like he believes the way to prevent an incident like this is to deter people from using their First Amendment rights in ways that might be insensitive. I would think that most people, and certainly most legal professionals, would agree that the more appropriate way to prevent an incident like this is to make sure that Mr Elbayomy is familiar with the laws of the United States.

And here is Mr Martin again in an interview with CNN:

"With rights come responsibilities. The more people abuse our rights, the more likely that we're going to lose them," he said. "We need to start policing up our own actions, using common sense, in how we deal with others."

Again no affirmation of free speech, just the idea that free speech is being abused.

I don't think people exercising their rights will cause people to lose them. I think the real threat to peoples' rights is the idea that Martin is advocating: your rights come second to religious and cultural sensitivity.

And Mark Martin has done a disservice to the very cause of sensitivity he supports, because the appearance that his ruling was influenced by misguided cultural sensitivity has generated a lot of anger and backlash. It has even been cited by some on the fringe as proof that anti-Sharia laws like the one in Oklahoma are necessary.

Seems to me you are speculating about the former, so you could just as easily speculate about the latter. I, however, have not speculated at all about any specific group. I simply said that extremists on both sides of the issue are behaving just as badly - and I also said that I was referring to extremists of all persuasions.

I can't imagine who, other than Muslims, would threaten somebody for blaspheming Mohammed. That might be speculation, but I'm pretty comfortable with it.

On the other hand, the only concrete knowledge I have about threats against Magistrate Mark Martin is a threat from Ernest Perce himself; Mr Perce said he was thinking about putting a picture of Martin on a billboard along with quotations from the ruling. Mr Perce really likes billboards, I gather.

The only other piece of information I have is that I heard the comments section of The Daily Caller had a lot of deleted comments in response to articles about this issue. The Daily Caller is a conservative website; it was Daily Caller and other conservative websites like National Review that made this story a news item. Given that, and the amount of "Sharia is coming to America" rhetoric that this case kicked up among conservatives, if I were speculating I would say that's where the threats against Mark Martin came from.

I do have solid information, which I've already shared with you. Both Perce and the judge have received threats. Extremists on both sides of the issue have made threats. But if it's Muslims threatening Perce, as you said, it would follow that it's non-Muslims threatening Judge Martin. Do you disagree?

If by "both sides" you mean "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", that's... uh, tremendously insightful.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

If by "both sides" you mean "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", that's... uh, tremendously insightful.

Uh, yeah ... that's what I mean.