Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case -- in Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. 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.
Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
“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. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
And: “The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
And: “…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.
Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.
I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
British PM attacks 'snobs' who criticise big business for making money and having 'no moral worth'
David Cameron has made a passionate defence of big business’s ability to change society for the good as he declared it a ‘powerful force for social progress’.
In a speech this afternoon the Prime Minister also spoke out against the growing ‘anti-business snobbery’ towards large firms that claimed money-makers had ‘no inherent moral worth like the state does’.
The business world has been increasingly accused by critics from across the political spectrum of being greedy and out of touch - typified in recent weeks by attacks on bankers’ bonuses.
More fuel was added to the debate today when taxpayer-backed Royal Bank of Scotland unveiled losses of £2 billion but revealed it had paid staff nearly £1 billion in bonuses last year.
But Mr Cameron used the speech to industry leaders at a business summit, attended by the Prince of Wales, to counter the accusations.
Speaking at the conference organised by Charles’ Business in the Community (BITC) organisation, he said: ‘In recent months we’ve heard some dangerous rhetoric creep into our national debate that wealth creation is somehow anti-social, that people in business are somehow out for themselves.
‘I think we have to fight this mood with everything that we’ve got. ‘Not just because it is wrong for our economy, because we need the jobs and investment that business brings, but because it is also wrong for our society. ‘Business is not just about making money, vital as it is, it is also the most powerful force for social progress that the world has ever known.’
He added that ‘snobbish attitudes' towards money-makers should also be confronted: He said: ‘The snobbery that says business has no inherent moral worth like the state does, that it isn’t really to be trusted, that it should stay out of social concerns and stick to making the money that pays the taxes.’
Mr Cameron also launched two new initiatives today to improve the ‘transparency’ of business. Philip N Green, the Government’s advisor on corporate responsibility, will chair an informal working group called the Open Business Forum to look at the issue. While an online directory called Trading For Good would be established to allow consumers to learn about small businesses doing ‘good things’ and reward them for it.
The Prime Minister returned to his idea of the 'big society', telling the invited business people from companies as diverse as Thomas Cook, BT and Marks and Spencer: 'Corporate responsibility is an absolutely vital part of my mission for this Government to build a bigger, stronger society.
'The big society is all about people recognising that they have obligations beyond paying their taxes and obeying the law not just doing no harm, but doing good. ‘And this applies to businesses just as much as it does to individuals.’
The Prime Minister's words come after George Osborne's warned of 'an anti-business culture' developing in Britain.
Two weeks ago the Chancellor said the growing row over fat-cat pay and bonuses was threatening the economy. He told a meeting of the Federation of Small Businesses: 'At stake are not pay packages for a few but jobs and prosperity for the many.'
Mr Osborne insisted the Government had to do more for commerce and that he was battling against a 'relentless pressure to regulate' within Whitehall.
In a swipe at the BBC, he said: 'It would be so easy to give into the constant stream of vested interests demanding that you regulate a problem away – every time you are interviewed on the Today programme, or meet with the single issue lobby groups or face the trade union campaigns.
'Everything in politics encourages more red tape – everyone insists government must step in – "something must be done" is always the cry. We have to resist these pressures.'
The Chancellor said he understood public concern about bonuses, but insisted it must not be allowed to undermine efforts to restore growth by curbing rewards for success. 'Of course rewards for failure are unacceptable and those who believe in the free market are the first to say so,' he added. 'But a strong, free market economy must be built on rewards for success.
There are those who are trying to create an anti-business culture in Britain – and we have to stop them.'
Cantuar does rather well in debate with Dawkins
I would have expected rather more waffling from His Grace
God does not "clutter up" explanations of how the universe began, the Archbishop of Canterbury has told Britain's most famous non-believer, Professor Richard Dawkins.
Dr Rowan Williams was speaking during a discussion between the pair at Oxford University on Thursday after Dawkins said he did not see why the archbishop would want to clutter up the explanation "with something so messy as a god".
The archbishop said: "I don't see clutter coming into it at all, I'm not thinking of God as an extra who has to be shoehorned into it."
Dawkins said: "That's the way I see it." And the archbishop replied: "That's where we disagree," going on to say that God was "a combination of love and mathematics".
Earlier in the debate a question was asked as to whether Biblical writers "got it wrong" by not saying that the universe is billions of years old.
The archbishop said: "The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st century physics, they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know.
"In the first book of the Bible is the basic information - the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe and humanity has made rather a mess of it."
Dawkins said: "I am baffled by the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it."
The archbishop replied: "It's something that's not a 21st century innovation, but the way people have read Genesis since very early days."
Dawkins said during the debate that he is an agnostic. It was put to him that he is described as the world's most famous atheist. "Not by me," he said. But he was not the kind of agnostic who thought there was a 50/50 chance that God existed. "On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six." He went on to say he was a "6.9", saying: "That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't."
The discussion was on the nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin.
It’s Mademoiselle Moutet to you, Monsieur
The French language must not lose the term of address favoured by Chanel and Deneuve, says Anne-Elisabeth Moutet
I commented previously that from what I hear, some French women like to be addressed as "Mademoiselle". Mlle Moutet seems to agree -- JR
It may feel like a victory to all those new feminist groups who’d decided to campaign over it, but I for one shall be sorry to see my Mademoiselle disappear from official French forms. The agitators had been after it for some time, but it is a truth universally acknowledged that if you want a quick media victory, you need only ask Nicolas Sarkozy when he’s running for a difficult re-election.
The issues that really matter to French women – like, say, equal salary in the workplace (women currently earn 27 per cent less than men in the same job) or the dearth of female bosses in the top corporations (current number: 0) – aren’t about to be addressed any time soon. Far too complicated. But a purely cosmetic change that few, apart from a handful of spin-savvy groups such as Les Chiennes de Garde (Guard Bitches) really cared about? A push two months before the first round of the Présidentielles will get you an administrative decision guaranteeing headlines around the world.
It’s not that I disagree with everything the brash French women’s groups have been fighting for. But was it really necessary to deprive the French language of such an interesting nuance simply because it gives an indication of one’s married status? And don’t give me the line about demoiselle meaning “a virgin” in the 16th century. Nobody remembers that any more, and even back then, it only applied to the noble 1 per cent. The others had to make do with fille or jeune fille; a spinster, until about half a century ago, was known as une vieille fille.
But Mademoiselle? It always had its own panache, from princess to Grande Cocotte to stage diva. Think Sarah Bernhardt or Miss Howard, Napoleon III’s mistress. In French history, La Grande Mademoiselle (as court protocol correctly styled her) is a true heroine: Louis XIV’s first cousin, Anne Marie Louise d’Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, led the aristocratic revolt known as the Fronde at the age of 25 against her young cousin’s project of absolute power. The Grande Mademoiselle led troops, rallied Orléans under siege, and had the Bastille cannons fired against the king’s army. At the age of 43 she married, against the wishes of the king, a nobleman who was six years her junior and whom she had freed from prison; she did eventually kick him out when he cheated (too much) on her.
By Emile Zola’s time, in his great novel of the late 19th-century department stores, The Ladies’ Paradise, Mademoiselle was being used as a class put-down. A staid bourgeois lady deploys it pointedly when addressing a shop assistant. But these days, Madame used in the same context sounds unbearably dowdy; it’s Mademoiselles who dress in Stella McCartney, Isabel Marant or Jean Paul Gaultier. Karl Lagerfeld, meanwhile – a man of variegated insults distributed with easy abandon – used the word “dadame” to describe to me the House of Chanel BK (Before Karl). In his mouth, it was the supreme term of abuse.
Madame was deemed an insult, too, by Coco Chanel herself. A thoroughly modern woman, she always insisted on being Mademoiselle Chanel. She had lovers, but no husband; she had an English duke, Bendor Westminster, stamp every signpost and lamp in London with her initials; she used men’s shapes and fluid jerseys to build clothes in which women could run, play, show their bodies.
Take another famous Mademoiselle-by-choice, Catherine Deneuve. Never mind that she was married to David Bailey and had high-profile affairs and children with Roger Vadim and Marcello Mastroianni. She was resolutely never Madame. Compare her with Vadim’s earlier wife, Brigitte Bardot, who did become a Madame, several times over. It’s difficult not to see Bardot, who gave up her career early on to devote much of her time to animal welfare and the cause of Marine Le Pen, as more of a victim than a feminist star.
By contrast, Deneuve, a style icon and a great beauty at 68, comes off as a winner. When I interviewed Vadim, a surprisingly spiteful serial seducer of great beauties, he was still resentful of Deneuve, decades later, for never marrying him. She had dropped him! Like une tonne de briques! She controlled their son’s education! She went on to have a better career after she left! As far as Deneuve was concerned, calling a woman Madame certainly meant making her walk three paces behind, metaphorically speaking.
Far from indicating a kind of mere real‑woman-in-waiting status, Mademoiselle had become pretty useful to sandbag some people into realising that you are making your own way on your own terms. I plan to keep using it, and intend to encourage my independent‑minded friends to do the same.
After all, now it’s no longer official, we can truly celebrate it as the ultimate rebellion.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.