In FrontPage this morning I call for justice to be done to Judge Mark Martin in
Pennsylvania:
The facts of the case are
clear: Ernest Perce, a young atheist in Pennsylvania, marched in a Halloween
parade dressed as “Zombie Muhammad.” A Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy, grew enraged
when he saw Perce’s costume, and began choking him while trying to pull off the
fake beard that Perce had glued onto his face. Perce went to the police, and so did Elbayomy – the latter under the mistaken
impression that it was illegal in the United States, as it is in many Muslim
lands, to insult or mock the prophet of Islam. Elbayomy was mistaken, of
course: it isn’t illegal to mock Muhammad in the United States, but it may be
soon, courtesy Judge Mark Martin, who dismissed the case against Elbayomy.
Martin claimed in a message trying to explain away his mishandling of the case that he
dismissed the case for lack of evidence: “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 were so many inconsistencies, that
there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.”
Martin didn’t mention in his apologia
that Perce was filming at the time Elbayomy attacked him, and the video evidence is quite clear. Nor did he mention that a police officer
on the scene, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, backed up Perce’s version of events. Both the video and Curtis’s testimony give the lie
to Martin’s claim that “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.”
Nor did Martin mention that he lectured
Perce at length about how his Halloween costume outraged Islamic sensitivities, concluding: “And
what you’ve done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They
find it very, very, very offensive. I am a Muslim. I find it very offensive…You
are way outside your bounds of first amendment rights.” Martin later denied
that he was a Muslim, and so when he told Perce that he was one, he may have
been speaking conditionally, as in, “If I were a Muslim, I, too, would find it offensive.”
However, despite the best efforts of
the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its increasingly
compliant enablers in the Obama Administration, it is still not illegal to
offend Muslims in the United States. In fact, it is only illegal to offend
Muslims and Islam under Islamic law. In lecturing Perce at length about how he
had “trashed” Muslims’ “essence” and then ignoring two important sources of
evidence that proved the charge against Elbayomy, Martin was effectively
enforcing Sharia in an American courtroom. For under Islamic law, Elbayomy
would have been perfectly within his rights, and even to be commended, for
choking Perce for mocking Muhammad. The only criticism that might have been
leveled against him had this case been brought in Jeddah or Tehran was that he
didn’t finish Perce off altogether.
Pamela Geller interviewed Perce, who articulated the implications of the ruling:
“Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept
blasphemy against their religion without violence. Yet when you are a citizen
of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”
Indeed. With the OIC
engaged in a years-long struggle to compel Western states to criminalize
truthful speech about jihad and criticism of Islam under the guise of
criminalizing “religious hatred,” Martin’s skewed and biased ruling is
particularly ominous, especially insofar as it coincides with Sharia
prohibitions on speaking ill of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Islam....
In FrontPage this morning I call for justice to be done to Judge Mark Martin in Pennsylvania:
No comments:
Post a Comment