The Judge did not use Sharia Law, nor was the judgment based on Sharia Law. I am amazed at the news contributor for asserting it to be Sharia Law. That is downright misleading.
One should honor free speech, but as a civilized society, we need to discuss and debate if free speech includes provoking others. At this time, the number of people who abuse freedom of speech is negligible and no one needs to be punished. However, if it becomes a daily occurence, then we need to see if one's action disturbs the peace to be held responsible.
This judgment might actually lead to more provocation. Since the judge was a Muslim he should have thought about Prophet Muhammad who had turned the other cheek when he was insulted, instead he prayed for the well being of the miscreants in more than two occasions. In this case, the Judge should have asked the intention of the guy who had donned the costume, if it was not mal-intention, he should have advised him, as prayer did not make sense to the man. But throwing the case without due deliberation is wrong. I do not agree with the Judge
Mike Ghouse, speaker, thinker and a writer
- - - - - -
Contributor Network By Mark Whittington
COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
Words almost fail.
The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.
The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.
That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.
It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.