You're the judge. What's your verdict?
I'm going to guess nigh on 100% of those polled would answer guilty. You would be incorrect, according to the People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania. The very same incident occurred there, with two differences:
Guy A was dressed as the Prophet.
Guy B was Muslim.
Oh, well I guess that changes everything. Innocent it is, then!
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.[NOTE: Many articles you may read about this case may indicate the judge was Muslim himself. This is incorrect, and stems from an isolated sentence in his ruling that was unclear and seemed to be him admitting to being Muslim.]
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."
Judge Mark Martin is a veteran of the Iraq war, and uses that as justification for his ruling.
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.Perhaps Judge Martin might want to invest a little less in Islamic studies and bit more in humor, particularly an understanding of satire.
Martin goes on to berate the assaulted victim, saying that he should think before he insults a religion, and basically saying it's his fault he was attacked. He also says that he's lucky, cause if he were in a Muslim country he'd be put to death...
...cause that's a good thing...
This ruling is completely inane, and I hope it is appealed so this whacko can be paraded on the world stage as the idiot he is. Here are the facts:
- "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" or "Ignorance of the law excuses no one": The defendant is a Muslim immigrant who claimed he was ignorant of the fact that you can't assault people in the streets of America. While I understand it may be difficult for him to get cable, what with living under a rock and all, the fact remains that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
- First Amendment protects speech, not assault: The assaulted atheist was clearly not attacking anyone. Regardless of how offended the Muslim man was, he does not have the right not to be offended. He could have left. He could have heckled. He could have explained to the 9 year old son he had with him that the man was violating God's law and would be punished. He cannot, however, simply attack someone because he feels like it, and if he chooses to do so, ought to pay for it under the law.
- "Hate" is not a crime: It's unlikely that Mr. Perce saw his costume as anything other than a harmless mockery of religion in general. Regardless, even if he is a hate-mongering Koran burning Islamaphobe, the fact remains that hate is not a crime. This is the problem with defining "hate" crimes as separate from other sorts of crimes. If we punish people for simply feeling a certain way, for holding a certain opinion, you are giving the government the ability to define what is an acceptable opinion to have and express.
Think that the government would never abuse such an authority?
I bet Mr. Perce did too.
As a show of solidarity to Mr. Perce, I leave you with this picture of the Prophet with his turban on fire, painted in central Asia.
No comments:
Post a Comment