Mark Martin is the Pennsylvania state court judge I referred to in two posts (here and here) yesterday — the jurist who, on sharia grounds, dismissed a harassment case against a Muslim man who assaulted an activist atheist whose “Zombie Mohammed” costume the assailant found insulting to Islam.
I reported that Judge Martin is a convert to Islam, based on a published report corroborated by the audio of the court proceeding (quoted in the published report), in which the judge seemed to assert (while lecturing the victim about his purported provocation of the assault), “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.”
A member of the judge’s staff yesterday stated without equivocation that Martin is not a Muslim. So why did he say otherwise in the court proceeding? I now believe, though I’m not a hundred percent certain, that he probably did not say otherwise.
The audio sounds clear enough on YouTube streamed through your computer. But I’ve now listened to the sentence in question many times, wearing a good set of earphones with the volume amplified a bit. Based on that, it’s entirely possible that what Martin said was, “F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive” — as in If I were a Muslim, I would find it offensive. The “F” sound before the word “I’m” is almost inaudible, even with good equipment; the “d” sound that changes “I” to “I’d” is more perceptible, but you have to work a bit to hear it.
I want to thank our reader gargal who raised the possibility of an erroneous transcription in the comments section of the transcript post. After many listenings, I don’t agree with gargal’s transcription, “I’m not a Muslim, I find it offensive.” There is no utterance of the word “not”. What did it for me was the “d” at the end of “I’d”. But gargal is right that, in context, it makes more sense that Judge Martin is talking about how he would feel about the “Zombie Mohammed” bit if he were a Muslim — not how he does feel, as a Muslim. For example, at the start of his soliloquy, Martin says, “I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam,” and he attributes this not to being a Muslim but to “having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country.” (Judge Martin is an army reserves officer who has done tours in Iraq.) I’d further note that the judge tends to garble some words and to interrupt thoughts with other thoughts, which are interrupted by still others, so he is not always the easiest guy to follow.
One other point on this. In many court proceedings, an official court transcript is made, and most good judges take the time to read it before authorizing its publication to minimize transcription errors, which are common. In this case, not only does it appear that no transcript was made; the wayward judge is reportedly threatening to hold the assault victim in contempt for making and publishing the recording the judge would prefer that the public did not hear.
In any event, I will put appropriate edits in the prior posts.
Never let sloppy fact checking get in the way of the narrative that Shari'a and Muslims are a looming threat to our american democracy. Mr. McCarthy would be sanctioned were he to be this careless in prosecuting a case, which we're constantly reminded is the source of his unimpeachable insights and analysis.
Of course, this comment will never be posted, if ever until at least 24 hours from now, as this blog apparently has a dearth of reliable moderators to sort through the chaff and potential heterodoxy submitted by non-starred commenters like me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's weird you're still unstarred. I've never seen you be anything but civil in your comments, certainly moreso than many who are starred. And NRO seems to generally moderate the system impartially. They even gave Jason a policeman's hat.
I don't know. Maybe they're filtering out your death threats to Robert Costa written in Arabic or something. Otherwise it's a mystery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseredfate: thanks for the acknowledgment. My posts generally take issue with "arguments" and policy positions taken by the bloggers and other commenters, which in my opinion often are lacking in a valid factual basis or reasoning. This means many jump to the conclusion that I'm a flaming leftist that worships the president and defends without qualification everything his administration has done. Fact is I'm not. I'm a lawyer with a masters degree in taxation, an atheist, and have libertarian views fon a lot of issues.
My criticisms of those regular (and usually starred) commenters on this blog is not that they should be censored for ad hominem attacks or lazy or unabashedly partisan views. Any of the left-wing sites I read have plenty of those from the left against the right. It's that those sites don't purport to screen out "inappropriate" comment. NRO's comment policy is decidedly opaque, as there's a "dirty word including valid anatomical terms" screen in place already, and in light of the junk they let the "starred" commenters post it's a mystery to me what the basis for moderation of non-starred commenters could be.
I've asked for an explanation of the policy a number of times, but none comes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGuess you were wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're a lawyer and purportedly some form of journalist and you're trying to decide whether the judge is a "Muslim convert," as you called him, based on an F sound in a YouTube video. If you ever wonder why no one but NRO will publish your stuff, this is why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, he's trying to clarify what may have been a false impression given by his first transcript. People assumed the guy *was* a Muslim convert based on that, and reacted accordingly, and McCarthy is now questioning whether the transcription was accurate and whether that assumption should hold. How is that "trying to figure out" whether he is one based on a single sound?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEugene Volkh and Jonathon Turley both wrote that the man was a Muslim.
External Link
External Link
Why did they write that? Because they believed their (apparently) lyin' ears. I've listened to the tape a dozen times, and I even tried to use audio processing software to reduce the background noise, and every time, It sounds EXACTLY like he's saying, "I'm a Muslim....".
Perhaps you should write to George Washington University and UCLA and ask that Turley and Volokh give up their respective tenured professorships for their callous and unwarranted representation of the Judge's faith - you know, out of consistency and all that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust indicates the shoddy level of "journalism" on those blogs. Any MSM reporter would have called the judge up to confirm his religion before printing it. Doesn't matter what you think you heard on a YouTube tape. It's the man's religion, and it's basic fairness and integrity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat one had been keeping me up at night. Thanks for clarifying!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're welcome. And check out the newspaper I write for tomorrow: "A conservative columnist indicated Saturday he might soon move on from the National Review. Andy McCarthy sincerely thanked a website commenter who attributed the writer's sluggish career to sloppy research and a habit of reading too much into unverified material he finds on internet."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try at a distraction there, redfate. I doubt it's going to make anyone forget the real story--that a judge in the US explicitly favored sharia law over the First Amendment--but you just keep on trollin' if it keeps you off the streets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the update, Mr. McCarthy.
I’m just an ordinary citizen – little education in the law beyond business law in college – but, regardless of his own faith, didn’t Martin behave as though he was in a court of equity in the case?
It seems to me that he set aside the law and made his decision (and the admonition to the victim) like an “elder” judging based on his own definition of justice, rather than in accordance with the fact that he had two citizens subject to Pennsylvania law in front of him. His decision was based on his own personal notions and convictions about the personal identities of the two people before him (and whether each was worthy of legal protection from offenses as defined by the judge) and the defendants chosen context independent of his citizenship as a Pennsylvanian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to be overly provocative (heh) but is there anything to be learned here by those who may be offended by, say, the new HHS rules? Or the vitriolic arguments posed in their support?
I mean, I'm not a religiously-affiliated soup kitchen. But I'd be offended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIrrational fear and hatred combined with pathological bias equals more BS from McCarthy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have found the left will often seize on an irrelevant detail in an attempt to distract from a valid argument. Whether or not the judge is a Muslim is less relevant than his dismissing a case on the basis that Sharia is a valid defense for those who assault infidels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo would this judge treat a man assaulting a woman for having her face and arms exposed the same way? Or would he administer the law of the state as he should?
Impeach him.
We will not submit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if the judge was Muslim he need not recuse himself if he could honestly apply the law (although I could see judges recusing themselves on a specific religious issue to avoid an appearance of bias). The problem with Judge Martin is he acted as an advocate and not a judge. He was flat out wrong to opine on what he thought of the demonstration. The issue is whether their was sufficient evidence for this matter to go to trial (I think there absolutely was).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is a partial response from Judge Martin (no relation): "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."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis judge is being vilified all over the web thanks to poor journalism. He did the right thing, even the slightest amount of unbiased research would have uncovered that. Perhaps all that time he spent in the military, you know, defending the constitution and that idiots first amendment rights made him more tolerant and understanding of other cultures. The "victim" Ernie Perce looks like hes in his forties. He dressed up as a zombie Muhammad to make people mad. I'd call him more than a doofus...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that to me it sounds like he's saying "I'm NOT Muslim and I find it offensive". The problem is this whole story is getting hung up on whether the judge is Muslim or not. It doesn't matter. It's a horrible decision either way and sets a dangerous precedent. That is what we should be talking about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse