Judge Mark Martin Responds to Criticism


Mark Martin, the judge in the now-infamous zombie Muhammad case in Pennsylvania, has responded to the criticism of him on Jonathan Turley’s blog. Unfortunately, he offers little more than finger pointing, non sequiturs and red herrings. He says:

This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).

But this is not a gross misrepresentation; he actually said he was a Muslim on the tape. It isn’t really relevant, of course, because what he did and said was wrong regardless of his religion. But it is a misrepresentation to claim that this is a misrepresentation. Maybe he didn’t mean what he said. Maybe he was just speaking hypothetically. But he did say it.

I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).

Also irrelevant. If you threatened him with contempt, you were threatening him with jail; that is what happens to people who are held in contempt. I suppose you could have imposed some other punishment instead, but so what? The fact that you threatened him if he released the tape is what matters.

He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).

This was also irrelevant from the start. What he did and said would be wrong even if he had no books on his bench at all.

He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.

Again, not really relevant.

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. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;

And again, not relevant. It doesn’t matter why he dressed up as Muhammad. Even if he had told you that he did it specifically to enrage Muslims, it’s still entirely legal to do so and still entirely illegal to attack him for it.

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

Very interesting use of the phrase “in short,” as though that conclusion had anything at all to do with what preceded it. But it doesn’t. None of the statements have any relevance at all to what he is saying here. And it may well be that there were valid reasons to dismiss the charges based on the testimony, but that simply isn’t the issue here. During the actual trial, Martin made clear that he was rejecting any notion that what the man did was protected by the First Amendment and scolded him for exercising his rights rather than on the person who admitted to having run up and grabbed him. That is the issue, which Martin doesn’t even attempt to address.

A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.

Cry me a river. Yes, the people claiming that this is about imposing Sharia law are morons and ideologues. But that doesn’t absolve you of wrongdoing. Your lecture about the limits of the First Amendment were not just utterly false, they were also irrelevant to the proceedings. And the fact that you saw fit to deliver that lecture makes you unfit for the bench.

Comments

  1. jonhendry says

    “he actually said he was a Muslim on the tape.”

    I think he was posing a hypothetical, i.e. “If I’m a Muslim…”, and perhaps left out the “If”, as people sometimes do because it’s implied. “[If] I’m walking down the street, and your dog comes up and bites me…”

  2. says

    jonhendry:

    He’s a judge, speaking from the bench; mistakes can certainly be made but the “dig harder” gambit is not one that gets him out of the hole.

    On a brighter note, Andrew Breitbart is taking the dirt nap. It’s been snowing/raining all morning and I thought that there wouldn’t be one ray of sunshine.

  3. MikeMa says

    demo
    The Breitbart news is cheering indeed.

    IANAL but any chance Judge Martin’s decision can be appealed? With such complete disregard of actual 1st amendment rights, this would be a good bet I’d think.

  4. tomh says

    @ #1
    I think he was posing a hypothetical, i.e. “If I’m a Muslim…”, and perhaps left out the “If”

    There’s no doubt that’s the case. It’s common usage, in both the legal and the sports world, especially – as in, “The Tigers win, they go to the playoffs.” Mark Liberman on Language Log labels it, the “baseball conditional.”

    But there is nothing of legal interest from a “judge” who is basically equivalent to a Justice of the Peace, and not even a lawyer.

  5. johnrockoford says

    “Yes, the people claiming that this is about imposing Sharia law are morons and ideologues”

    I do not agree, sort of. Yes, there are a lot of morons and ideologues who obsess that Sharia Law is supposedly being imposed on the US citizenry by our Muslim/Kenyan/Communist president and liberal secularists in general. No, it makes no sense, and yes, I’m sure many of these morons are using this case to further their Sharia paranoia. But still… this idiot judge did essentially superimpose Sharia principles over the US Constitution. The former restricts free speech against Islam and the latter upholds free speech of any kind. In articulating his decision the judge argued for a Sharia lite interpretation over a strict US Constitution interpretation.

  6. Homo Straminus says

    “As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist).”

    The scare quotes pretty much predict how the rest of his “defense” of his “totally reasonable conduct” would go.

     

    In other news, I’m not cheering breitbart’s death. About the worst I can say for him is that he was a nuisance. Not good enough reason for me.

    /2 cents

  7. Chiroptera says

    johnrockoford, #6: But still… this idiot judge did essentially superimpose Sharia principles over the US Constitution. The former restricts free speech against Islam and the latter upholds free speech of any kind.

    Did he actually single out Islam as deserving protection?

    ‘Cause if his ruling was about not insulting peoples’ religious beliefs in general, or that minorities in general need protection from the majority, then it really isn’t about Sharia.

  8. says


    “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.”

    If that were actually the case you’d think the judge would spend a little time informing the defendant of his need to learn the laws in this country. The entire decision seems to be aimed at the victim. He doesn’t advise the victim to show respect, he tells him not to piss people off because he doesn’t have that right? Since when?
    The fact that he gave the testimony from the officer who was at the scene no consideration is incredible. I’ve spent my fair share of time in court where these types of cases are heard and I could never imagine a judge behaving like Mark Martin did.
    IMO he was clearly taking the victims actions personally and allowed that to influence his decision.
    I don’t think this is a case of sharia law replacing our existing laws so much as Mark Martin having a love for the sound of his own voice and not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I can see how people would consider this a threat of sharia law sneaking into our system and if that makes us pay a little more attention then maybe the dim bulb did us a favor. I just hope we don’t get carried away and fall victim to our own knee-jerk reaction the way we often seem to.

  9. eric says

    I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version…

    What, did the judge forget about the video? Police testimony? Testimony from other witnesses?

    And this is the first time – weeks after the trial – he’s actually claimed “insufficient evidence” was the reason. All of which is extremely consistent with the hypothesis that insufficient evidence was not the real reason, its a post hoc revision of the story to make it sound more reasonable.

  10. mrbongo says

    @Chiroptera (who actually believes that the xtians are coming for him) said:

    “Did he actually single out Islam as deserving protection?”

    Man, talk about leading a chiroptera to water and watching him say that the sky is orange not blue. Chiroptera there is about 5 minutes of monologue by the judge discussing the special circumstances not insulting mohamed in Islam. To still be ignoring this when it is in audio literally all over this and other blogs, just shows how you are unable to engage in anytime of fact-based interaction – you simply hate christianity and refuse to let any competitors (islam, etc.) into the mix.

    Are you mentally ill? What else could explain why you are year-in-year out, day-in-day out – always commenting in the blog?

  11. says

    mrbongo, that case has been discussed by Ed, who criticized it at the time because it was an example of cops not understanding the First Amendment properly. Still not an example of sharia. Next, please.

  12. says

    “There’s no doubt that’s the case. It’s common usage, in both the legal and the sports world, especially – as in, “The Tigers win, they go to the playoffs.” Mark Liberman on Language Log labels it, the “baseball conditional.”’

    No. He’s a judge. I don’t give a fuck if he’s a chicken plucker in meatworld; when he sits on the bench he’s supposed to think about wtf is coming out of his mouth–besides the drool–and self-edit. That is not to say that plenty of other judges–Tony Ducks comes immediately to mind–don’t say totally stupid and outrageous things while wearing a robe. It is to say that NONE of them gets a fucking pass, especially when they’re trashing the rule of law because of personal animus or irrealevant viewpoints.

    “shoveded”, oh, dear Mr. Beengonged is stuttering in print, now. What color is the spittleflecked mirror in your world, asshole?

  13. mrbongo says

    @TCC

    is Ed some kind of infallible pontificator that, once cited, ends all discussion on the matter?

    Ed is wrong about a lot of things, take the Johny Bontas case for instance. He is often wrong when he discusses international issues, like the time he wrote about Pakistan’s sufis being more moderate – this of course was right before they assassinated all the government officials who advocating overturning the countries draconian blasphemy law then threw roses at the assasins. The list goes on. The Johny Bontas example is escpecially precious to me as it shows the extent to which the commentors in here will bend their will due to deference to native american identity politics. When even a quick review of the native american times article cited by ed showed a discrepancy between the witnesses statements and the writer’s assertions. one commentor pointed this out only to be castigated by ed’s pc followers.

    well… well… now almost over a year later – all the reviewing agencies found that johny bontas was at fault, the fbi won’t even do an investigation because the agents think the bontas family is full of shit and …. and…. oh this is so awesome… the bontas family can’t account for thousands in donations! ahh……… yes, ed can be wrong…. and often is, but shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, free speech ed will ban yet another starbuck’s ip address if you bring any of this up…

  14. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #15: Ed is wrong about a lot of things, take the Johny Bontas case for instance.

    By funny coincidence, I was just thinking that it’s been a while since our sporadic drive-by nuts have mentioned that case.

  15. says

    is Ed some kind of infallible pontificator that, once cited, ends all discussion on the matter?

    Did I say he was? I’m saying that the story is old news and that it doesn’t suggest, as you have claimed, that de facto sharia law has come to America any more than candidates’ bodyguards roughing up journalists means the end of freedom of the press.

    Also, [citation needed] on the Johnny Bonta story. I did a fairly thorough search and couldn’t find any recent information to corroborate your claims.

  16. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #11: Chiroptera there is about 5 minutes of monologue by the judge discussing the special circumstances not insulting mohamed in Islam.

    In context, is Mr. Martin’s reasoning applicable to any religion that places great reverence on its symbols, or did he actually say, “Allah has commanded me to go all jihad on your ass”?

    …you simply hate christianity and refuse to let any competitors (islam, etc.) into the mix.

    You say this on a blog and on a thread where everyone has expressed their outrage that a Muslim was being let off for assault just because he was trying to protect his religious sensibilities?

    Man, I don’t think it’s just me that’s mentally ill!

  17. tomh says

    @ #14
    No. He’s a judge…he’s supposed to think about wtf is coming out of his mouth–besides the drool–and self-edit.

    I’m merely pointing out that leaving out the “if” is quite common in courtrooms, probably because they deal with so many hypotheticals in law school. A judge says, “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive,” no lawyer is going to assume the judge is a Muslim. This has nothing to do with trashing the rule of law.

  18. mrbongo says

    @tomh said “I’m merely pointing out that leaving out the “if” is quite common in courtrooms, probably because they deal with so many hypotheticals in law school. A judge says, “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive,” no lawyer is going to assume the judge is a Muslim. This has nothing to do with trashing the rule of law.”

    Really? Interesting, I practice criminal law for 10 years and never once saw and examaple of this. What I see, is a tomh that will anything to wash the muslim out of this idiot judge. my opinion, is that he probably freely stretches the facts as he free flows from the bench. in this case he was claiming having leaved in muslim nations for years, and well, why not go the next step…. i’ve listened to the recording several times, there is nothing in the cadence of his voice that suggests an unspoken ‘if’. just a crazypants ranting demmocommie style.

  19. mrbongo says

    @Chiroptera

    once when I was working in India for a few months, I was posting in here at what would have been the middle of the night in the U.S. and low and behold, the only one online to screech was you. This happened several times, then I fly back to the U.S. and you’re still there to post in daytime as well.

    That’s when I began to suspect….

  20. mrbongo says

    @Chiroptera

    No sharia law. My assertion is that it takes someone going unregulated on their meds to keep up with someone who is literally flying around the world on business. At least I could sleep on the plane, but where ever, whenever I landed, I would post something in here just to test you and sure enough, no matter what time it was in the U.S. – there you’d be – compulsive, manic, always on. So I knew, I test you and I knew that you have something that keeps you obsessive/compulsive and manic/up at any hour a true believer in the delusion that posting in this backwater blog actually changes the world.

  21. tomh says

    @ #20
    I practice criminal law for 10 years

    And you never learned to write or think. What a shame.

  22. mrbongo says

    @Chiroptera

    I’ve hit a noted haven’t I?

    Yeah, it was about 2.5 years ago, go back through the old sciblogs archives, you’ll see it. me with my 5 or so names (Ed hysterically inflates to 1500). I would spend a couple of weeks circumnavigating the globe for work and just doing little tests posts.

    At first, I couldn’t believe it. “how the hell can Chiroptera be up – good god it has to be 3 in the morning!” then I’d scroll through the thread and see that you were active at 2 in the afternoon as well. “holy cow, I though, I’ve got to keep this up, can someone really be this unregulated?”

    guess what, you are crazy pants my man. i had forgotten about it, but when you posted that paranoid post about how the xtians are going to come and get you, it reminded me…

    what is it? bipolar, manic? both?

  23. mrbongo says

    @tomh

    I learned that you’ve spent your morning with the goal of convincing the world that basedball and courtroom jargon mean that the judge meant to say ‘if’, even though he didn’t. So what i’ve learned that you have some bizarre agenda where we just can’t be allowed to believe the judge said he was a muslim when he said and we would have to discount our ears to do otherwise.

    why the need tomh? why the need? why not just let reality lay where the facts have it. he said he was a muslim. why waste so much time making up a new reality where he didn’t say that?

  24. eoraptor013 says

    eric @10

    Actually, he said,

    “In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just.”

    Interesting phrasing there. He throws in reasonable doubt, but he focuses on whether the “charge was just.” In my mind, he’s challenging the law, not the facts, and (while I haven’t practiced law in 15 years) I think that leaves the case open to appeal.

    Who might bring that appeal is a different question.

  25. tomh says

    @ #26

    basedball and courtroom jargon

    So now you admit the phrasing is common in a courtroom. You’re having a hard time keeping your story straight.

  26. says

    Mrbonghittin’forJESUS musta practiced sykiatree for 10 years, too, also.

    “what is it? bipolar, manic? both?”

    Do a little readin’ on the subject, putz.

  27. mrbongo says

    @tomh

    no i don’t, i’ve never heard it once.

    now your desperately grasping for straws.

  28. mrbongo says

    @tomh said: “So now you admit the phrasing is common in a courtroom. ”

    you know, it is common parlance in field hockey to say ‘you’ when you mean ‘I’. Furthermore, plumbers often say ‘phrasing is common’ when they mean ‘i am a total ideologically oriented dipshit that just can’t tolerate any reality that doesn’t go my way’.

    wow, so tomh, you admit to being willing to edit the facts freely in order to create a new non-existent set of facts that are less threatening to you?

  29. mrbongo says

    @democommie

    hey man, i think we all admit that you’re absolutely crazy and incoherent. But thanks for providing an example of what crazypants plus senility looks like.

  30. mrbongo says

    @Chiroptera

    I’ll set my alarm for 2 am and post something in here. $1000 bucks says you’ll reply in 15 minutes.

  31. Chiroptera says

    You know, all this mystery about whether or not Mr. Martin meant “if” could probably be cleared up if someone were to go on the ‘tubes and find out whether or not Mr. Martin is, in fact, Muslim.

  32. tomh says

    @ #35
    In Martin’s response he says, “(Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).”

  33. mrbongo says

    @chiroptera

    tell you what, i’ll set my alarm for 2AM and post something in here. $1000 says that you will post a reply in 20 minutes.

  34. mrbongo says

    @tomh

    i have no doubt that he says that in his response. i’m not arguing that he is muslim. however, it seems, like so many people do, he was willing to assert non-truths during his diatribe for the sake of convenience. just like you are with your fake court room jargon assertions.

    the reality of this isn’t really about the judge tom, its about you and why you have a desperate agenda to bleach the islam out of this incident.

  35. says

    I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer.

    That could go a LONG way toward explaining (though not excusing, of course) his blatant bias in this instance. When you’re serving over there, acts that offend Muslims’ religious sensibilities aren’t just offensive — they’re sometimes deadly to people like your comrades (as recent events in Afghanistan remind us). So the incident he ruled on here could have triggered a deep emotional reaction based on his military experiences over there.

  36. epercev says

    Seeing how I have not released a public statement and only a video, there is no grounds to say everyone has heard my side. They haven’t! They have only seen a video released of the trial, which in fact, was audio only edited with a photo.
    Because I like Ed Brayton, I’ll discuss my version.

    What went wrong in this case?
    The video of the alleged attack was never allowed in, yet in the trial, the defendants attorney introduces a comment of the alleged attack at 6:41 mark, “you were able to turn on your camera and put of a video of the confrontation, and you put this video up for everyone to comment on…” The judge should have said, Wait, what video of the attack? However, the muslim and maybe the judge would have been offended, so it wasn’t allowed in. Yet, the attorney used a comment after the incident a month later, at 7:29 in the trial, “after taking a dump, when you look into the toilet may you see mohammed the prophet of Islam” to show my bias toward his defendant. If the video was not allowed in as evidence, why was the comment allowed in to show my bias toward Talaag?

    The muslim admits to attacking me at 20:36, “I had to submit him…”
    The police man is sworn in and on the stand says Talaag admitted to grabbing me…

    22:46 Talaag, say, “I pushed him.” This is a lie, I was walking in the middle of the road.

    The Judge had a Koran and waives it at me and you hear it hit the bench @ 28:43-45, He says, “In fact, I have copy of the koran right here (PLOP)…” Not over there on the book shelf. You HEAR the koran plop down @ 28:45

    He in fact said, “I’m a muslim, and I’m offended” not I’m not or I am not, or F-I’m a Muslim?. I wouldn’t release an audio that could put me in jeopardy of defamation of character, to which the judge would not say “Ernest, your defaming my character” because the Muslims would go nuts.

    Though I had a witness there, the Zombie Pope, he was not allowed to enter testimony. The judge said, “sir, put your hand down your not a witness” @ 33:19 This was the Zombie Pope! People have come out in my defense today saying “I saw this happen!”
    You have the Sgt. who is sworn in and says “you’re not telling the truth, did you touch him then or not, you’re lying” mind you under oath. Talaag’s testimony that he submitted me, along with my witness who was denied and a denied video would show the judge burden of proof. However, the Police, Talaag and my testimony weren’t enough to persuade this muslim sympathetic judge.

    Let’s for one say the judge is Lutheran for 41 years, why then did he commit perjury saying “I’m a muslim?” Is he given a license to lie? This judge who spoke arabic in the trial and the defendant and his party all answer him back.

    Why offer me to read the Koran? This is a book that commands me dead for blasphemy? This judge elevated Islam above Christianity and Atheism @ 29:50.
    This judge missed the mark on Freedom of Speech. There is so much more wrong that the judge did because he was bias. There is no doubt that this judge should be removed from the bench.

    The judge held me in contempt and I have the emails to prove this judge is a liar! He orders me to destroy the audio and not release it. Emails were sent to Jonathan Turley who absolutely was stunned! The judge gave Carl (pope) and I the permission to record. There’s not a thing he can do about it. There is no violation of section 112 of codes of PA court.

    There is more to come…
    Starting Saturday morning on Fox News I tell my side!

  37. mrbongo says

    “I had to submit him…”

    Welcome to the new United States. It’s only going to get worse from here.
    The number of mosques has doubled since 9/11.

  38. says

    @#24 tomh “And you never learned to write or think. What a shame.”

    Really? I thought we had rid the world of people who try to use such mistakes to their advantage. Oh well, at least we still beat polio.
    FYI- Didn’t help your point one bit, you’re still wrong. Here I’ll mispell a word to make any reply easier for you.

  39. mrbongo says

    I can’t wait to see chiroptera’s and tomh’s denialism regarding epercev’s eye witness account.

    tomh: “how do you really know it was a quran, I mean, it could have been a sears catalog with just a fake quran cover!”

    Chiroptera: “still… but did he mention islam ever?”

  40. mrbongo says

    You know, if this was 1995, maybe this post’s narrative of the incident would be supportable. But alas, this is 2012, and we now live in a world where muslim activists are cramming sharia down our throats on a daily basis.

    In just the last week, we had this judge in Penn.

    Lars Vilks are attacked and egged in Sweden by Muslim thugs for daring to promote the same freedom to criticize any religion.

    http://www.thelocal.se/39262/20120222/

    Just yesterday, a Chabad house presentation by two israelis was heckled out by activist Muslim thugs at UC Davis (I should note that I would be all in favor of protesting the event outside, hell I would have joined them – but that is the pre-hyper muslim immigration and appeasement world of the 1990’s that Ed is still stuck in.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=45MB-ANIVls

    (this video is a perfect example of the heckler’s veto).

    and that was just this week!

    not to mention the southpark incident, etc in the past couple of years.

    We live in an age where speech that offends muslims is routinely beat down by muslims while those who should defend free speech are prudishly lecturing us about made up words like “islamophobia”.

  41. says

    @mrbongo “Welcome to the new United States. It’s only going to get worse from here.
    The number of mosques has doubled since 9/11.”

    To be precise-74% since 2000
    http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/29/31450/number-mosques-america-has-grown-74-percent/
    Not that it matters really though. The city I live in has the highest number of Afghan immigrants in the country. It’s a nice place to live and not a single sign of sharia. Just because it exists doesn’t mean people like it or want it. They want to live free, peaceful, happy lives.

    Wasn’t it nice for Ernest to stop by and clear things up a bit? Thanks Ernest, looking forward to the FOX News appearance

  42. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #38: the reality of this isn’t really about the judge tom, its about you and why you have a desperate agenda to bleach the islam out of this incident.

    Actually, this is about a judge, a judge who violated a law prohibiting assault against someone acting according to his Consitutionally protected rights, and a judge who violated the law because someone’s religious sensibilities were offended.

    No one is “bleaching the islam” out of the incident. It is you who is exaggerating the Muslim aspect.

  43. says

    “We live in an age where speech that delusional fuckwads like Mr. Bonehead are allowed access to the internet where they spew fucking nonsense and are routinely beaten down by people who know the difference between free speech and judicial misconduct”

    TFTFY, us islamophobic fuck.

  44. mrbongo says

    @chiroptera said: “No one is “bleaching the islam” out of the incident. It is you who is exaggerating the Muslim aspect.”

    did you watch the video of the swedish cartoonists being egged on stage for free speech by hijabis shouting allah akbar just a few days ago! boy, talk about exagerating the muslim aspect!

    did you read how epercev wrote: “The Judge had a Koran and waives it at me and you hear it hit the bench @ 28:43-45, He says, “In fact, I have copy of the koran right here (PLOP)…” Not over there on the book shelf. You HEAR the koran plop down @ 28:45″

    boy, talk about exagerating the muslim aspect!

  45. mrbongo says

    reappaden said:”The city I live in has the highest number of Afghan immigrants in the country.”

    and he is right. it should be noted that many, but not all of the bay area afghans are secular in orientation. just because someone is from a muslim country doesn’t mean that they continue to practice when they come to the u.s.. just look at persians in southern california.

    also, weren’t muslims from your town cruising over to sf just a couple of years ago to to shoot gays with bb guns?

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/04/Antigay_BB_Gun_Attack_in_San_Francisco/

  46. says

    Not that I would look favorably on shooting anyone with BB guns, in the scope of things that really doesn’t rate too high on my “oh shit , that means trouble” scale. I’m more concerned with the murders in Oakland and the Mexican gangs in San Jose. It would be unreasonable for me to try and claim muslims never commit any crimes. People are people. If BB toting muslims hunting gays becomes a regular occurrence then maybe I’ll start to worry but I doubt that will happen because the gay and lesbian community here doesn’t put up with that kind of behavior, it gets squashed rather quickly.

  47. abb3w says

    @0, Ed Brayton:

    Even if he had told you that he did it specifically to enrage Muslims, it’s still entirely legal to do so and still entirely illegal to attack him for it.

    …probably. That precise example might have issues under the “fighting words” doctrine — though Chaplinsky v NH is crappy case law, it’s apparently still case law.

  48. Chiroptera says

    mrbongo, #48: …swedish cartoonists….

    Once again, the main evidence that Muslims in the US pose a danger is what other people in other countries do.

    Someone needs to buy mrbongo a map.

    did you read how epercev wrote: “The Judge had a Koran and waives it at me and you hear it hit the bench @ 28:43-45, He says, “In fact, I have copy of the koran right here (PLOP)…”

    Not only did I read his comment, I read pretty much these same words on every blog post and every news item about this incident.

    Not everyone has the same reading difficulties you do.

    boy, talk about exagerating the muslim aspect!

    Yes, if you would not make the same big deal if the judge had been waving a Bible, or would not make the same big deal if the judge had said, “I am a Christian…,” then, yes, you are exaggerating the Muslim aspect.

    If you are using this as an excuse to exaggerate the danger that Muslims in the US pose to the principles of liberal democracy, then, yes, you are exaggerating the Muslim aspect.

    If, on the other hand, your point was that a judge was waving around a religious book that just happened in this case to be the Quran, and if the judge was stating that he was a very religious person which, in this case, just happened to be Muslim, and if your whole point is a judge was using someone’s religious sensibilities to dismiss an assault…

    …then I’ve misread your posts and apologize.

  49. says

    Just yesterday, a Chabad house presentation by two israelis was heckled out by activist Muslim thugs at UC Davis

    OMG they HECKLED someone! No one else in the US with a political agenda ever engaqges in the crime of heckling people they disagree with, it’s totally unheard of.*

    *except you know, by pretty much every political group ever.

  50. mrbongo says

    @chiroptera said: “Yes, if you would not make the same big deal if the judge had been waving a Bible, or would not make the same big deal if the judge had said, “I am a Christian…,” then, yes, you are exaggerating the Muslim aspect.”

    fair enough, find me a gang of christians throwing eggs at a speaker and i’ll join you in disapprobation. judge roy moore was a douchebag. there, does that help?

    however, we can mock jesus on cartoons and burn bibles and guess what, no one cares.

    remember zombie pope walking right next to zombie mohamed, in a crowd of hundreds of christians? not one mexican/italian/puerto rican/irish immigrant stepped forward and said “I have to submit him” like the muslim guy did. not one.

    and that chiroptera tells you all you need to know.

  51. mrbongo says

    Noadi:

    yes, it is called the heckler’s veto. and it isn’t protected speech when heckling rises to the level of preventing other from speaking.

    maybe in your mind free speech, especially the speech of jewish audiences is a bad thing that is o.k. to shout down. i would disagree,one can protest outside, even momentarily disturb the meeting, pass out anti-israel leaflets outsides, make a web site, etc. but you can’t stand up and announce that your going to scream the entire meeting such that the speakers and audience’s right to free speech is lost.

    wow, such a basic free speech concept and ed’s dispatches zombies don’t get it?????

  52. says

    Linguistic analyses like the one by Language Log cited upthread agree that it was the sports conditional, so the judge did not commit perjury here.

    However, the sports conditional being prone to be mistaken for an indicative, the judge should probably have used a different construction, like a condition clause with an overt adverbial subordinator, like “if”.

  53. says

    Also, while the cartoon controversy was famously started by Danish caricaturists, there was also a Swedish incident six months later involving drawings called “honden i konsten”

    Interesting enough many Arabs do confuse the Scandinavian countries. One time OBL included in his rambling threats the nation of Norway, which rather surprised the Norwegians at the time. The ones sending troops to Afghanistan (“crusaders” in OBL speech) were the Danish, and also the cartoon controversy originated there (however many Scandinavian newspapers reprinted the cartoons, and also outside of Scandinavia). To this day, certain Danish brands face a boycott in the Middle East.

    (But after having started to read Världens lyckligaste folk my sympathies remain limited (while strictly opposing violence of course). Denmark has been pursuing an openly racist immigration policy consistently for some time now, and one of the effects cited in the book is that their tourism figures have been dropping compared to other EU nations whose numbers have been going up)

  54. says

    yes, it is called the heckler’s veto. and it isn’t protected speech when heckling rises to the level of preventing other from speaking.

    wow, such a basic free speech concept and ed’s dispatches zombies don’t get it?????

    This is hilarious coming from someone who was just introduced to the concept on this very blog.

  55. says

    Pelamun:

    He’s a FUCKING JUDGE; he’s SPEAKING FROM THE FUCKING BENCH; during a FUCKING CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

    He’s not on ESPN with Skip Bayless. There is a difference.

  56. says

    The number of mosques has doubled since 9/11.

    Doubled from how many initially? Any stats on how much the number of out Pagans has grown in the same period? Guess what, Skippy — Islam isn’t the only fast-growing minority religion in the US.

  57. says

    Also, while the cartoon controversy was famously started by Danish caricaturists…

    Actually, no, that controversy didn’t start for many months after the cartoons were published. It was started by Saudi state-owned media (with help from extra inflammatory cartoons inserted by a MUSLIM cleric), not by Danish anything.

  58. tomh says

    @ #59

    He’s a FUCKING JUDGE; he’s SPEAKING FROM THE FUCKING BENCH; during a FUCKING CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

    The guy is not even a lawyer, barely rises to the level of a JP. Saying “I’m a Muslim,” without the ‘if’ is the least interesting or important part of the whole proceeding.

  59. says

    Actually, no, that controversy didn’t start for many months after the cartoons were published. It was started by Saudi state-owned media (with help from extra inflammatory cartoons inserted by a MUSLIM cleric), not by Danish anything.

    Have you looked into the Danish side of the story? I don’t doubt that the Saudis and other clerics distorted things, but the Danish press had been demonising Muslims for quite some time prior.

    From the book I cited above:

    in July 2005, the Jyllandsposten put on its title page in white letters with black background:

    TERROR
    New York 11 september 2001
    Madrid 11 mars 2004
    London 7 juli 2005
    København?

    This is the same newspaper that on September 30 of 2005 put the Muhammed pictures into its newspaper.

    There is an editorial written by Flemming Rose, which I lack the energy of translating, but again demonising and othering Muslims.

    Also the Muhammedskrisen, as it’s known in Denmark, can be divided into two parts, namely the second part was when they decided to republish the Muhammed with a turban bomb caricature.

    I don’t condone violence because of cartoons published in newspapers, but don’t tell me there wasn’t an anti-Muslim campaign being waged by the Danish right-wing press…

  60. says

    Also, various sources mention that already two weeks after the first publication of the cartoons, there was a demonstration of 5,000 people in Copenhagen, and the death threats started coming. At that point, it was still an internal Danish matter, but it’s also not just some Saudis who decided to stir up the matter, it was already festering, one could say they kept it alive, or fanned it even more…

  61. says

    This is the same newspaper that on September 30 of 2005 put the Muhammed pictures into its newspaper.

    And those pictures came from right-wing-fringe-Christian papers that very few people noticed at the time. Furthermore, the mainstream paper published the cartoons as part of a story ABOUT visual depictions of Mohammed; and again, there was no controversy about them at the time of publication. The controversy was created entirely by the Saudi media, months after the JP article came out.

    …but the Danish press had been demonising Muslims for quite some time prior.

    Demonizing Muslims is not the same thing as printing cartoons about Mohammed. Controversy over the former may have come from within Denmark, but controversy over the latter, in itself, came from the Saudis.

  62. says

    Have a look here: http://multimedia.jp.dk/archive/00080/Avisside_Muhammed-te_80003a.pdf

    And read the text, it’s in the freaking middle of all the cartoons. Put it into Google translate if you don’t read Danish. If you seriously can’t see the difference between singling Muslims out and demonising them, I can’t help you.

    Also if you can’t make the connections between the campaign the newspaper was faring. Or tell me how many Christian caricatures had been published by the Jyllandsposten, just to make a point?
    I’m not saying that the harsh reaction of the Muslim community was justified, as an atheist of course I want blasphemy to be legal, but deliberately singling out Muslims as a group whose beliefs are to be caricatured was surely part of their anti-immigrant campaign.

    What Christian newspapers are you talking about? On September 17, 2005, the respectable newspaper Politiken ran a relatively neutral (in the sense of describing the facts accurately) article Dyb angst for kritik af islam (Deep fear of criticism of Islam), upon which Rose decided to commission the caricatures. Not some fringe Christian newspaper, but the Jyllandsposten!

    And I mentioned the demonstrations these caricatures caused two weeks later in Copenhagen. Why do you keep denying that? The Saudis did not start this, it was a reaction of Danish Muslims to a hate-filled campaign of a right-wing newspaper, which later doubled-down in republishing the caricatures.

    I don’t deny that the newspaper had the right to publish those cartoons. But they deserve to be called out on their racist campaign. If some radical Saudi clerics exploited the incident for their incident, they deserve to be condemned too. But don’t give those newspaper people a free pass.

  63. says

    tomh:

    “The guy is not even a lawyer, barely rises to the level of a JP. Saying “I’m a Muslim,” without the ‘if’ is the least interesting or important part of the whole proceeding.”.

    IF he was a lawyer that would have made a difference? How so?

  64. tomh says

    IF he was a lawyer that would have made a difference? How so?

    Well, he probably would have understood the law a little better and not made such an asinine decision.

  65. says

    “Well, he probably would have understood the law a little better and not made such an asinine decision.”

    I don’t know about that. Tony Ducks and the Supremes have managed to completely mangle the law and they’re all, “eminent jurists”.

  66. John Phillips, FCD says

    pelamun, but the world wide protests were the result of three muslim clerics adding, ironically, what were in fact a few anti-semitic cartoons, which very loosely could be perceived as of Mo, were claimed by the clerics to also be part of the Danish cartoon set. These cartoons were much worse than the basic Danish set. Note, I’m not denying that the rag responsible for the original set were going for the islamaphobe demographic, so to speak, but the world wide protests started months after the original publication and was deliberately ginned up by the aforementioned clerics.

    Also, AIUI, they had been peddling these around the Middle East for a while trying to find takers before they managed to find an Egyptian one ready to run with it. At which point, the shit very definitely hit the fan. Yet sadly, and somewhat ironically, as usual it was Muslims who suffered the most from the many ensuing riots.

Trackbacks

  1. […] More sources have emerged that say that the judge was presenting a hypothetical and is, indeed, not a Muslim. I have edited […]

Leave a Reply