http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/...-blames-victim
Don't have much to add unless there are any errors in the article. Respect yo
Printable View
http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/...-blames-victim
Don't have much to add unless there are any errors in the article. Respect yo
The appellate court will have a field day with this case.
Do you really think things work that differently in America. Welcome back to Europe mia muca's
In the UK that Atheist would be arrested for inciting religious violence.
~:smoking:
....
Yes it does you just saw it happen, their laws are more important than yours according to islamphaelic judges. That is what we call self-islamisation/dhimmitude over hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8
and another link
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...isses_har.html
I don't see any of the inflammatory comments but Ill keep looking
Found them
28:34 start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs
http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/...ist-in-costume
...:O...
i guess america hasnt learned anything from the rascist trials in the south XD
anyway, if you check the video it seems like nothing really happened and then it went to court and a dumb *** judge completely screwed everything up.
Of course, every bad thing a Muslim does is seen as creeping sharia. You'd have thought people'd get over it by now.
EDIT: To clarify my position: You have this one idiot who does something stupid because he feels provoked, suddenly all of Islam is responsible and Muslims want to take over the USA.
Fragony, listen to yourself. Just read your comments again. Muslims want to take over the United States and implement sharia law? There are about 1.8 million Muslims in the United States. That's 0.6 percent of the entire population. And these people are a threat? Come on.
EDIT2: On the subject of sharia law, I only think that we can speak about sharia law when the court is run by Muslims. Non-Muslims implementing laws based on the Qur'an and Sunna doesn't automatically make it sharia law. It's really a bit more complicated than that.
Where the judge's statements wrong? I think so. But after watching the video I don't think the "assault" was worth taking the guy to court over in the first place. The video was grainy so I could be wrong, but I watched it twice and what I saw was some guy being a troll, and then another guy getting offended and over-reacting. Not really proof of the Islamization of America.
there was a guy standing next to him and he didnt even realise his buddy was attacked... that doesnt mean that the guy was right in doing so. just a 24h community service and some forced learning of the american law and it wouldve been dealt with... but noooo there had to be some idiot judge XD
Thank god I live in Estonia. Here a Judge would say that the attacker is guilty and that's it. No such nonsense as it were in that article. America is screwed.. Too much political correctness(Yes, it has nothing to do with that case but just thought I say it).
Im going to give you another tryQuote:
Originally Posted by The King
If the guy was being choked, as he claims in the video, how was he still yelling?
But yeah it sounds like the judge handled this poorly, whatever the outcome.
And do two people really consistitute a parade?
And that's the real issue here. The judge wether having the right to dismiss this case or not clearly crossed a line in his reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I don't think one muslim throwing girl punches constitues shira law but I do think the judge should be removed. Personal soap boxes have no place on the bench
Self-islamisation mia muca, judge just made Islamic culture more important than American law. The multicultural left, always the multicultural left. Not new in Europe, is new in the USQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
"EDIT: To clarify my position: You have this one idiot who does something stupid because he feels provoked, suddenly all of Islam is responsible and Muslims want to take over the USA. "
Who says that, Islamphilae isn't their fault
America has religious judges? And they make silly decisions in court?
STOP THE PRESS!!
New headline for tomorrow: blinding light may cause blindness!
Or: Scandinavian simply doesn't get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Wait that isn't anything new
Yes, sorry 'bout that, I haven't had my awakening yet, I suppose. I am not able to see things as they really are yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
multicultural left... you just throw that phrase out there whenever something happens that you dont like. i want to bet that judge has more in common in his political views with the dutch right wing parties than with the left wing parties...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It is more important what is now done because of this ruling. I don't think he is fit to be a judge. He didn't point out what would happen to a Christian judge should a similar ruling be made in many Islamic countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
~:smoking:
A judge screws up and pretty much dooms his career, I smell a lawsuit coming after the appeal gets sorted out.
That's kinda lol on more than one levelQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Silly atheist troll has a superduper 2 man parade -> silly immigrant gets angry, acts stupid -> silly atheist troll goes to court over silly nonsense -> silly judge throws the case out based on his own religious beliefs -> silly internet bloggers make a big deal out of that negligible story -> silly story is discussed on the org -> orgahs read things into other peoples' posts that aren't there based on what they think/wsh this person said/should've said -> everybody agrees but doesn't?!?!?
This is why atheism should be banned, you need to remove the root of the problem. :stare:
fragony: How can it be self-islamisation when the judge already was a muslim?
Called Mark?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
But that doesn't matter, what happened also doesn't matter. What does matter is what have been brought into the equation; having an other culture. Can you explain that to me equaltreatment-technically
I notice the only thing not modified by "silly" was "his own religious beliefs". :tongue:Quote:
Silly atheist troll has a superduper 2 man parade -> silly immigrant gets angry, acts stupid -> silly atheist troll goes to court over silly nonsense -> silly judge throws the case out based on his own religious beliefs -> silly internet bloggers make a big deal out of that negligible story -> silly story is discussed on the org -> orgahs read things into other peoples' posts that aren't there based on what they think/wsh this person said/should've said -> everybody agrees but doesn't?!?!?
how so... what even passes through as left in america is not remotely similar to what is left in holland (GL, sp or more central parties such as d66 and pvda)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The judge was a muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim.
Disgusting. The essence of American law is the ability to be a silly troll without having someone put their hands on you.
Silly trolling made the country what it is today, right? :D
On a more serious note, I don't think I have to defend my personal position. It's idiotic. But it's not a sign of end times.
Leaving aside the question wether the guy was rightly acquited or not, the lecture that came with it is wildly inappropriate for a judge.
"in some countries, they'd have executed you for that, you doofus" :dizzy2:
It's to be expected that every once in a while, somewhere, a judge will hand out a ridiculous verdict. Some people are a little to eager to recognise patterns.
Perfect :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would have been quite happy for the atheist guy to get socked. It's amusing that he got lectured in court. No doubt he'll enjoy the pleasant warmth of outrage over that for years to come. The other guy getting off is a good thing. So will the judge getting fired or whatever, but I'm hardly baying for his blood.
Do yourself a favour and google the Nation of Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He's not a muslim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge
Sounds like he wasn't going to do anything legally so he gave the wacky atheist guy some decent advice.
He's an idiot, if this ruling isn't rectified by a higher court it can be used in other cases. It isn't being reasonable it only looks that way
No it's not, we only have that idiot Wilders who is worth more than everything combined. What I don't like, I did not like it when mere reason is murdered. I will never forget thatQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
So, where's the actual transcript of the hearing? That should sort it all out.
i dont understand how we got to this... i only pointed out that it is hard if not impossible to put this event under the multicultural left because they dont really have any things in common, unless "islamophaelia" is enough to make something "multicultural left". (which imo is not only hard to maintain but going to be empirically impossible because many things i have seen you classify as multicultural left had nothing to do with islam...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
however, now i've read the Judge's PoV, I could understand if you would call him multicultural (dunno if that immediatly means left...) but you didnt know that :P
that does look like a whole different story... the fact only that the obviously made up alot of lies makes the rest of his story less credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Southpark, I guess we've learned something today.
i dont know... the judges version of the story doesnt sound unreasonable at all. the case was a mocktrial in the first place. and if there truly was not enough evidence (which we cannot judge)... what was he supposed to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
if you check the film, which he himself posted as evidence, you will see a guy in a white shirt standing infront of the guy, nobody is reacting, the guy standing next to him doesnt understand what is going on (ive been in situations where friends of my got attacked and that is not how i would react, and even if you would not help you will definitly see when your friend is attacked if you stand next to him). then he says stop it you are on film, the guy immediatly backs off, then he says he is choking me, but nowhere in the film is the guy making choking sounds.
its all inference but based on that it all seems bit shabby. does that mean that the muslim guy shouldve done what he did... no, he was not allowed to do so. had the atheist guy the right to do what he did, i guess so... should the case ever have gone trial... hell no.
What actually happened does not matter, only how it is treated matters
doesnt how a case ought be treated depends on what happened? and if what happened was different from what you first used to base your oppinion upon, dont you think you should alter your oppinion, or atleast reconsider it? that would be the reasonable thing to do.
what do you suppose the judge should have ruled? what sentence if at all should the judge have given, and also take the article from the judges pov into account.
and do if what the judge says is true, what do you think of the behaviour of the socalled victim? (lying, slander, altering facts...)
'what do you think of the behaviour of the socalled victim? (lying, slander, altering facts...)'
That is what the judge says happened, doesn't mean it's actually true.
thats why i said "if". but ofcourse the same thing applies to the story of the other guy. and you readily believed that, (as did I, and many other people, but thats not my point anyway)
i agree that the whole speech thing of the judge is totally off-topic and i dont know why he is talking about his personal experiences and such, they should not matter. but what he is saying about the legal part is what i thought as well.
i dont know if that means the charges should be dismissed, i dont know much about american law...
Judge comes across as quite reasonable. Religious he appears, but not biased for any particular one. The left isnt know for its religious folk so I don't see the leftist multicultural agenda here. Mind you Lutherans and co are known for their human rights stance.
As for the atheist... I need to read up more about him to see if his protest was a troll, obnoxious fun or he is a general idiot with no respect for others belief systems (things that I could all readily accuse myself of). Him being an atheist does no automatically make him a free thinker, it is possible that he is just anti-thought.
I find the judge to be a hell of a lot more believable than the accuser.
Case closed in my opinion.
Conspiracy 0 - Reason 1
What can be used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A ruling which says that if there is insufficient evidence to prove that an assault has taken place, the defendant must be found not guilty?
The horror!!!!!
Having a different culture/religion, it was taken into the equation and that opens things up for future trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ehm, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This post is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It looks like the misunderstanding about the judge's religion was based on a particular grammatical structure he used, which invited misinterpretation. More here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Ajax
This thread and this story is a waste of bytes.
The judge responds:
Legal analysis (same link):Quote:
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
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 so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
CRQuote:
But the worrying thing is what the judge (Mark Martin) seems to have said at the trial, based on what appears to be a recording of the hearing: The judge — who stated that he (the judge) was himself a Muslim and [UPDATE: see below] found the speech to be offensive — spent a good deal of time berating the victim for what the judge saw as the victim’s offensive and blasphemous speech, which seems to raise a serious question about whether the judge’s acquittal of the defendant was actually partly caused by the judge’s disapproval of the victim. Consider, for instance, this statement, at 31:15:
Doesn't matter wether or not the judge is a muslim or not, the danger is in the motivation of his ruling. Honour attacks for example can be aquitted in the same way with a smart lawyer. What the judge brought in simply doesn't belong there, stupid. And he knows that or he wouldn't have responded. Slippery slope.
I'm just angry because he got the grammar wrong and cannot express himself clearly, leading to a misunderstanding.
That's just silly. :yes:
Nah, his English was fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The part where the judge explained the Mohammed was never a zombie was, um, painful. How did this guy get to be a judge?
This is a good question. Apparently law is hard, so he had to go through the same exams and stuff like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I want to know how people like this get the awesome jobs. Friends in good places? Charisma? Please tell me I want to be emperor for life.
it seems to me those discussions on TWC are really better with real muslims so we know their stupidities, rather than Hax's usual "defend Islam" position despite he's blind about it.
too much lefties here... too much lefties here... ABB was right afterall.... (although his methods are... questionable, his prediction was right)
Then you better get out of here before my leftist taint starts rubbing off on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
You're actually wrong, Spike, I know everything about the Islamic mind-hive. See, if you look at the Qur'an for too long it starts taking out your soul, that's why Muslims are incapable of independent thought and are unable to do anything but try to convert the entire world to Islam. It's because the Qur'an wants your soul.
Now, I haven't been affected yet, but I voluntarily chose to serve the leftist church dhimmitude determinist elite who know that the Islamic take-over of the world is inevitable. That's also why I study Arabic language and culture, so I can serve the coming polygamous wife-beating democracy-hating infidel-killing overlords all the better, right. The end is nigh.
Redicule is normal, it's a shame Sonic doesn't post here anymore, ex-muslim and half-arab like you. Surely he could fill you in on some things you don't really want to know. Assuming everybody thinks like you, big mistake. For some reason lefties feel they are doing muslims a favour by respecting it's sharper edges, defending the burqua as a women's right while in the muslim world educated women just want to get out.
What if the woman herself chooses to wear the burqa?
Politically righteous people would be scared and tell the woman she shouldn't, because that's the way of the world in the west and it's a sign of female discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Same thing happens if a woman chooses not to wear a burka in a very theocratic islamic nation, where it's a sign of disrespect.
I saw woman wearing a burka once in San Diego. I didn't run away in fear, I just thought "huh". Then continued walking. I had an ice cream, it was pistaccio, it was very soft and sweet, it had crumbles of pistaccio in it. I really enjoyed it.
~Jirisys ()
What if a man chooses to wear one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Than she is probably dangerousQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Are you sure you want to live in a state where people impose their moral views on someone else? I feel uncomfortable too when I see a woman wearing a burka and it's probably a good idea to walk up to her and say "Gosh, why are you wearing this, it makes me feel uncomfortable, would you mind taking it off?", but to justify that by saying 'That's not how we do things in the West', I don't know. Do you really want to do that?Quote:
Politically righteous people would be scared and tell the woman she shouldn't, because that's the way of the world in the west and it's a sign of female discrimination.
On the point of female discrimination: this is your perception of what a burka is. Some people would argue that the headscarf is a symbol of female oppression, but is there any way to justify that? Who are we going to ask about that?
Could you name any of these very theocratic Islamic nations?Quote:
Same thing happens if a woman chooses not to wear a burka in a very theocratic islamic nation, where it's a sign of disrespect.
If you want to put an oversized sock on your head, feel free.Quote:
What if a man chooses to wear one?
Dangerous in what sense?Quote:
Than she is probably dangerous
Actually chosing to wear it is an obvious statement that they reject the society they live, rejecting it any further is becomming jihadi. Not that I care wether they are forced or not, it's not a person it's a bag. They can bleed to death before my eyes without me calling them an ambulance, they disgust me.
How do you know this?Quote:
Actually chosing to wear it is an obvious statement that they reject the society they live, rejecting it any further is becomming jihadi.
I assume so. Find me the passage in the Qu'ran that tells women to cover up if you will. It's wahibi political activism and it has no place here in the Netherlands, there are perfectly fine deserts where they can herd their wives and beat their sheep, or the other way around I'm no expert of people who have culture. Immigrant leave things behind, colonists bring it with them. I got only so much patience with it it's not Saudi Arabia over here, I detest arab culture and I am not going to apoligise for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Your assumption has no basis in fact, and I think that's where you're going off. When you start looking into the kind of women that are currently donning the burqa in Western Europe (let's limit ourselves to that place, then), you'll find two kinds of Muslim women:
1) Converts to Islam
2) "Born-again" Muslims.
As this is the case, how can you argue that this is a byproduct of immigration?
Interestingly, and we spoke at length about this in one of my classes on Modern Islamic philosophy, the Mufti of Egypt of 1899, who was also one of the greatest modern reformers of Islam, Muhammad Abduh, basically declared that the donning of the hijab (referring in this case to the niqab and burqa) have no basis in Islamic scripture and is rather a tradition that became identified with religion rather than it being a core part of the religion itself. I don't think you want to start a discussion with the deceased grand mufti of al-Azhar on this subject, right?
On that subject, what do you define as "Arab culture". It's about as useless to talk about a static "Arab culture" as it would be to talk about "Dutch culture" or "American culture". Would a show like Dr. Phil or Oh Oh Cherso be representative for the American respectively Dutch cultures? You seem to forget that especially in Egypt, there has been a massive amount of western influence, especially from the 19th century onward. I'm currently reading a book called "Amrikanli" by the Egyptian writer Sonallah Ibrahim. I'm pretty sure that's Arab culture too. Who are you, or for that case, who am I to define what culture is?
A knife in your guts can have a broader perspective, the horizon being the last thing you see. There is no moderate communism, there is no moderate national-socialism, and there is no moderate islam. Don't fascilitate it that's all I ask for really. We had enough madness on this continent there is no need to import another vile ideoligy, one that is worse than all combined
A terrific answer to Hax's question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And this ties in directly to our discussion how?Quote:
There is no moderate communism, there is no moderate national-socialism, and there is no moderate islam.
So I take it this is how you respond to the fact that the burqa itself was declared un-Islamic by the highest institute of Sunni Islam? By spinning off about how Islam is a vile ideology that is dangerous to the West. Right.Quote:
We had enough madness on this continent there is no need to import another vile ideoligy, one that is worse than all combined
No idea but I want fries with it, what's it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
You don't have to think anything about it, but you have to realise that discussions like these already exist. You make wild assumptions about Islam based on your own perception of Arab culture without even stopping to explain what that means and completely ignoring the diversity inherent in the same discussion.
I'm not going anywhere until you explain what you mean with Arab culture and how this relates to the burka discussion.
How many of the women in the west who wear the burqa "voluntarily" would get smacked around/chastised by their husband/father if they didn't? One of the things about these "voluntary" sharia courts that I find so incredibly dubious is that it refuses to acknowledge the pressure a family can put on a woman to "voluntarily" attend such a court.
The whole covering of the face thing in offical IDs or at public events (the no-masks city ordinances) to me is a no-brainer. It's a rule of the community, and it's common sense, religous discrimination has nothing to do with it. Abide by the rules.
I actually completely agree with the second part of your post. This does not warrant a burka ban, but simply asking them to take it off would probably do the trick. We don't need a law for that.
"How many of the women in the west who wear the burqa "voluntarily" would get smacked around/chastised by their husband/father if they didn't"
Do you have any kind of proof that this is indeed the case. Earlier on, I referred to an article talking about how many women wear the burka and more importantly, who these women are. I mentioned earlier that it's almost(!) exclusively worn by western converts and born-again Muslims. In most of the cases, it's not a family tradition, there's likely no husband or family imposing or forcing them to wear it. This is probably very different for Muslim women of Middle-Eastern descent, but there are hardly any of them here that wear the burka. It's a non-issue.
EDIT: My quote tags aren't working. Very handy.
Burqa itself is a tyranny of men toward women. It doesn't say anywhere in Qu`ran that a female has to be covered up competely. Instead it says that men shouldn't desire other men wives. And what did men do? Transfered that burden to the women. All that should be banned in the western world. It's the only way. I won't spend time grieving if one muslim women would be offended because she chose to wear a burqa if 5 others are forced to do it. The very concept of it makes women less free, doesn't have anything to do with Islam and customs.