"Last week, an American judge in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark Martin, ruled on the case and sided with the Muslim, and said that the victim would have been put to death in Muslim societies for his “crime.”
Martin told Perce: “Having had the benefit of having spent over two and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. … 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.”
So what? This is America, where we don’t have to obey the Islamic blasphemy laws – at least not yet. But Martin went on to reveal why he was ruling against the victim: “Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.” He now denies that he is a Muslim, but that’s what he said."
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I should get to beat the judge for offending my essence as an American.[/quote]
I cannot believe that this judge acted the way he did, sworn to uphold the Constitution and he completely slays the 1st Amendment like it is nothing. Should be strung up.
And people think it’s crazy to block Sharia at the state level.
[quote]xspoonman wrote:
Something is wrong here, i actually agree with OP and i think an atheist is being defended[/quote]
HaHa, stuff like this should bring us all together! I’m firmly a Christian, but I am so thankful to live in a country with freedom of speech. I do wonder if the ACLU is going to help the guy, haven’t been able to find anything on that yet.
The way I see it is, if anyone loses their freedom of speech, we all do. Everything spoken will offend someone, can’t start picking and choosing IMO.
Nothing short of judicial misconduct. Even if the judge decided the case on the merits and found that the attacker had no case, the extended editorials about the need for sensitivities for the Muslim were beyond the pale. Either there is enough evidence to convict or not, but sermonizing the victim for “provoking” the assault was improper.
And it clearly demonstrates that his ruling can bet attacked as biased. In effect, the judge’s editorial sounds like he is saying the guy did it, and was justified in doing so, and the dismissal was motivated by his bias. Expect for him to be dragged before an ethics board, or worse.
But, reading his comments, the judge is a clearly a hack with an ax to grind.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nothing short of judicial misconduct. Even if the judge decided the case on the merits and found that the attacker had no case, the extended editorials about the need for sensitivities for the Muslim were beyond the pale. Either there is enough evidence to convict or not, but sermonizing the victim for “provoking” the assault was improper.
And it clearly demonstrates that his ruling can bet attacked as biased. In effect, the judge’s editorial sounds like he is saying the guy did it, and was justified in doing so, and the dismissal was motivated by his bias. Expect for him to be dragged before an ethics board, or worse.
But, reading his comments, the judge is a clearly a hack with an ax to grind.[/quote]
It would be a similar situation if the judge decided a rape case against the victim and went on and on about how women shouldn’t wear provocative clothes.
