Amendment banning ‘foreign law’ in Alabama courts passes; will be added to Alabama Constitution

alac2al.com, By Greg Garrison:

Amendment One, an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits foreign law being used to decide cases in Alabama courts, has passed easily and will be added to the Alabama Constitution.
Eric Johnston, the Birmingham attorney who drafted the amendment, felt vindicated after it was described as an attack on Muslims.
“I put in about three years of work on it,” Johnston said, after AP and Politico declared that the amendment passed. The amendment passed by a wide margin of about 72 percent to 28 percent with 96 percent of precincts counted.
Johnston drafted the amendment for State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, who sponsored it. Johnston said it had a wider application than banning Sharia law, the Muslim code of law and morality. “We were just trying to do something legal, not political,” Johnston said.
A legislative committee now will decide where the amendment fits in the Constitution and how it will be numbered, under which article, in the published code, Johnston said.

Johnston said it does not undermine the religious rights of Muslims or anyone else, but does prevent lawyers from arguing from Sharia law in an Alabama custody case, for example.
“Your constitutional rights are not affected by it,” Johnston said. “We’ve got a religious freedom amendment in Alabama. All it says is pay attention to the religious freedom amendment. Women’s rights are compromised by Sharia rights if a lawyer in a custody case says, ‘Islam requires you to do this.’ It’s a help to judges. It doesn’t create any new laws.”
Some argued that the amendment could possibly interfere with foreign marriages and adoptions.
“It does not affect those rights at all,” Johnston said. “If you get married outside the country, that marriage is going to be recognized. If you go to Russia and adopt a child, that adoption is going to be recognized. That was a red herring to scare people away. Those people who said that are ridiculous. They were totally wrong.”

Johnston was not surprised it became a political controversy.
“You put in a lot of hard work, a lot of time explaining it to everybody, then everybody takes shots at it,” Johnston said.
“I’ve been working on religious freedom issues for 30 years,” Johnston said. “My approach is to protect people’s rights and liberties. That’s what this is. I did it because I thought it was the right thing. There’s no change in law, it’s a reminder to the judges that we need to stick to Alabama’s laws and public policy.”

Also see:

ALAC Protects Constitutional Rights Against Foreign Laws – Including Shariah

american-justice2 (1)ACT! for America:

Recently, there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about efforts in Oklahoma to prevent the infiltration and insinuation of Shariah law in the Sooner State.

The confusion stems from a ruling earlier this month by Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange requiring the state of Oklahoma to pay the legal fees of a plaintiff who successfully sued the state over the so-called “Save Our State Amendment” from way back in 2010.

This was just the latest legal setback for that beleaguered initiative.

On 15 August 2013, the same US District Judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, struck down the amendment (also known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.

SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.

This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals also in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html

Fortunately, as ACT! For America members know, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and, thanks to the foresight and tenacity of State Representative Sally Kern, Oklahoma joined a host of other states last spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

Authored by Representative Kern, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April 2013.

The passage of ALAC in Oklahoma was the culmination of a 3-year effort by Representative Kern that she embarked upon when she learned that SQ755 was likely to run into trouble in the courts.

ALAC has now been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. A version of ALAC also passed into law for specialty courts in the state of Washington. Moreover, ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly last year as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in their next statewide election in November.

ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

• ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.

• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755′s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

• ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found 50 cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including some appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah.

It is important to point out that ALAC has been in force since 2010 and has never been challenged in court, simply because there is no basis on which to challenge a law that expressly protects constitutional rights.

Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as the HAMAS-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have opposed ALAC, just as they opposed SQ755. This shows their true motivation; they are not interested in freedom, liberty and our constitution that guarantees them. CAIR has another, more sinister, hate-filled agenda.

Nevertheless, the states that have passed ALAC, such as Oklahoma, have moved to prevent the kind of “creeping shariah” that has occurred in Western Europe, Great Britain in particular. Despite what you might read from the so-called “mainstream” media, the threat from shariah is real and must be guarded against. It is naïve to think that “it can’t happen here.” Shariah is ALREADY here and groups like CAIR are promoting it actively.

Thanks to Representative Kern and her colleagues in the Oklahoma legislature, with the support of ACT! For America’s thousands of members in Oklahoma, we have made sure that the laws applied in Oklahoma courts will be AMERICAN laws.

Florida Governor Scott Signs Landmark Legislation into Law!

Florida State Senator Sponsor of SB386

Florida State Senator
Sponsor of SB386

NER, By Jerry Gordan:

Both Rabbi Jonathan Hausman and I received this email this afternoon from Ms. Jessica Crawford, Legislative Aide to Sen. Alan Hays, the Senate Sponsor of SB386: “on acceptance of foreign law in certain cases”. See our May 1, 2014 Iconoclast post,“Florida Passes Two Landmark Bills in the 2014 Legislative Session.”

From: CRAWFORD.JESSICA
To: Rabbi Jonathan Hausman and Jerry Gordon
Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 4:21 pm
Subject: Senate Bill 386

The Senator asked me to pass along the good news that the Governor signed the bill into law today! J
Thank you both for all of your help and guidance throughout this Session.  I’m sure the Senator will be in touch soon.
Have a great rest of the day!
Jessica Crawford
Legislative Aide
That is most welcome news for all involved in supporting  this important effort  protecting  the fundamental Constitutional rights of all Floridians, especially women and children.
Jerry Gordon
Senior Editor
New English Review

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MOVES TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FOREIGN LAWS

download (99)

From ACT! for America:

This week, the Florida state legislature passed SB 386, a bill supported by ACT! For America that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic sharia law.

There has been a great deal of mis- and disinformation about SB 386, so we wanted to set the record straight on what the bill accomplishes.

When hopefully signed into law by Governor Scott, the bill will:

  • Help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment;
  • Help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions;
  • Help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts;
  • And, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor of being decided in foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than how most Americans would interpret the phrase. SB 386 authorizes a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of the change in the law in Florida would be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

For example, a Maryland appellate court, in Hosain v. Malik, enforced a Pakistani custody order, issued under a sharia rule granting sole custody to the father when the child reaches the age of seven, handing a little girl who was being cared for by her mother over to the father.

Further, a California appellate court, in In re Marriage of Malak, enforced a Lebanese custody decree granting custody to the husband, even though the trial court had found that the wife had been denied due process in Lebanon, and the Lebanese Islamic court did not base its ruling upon the best interests of the child.

SB 386 grants Florida parents the ability to dissuade Florida courts from following such shocking rulings enforcing foreign sharia judgments, and thereby not lose their children to similar rulings.

Much has been made of the fact that the SB 386 applies to family law. From a practical standpoint, this represents no real difference when compared to American Laws for American Courts laws in other states, since 80% or more of cases in US state courts in which sharia has arisen involve family law disputes.

SB 386 is a significant step forward in protecting Florida’s court systems from the infiltration of sharia law and in protecting Florida’s citizenry from all offensive forms of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines.

ACT! for America is a 501 (c) 4 non-profit, non partisan organization that educates and empowers citizens to help play a role in enhancing our nation’s public safety. Today, ACT! has 280,000 members and 875 chapters nationwide including chapters in 11 countries around the world as far as Australia, South Africa and Israel.

Florida Legislature Passes Two Landmark Bills: Textbooks and American Laws for American Courts

bill sponsorsNew English Review,Thursday, 1 May 2014,  By Jerry Gordon:

After four years of trying in the face of misinformed opposition, an amended version of American Law for American Courts (ALAC) SB 386 passed the Florida Legislature this week.  The Senate sponsor of SB386, Senator Alan Hays, Republican of Umatilla, said on Monday, April 28th when the Senate voted to pass the measure by 24 Republicans to 14 Democrats:

I am delighted that my colleagues in the Florida Senate passed SB 386 – The Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases -this morning.

It is my fervent desire to make sure everyone in a Florida courtroom is  protected from the imposition of any foreign law that may diminish the rights of that person which are afforded by our US and Florida Constitutions.  This bill codifies case law to offer those protections and is a welcome addition to the statutes of our state.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of many others who assisted in the passage of this landmark legislation.

 

Fl. Rep. Mike Hill

Fl. Rep. Mike Hill

House Rep. Mike Hill, Republican from Pensacola, a member of the Subcommittee on Civil Justice, following   House approval on April 30th of HB 903 by 78 Republicans to 40 Democrats, said:

I am honored to join my colleagues and vote ‘yes’ on the bill that passed the Florida House today codifying that American law only will be used in Florida courts.  It is our duty to do so as I took an oath to protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida.

The Amended version of SB386 was adopted to overwhelm five Amendments put up by opposition minority Democrats prior to the floor debate that began last Friday, April 25th.The compromise reached was to take up an Amendment formerly offered and waived by Republican Senator David Simmons of Altamonte Springs in previous House and Senate Committee hearings. The Simmons Amendment would codify Florida case law. However, it would assist in addressing Sharia compliant parental abduction in violation of Florida, US and international law.Given Florida legislative procedures, the House passed the Senate version. Now the measure awaits enactment into law upon review by Florida Governor Rick Scott.

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman and I were in the Florida House Public Gallery on Tuesday, April 29th witnessing the floor debate with questions from opposition Democrats to House bill sponsor Rep. Neil Combee.   Misinformed, they persisted in asking why the measure was necessary and alleged conflicts over recognition of Israeli rabbinic divorce decrees and business contracts. Rep. Combee cited both lower court and appellate level cases in which foreign law had been recognized that did not comply with the comity principles under Florida practice as justification for passing the measure.

The alleged problems cited by Democrat members of the Florida House; i.e., non-recognition of Israeli family court decisions had been investigated and found misleading.That effort was based on published research by Professor Daphna Hackner, a Tel Aviv University Family law expert and arguments presented in a video and letter to Florida legislators by Rabbi Hausman, a member of two state bars and expert in both Jewish Halacha and Islamic Sharia.

Prior to the Senate and House deliberations on SB 386/HB903 we suggested to the bill sponsors that the Amended version be reviewed by Stephen M. Gelé, Esq. of the New Orleans law firm of Smith Fawer LLC.  Today, despite his being on vacation, Gelé sent his assessment on the legislation that we received via Christopher Holton of ACT!  Gelé said:

The Florida Legislature recently passed SB 386, a bill that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic Sharia law.  When hopefully signed into law by Governor Scott, the bill will: help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment; help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions; help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts; and, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor being decided in  foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.”  Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than most Americans would interpret the phrase.  However, SB 386 allows a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of the change in the law would be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

Gele’s comments are reflective of a new theme adopted based on the recommendation by Kansas House Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Peg Mast. Mast successfully secured bi-partisan support for passage of ALAC in the 2012 session in Topeka. She suggested emphasizing protection of “fundamental Constitutional rights” for Florida women and children. That meant putting a human face to the theme of the foreign law war on women and children. This was reflected in New English Review  interviews with two women. 345One interview was with retired Arkansas State University Professor Margaret McClain. She spoke in Tallahassee on March 13, 2014 to a group of citizen lobbyists about the abduction and removal of her five  year old daughter Heidi to Saudi Arabia by her Saudi ex-husband in violation of state, federal and international law, but condoned under ShariaThen there was the interview with Floridian Yasmeen A. Davis who told about her abduction by her Saudi father at age 11 and her treatment under Sharia in his home in Saudi Arabia until rescued by her family at age 13.  Now 28 she still suffers PTSD from the episode.

Christian Family Coalition Citizen Lobbyists, Florida Capitol Rotunda March 13, 2014

Christian Family Coalition Citizen Lobbyists, Florida Capitol Rotunda March 13, 2014

One of the premiere groups in providing ground forces to obtain commitments for the legislation is the Christian Family Coalition (CFC) of Florida led by its highly effective executive director, Anthony Verdugo. CFC has more than 5,000 members and supporters working with over 1,000 Churches in the state. CFC demonstrated its prowess by supporting social issue legislation that passed the Florida legislature and a bi-partisan Support for Israel resolution in 2012.  CFC made the legislation a priority for passage in 2014 and held several training sessions with members to equip them with FAQs documents and arguments as to why the bills should be passed countering the misinformation of opponents.  On March 13, 2014  following talks by both Senator Hays and Professor McClain at the CFC’s Annual Leadership Prayer Breakfast in Tallahassee, 75 citizen-lobbyists fanned out buttonholing Senators and Representatives presenting the rationale behind  the CFC legislative priorities.  By the afternoon of March 13th, these CFC citizen lobbyists had successfully obtained 39 commitments in support of bills and other CFC legislative priorities.

Without the dogged determination of the legislation’s sponsors like Sen. Hays and Rep. Combee with the support of advocates in the House Reps. Mike Hill, Larry Metz and Matt Gaetz, what occurred this week might not have happened.

That was abetted by a new and important theme, protecting the Constitutional rights of women and children.  This was assisted by able ground forces from the CFC and other concerned citizen activists securing legislator commitments.

But that is not all that occurred in Tallahassee this week.

Earlier this month, Sen. Hays had also deftly maneuvered a companion measure directed at text book review, SB864, passed the Senate with a thin vote tally of 21 Republicans  to 19 Democrat. The measure would reverse State Department of Education control over selection of textbooks returning that role to Florida’s 67 school districts, requiring open public hearing on texts used in courses.  SB864 was largely prompted by a different issue; objections of parental groups in several Florida counties about the treatment of Islam and Muslim culture in world history textbooks that are on the Florida State Department of Education list of approved texts.

aya-banner-512x286 (1)Today, the House passed the amended SB864/HB 921 by a resounding bi-partisan 117 yeas with 2 not voting.

Like the experience with SB386, SB864/HB921: “on K to 12 instruction materials”, was amended following a conference with both Senate and House sponsors and consultation with the Governor’s office.  While it may require clarification that standards of fact-based accurate depictions in world history texts should be adhered to, the legislation does create a process giving parents relief who object at the school district  level  to specific instructional material triggering  a public hearing.  The legislation  also adds requirements that instructional materials “accurately portray the religious and physical diversity of our society”. Further, it makes the school district boards responsible for the content of all instructional materials used in the classroom.  One important requirement is that the amended legislation would add a new topic in the curriculum specified in 1003.42, F.S. –“the events surrounding the terrorist attacks occurring on 9/11/01 and the impacts of those events on the nation”.

Those of us who have been involved with the support of both measures consider them landmarks for possible consideration in other US states.  This might not satisfy all of the concerns in certain quarters; however, they reflect two well turned precepts.  Voltaire wrote: “a wise Italian says that the best is the enemy of the good”.   German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck said:  “politics is the art of the possible”.

Jerry Gordon is Sr. Vice President of World Encounter Institute and Sr. Editor for the New English Review. He is a former Army Intelligence officer who served during the Vietnam era. Mr. Gordon has published widely in such outlets as: FrontPageMagazine, The American Thinker, WorldNetDaily, ChronWatch, New English Review and its blog The Iconoclast, Israpundit and others. He has been a frequent guest discussing Middle East issues on radio in both the U.S. and Canada. He is co-host of the Middle East Roundtable series on Northwest Florida talk radio 1330 – AM WEBY in Pensacola. He is a graduate of both Boston and Columbia Universities. He holds an MBA in Finance from the Columbia University Graduate School of Finance. He ended his investment banking career in Manhattan as Vice President and Director BMO Capital – a US subsidiary of the Bank of Montreal, where he developed a cross border merger and acquisition and private financing practice involving clients in Canada, the US, UK and Israel. He is the author of a collection of interviews with notable personalities in the counter-jihad movements in Canada, the US, titled The West Speaks.

 

Video: Sharia and the Threat to American Freedom

American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise gave a presentation in Cincinnati to a standing-room-only crowd entitled, “Sharia: Threat to American Freedom.”  Yerushalmi explains sharia as “the enemy threat doctrine”. A highlight of Muise’s presentation is his discussion of American Freedom Defense Initiative’s freedom of speech cases. Watch this very informative video.

Florida ALAC passes First Hearing at Senate Judiciary Committee in Tallahassee

Florida State Senator Alan Hays Sponsor of  SB 386, American Law for American Courts

Florida State Senator Alan Hays Sponsor of SB 386, American Law for American Courts

NER, By Jerry Gordon:

There was a hearing of the Florida version of American Law for American Courts (ALAC) legislation, SB386: “acceptance of foreign laws in certain cases” before the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Republican  Sen. Tom Lee..  The vote was on party lines,  6 Republicans to 3 Democrats. See who voted for the ALAC measure at the Florida Family Association website. The House version passed  the first hearing on March 18th in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. The House version of ALAC has also been  referred  to the Judiciary Committee for a hearing, the last stop before a House floor vote.

According to  Sen. Alan Hays, Senate Sponsor of ALAC,  the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar Association and a representative of Muslim Advocacy group , Emerge USA spoke in opposition.   A contingent from Melbourne, Florida composed  of retired senior military officers  and an author waved testimony in favor of the measure.  Watch this video of  hearing on SB386 before the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning at time mark 111 minutes.

One of the Republicans who voted in favor of the ALAC legislation, Sen. John Thrasher, Chair of the Florida Senate Rules Committee approved the measure today.  Clearance by the Rules Committee will be the final hearing before scheduling a  Senate floor vote.  The next Senate hearing will be conducted by the Florida Senate Government Oversight and Government Accountability Committee. Chairman and Deputy Chairman are Democrat Sen. Jeremy Ring and Republican and ALAC sponsor, Sen. Hays.   Ring voted against SB386 at today’s Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Support may be stronger for passing SB 0386  on this fourth try for Florida ALAC. Part of that is attributable to  research  by the American Public Policy Alliance that revealed nearly two dozen decisions that recognized foreign laws at both the lower and appellate court levels in the sunshine state.  Further, this legal research has been bolstered by  disclosures of  abductions and removal of American children by Saudi parents to Saudi Arabia, in violation of state, federal and international laws criminalizing such parental abductions. These Saudi abductions were allegedly justified  in accordance with Sharia doctrine. See our NER and Iconoclast  interviews with former Arkansas State University professor Margaret McClain,  An American Child Kidnapped in Accordance with Shariah, and a Floridian, Ms. Yasmeen A. Davis, rescued by  her family , Rescue from An Abduction to Saudi Arabia.  Ms. Davis coincidentally lives in Sen. Ring’s district in South Florida.  Sen. Hays and Professor McClain were featured speakers at the Annual Leadership Prayer Breakfast on March 13th in Tallahassee, sponsored by the Christian Family Coalition of Miami (CFC). See our Iconoclast post, “Meet the Florida Citizen Lobbyists backing ALAC in the 2014 Legislative Session”.   Anthony Verdugo, CFC executive director indicated that passage of ALAC is one of the group’s major legislative priorities in the 2014 Session of the Florida Legislature.

“Civilization Jihad” Comes to Court

shariah-will-dominate-AFPBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know what our Islamist enemies have in mind for America? Look at Europe.

Virtually every country there has found itself under siege from Muslims seeking to impose the supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah on everyone else. The preeminent organization promoting this agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned as a terrorist group in its home country of Egypt but prospering in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in what has been known as the Free World. In fact, as Egyptian courts hand down death sentences to those engaged with the Brotherhood’s violent efforts to overthrow the government there, ours is opening the door to asylum for those who have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism.

More insidious than the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence, however, is its stealthy subversion. In a 1991 strategic plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a senior member named Mohammed Akram described this form of warfare as “civilization jihad.”

In Akram’s words, the goal of the Brotherhood’s civilization jihadists is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” His “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” lays out how this ambitious goal is to be achieved under our noses by penetrating and subverting “from within” the West’s civil society and governing institutions.

The London Telegraph reports that this campaign has just scored a major success in Great Britain. The country’s trade association for lawyers, the Law Society, has declared its members can begin drawing up shariah-compliant wills that will be enforceable in British common law courts.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Shariah principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Such inroads are coming on top of the presence of something on the order of 87 shariah courts that operate side-by-side with Britain’s own judiciary. One of the U.K.’s most courageous opponents of such practices, Baroness Caroline Cox, said: “No longer do we have a single legal code in our society. Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.”

Think that cannot happen here? Think again. The Muslim Brotherhood’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America, requires each of its chapters to maintain arbitration panels that serve as proto-shariah courts. It is a matter of time before Islamists and their apologists begin demanding that such courts be allowed to adjudicate disputes not just between willing parties but in cases where one party – most likely women and/or children – would prefer to have the protections of our Constitution.

Worse yet, as a study published by the Center for Security Policy in 2011 has documented, there have been at least 27 different instances in which U.S. courts have allowed the use of shariah law to govern – even where doing so has violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. (An updated version of this study now nearing completion indicates that, as of today, there are many more such cases.)

As a corrective to this civilization jihadist incursion into American jurisprudence, seven states have adopted legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). If they wish to avoid the fate now facing British citizens who are likely to be denied their rightful inheritances and, in due course, other privations at the hands of shariah, every state in the country should adopt ALAC.

Of course, our Constitution’s Article VI declares that it is the supreme law of the land. But that will not long be the case if the civilization jihadists have their way. We must ensure that shariah is not allowed to undermine that constitutional precept – to the detriment of women, children, and the rest of us.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network, and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

Meet The Florida Citizen Lobbyists backing ALAC in the 2014 Legislative Session

By Jerry Gordon:

The Florida version of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) is up for its fourth try in the 2014 Legislative session in Tallahassee. In contrast to prior years, there is concerted effort by bill sponsors, Sen. Alan Hayes (R- Umatilla) and Rep. Neil Combee in the House of Representatives to seek Senate and House leadership, as well as Committee commitments for passage of the bills..  There is also  new message that was conveyed to Florida legislators on both House and Senate Committees; Senate Bill 0386/House Bill 903:  “acceptance of foreign law in certain cases”.  The message is that ALAC guards against the recognition of foreign laws in Florida Courts in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially women and children.

Professor Margaret McClain at CFC 2014 Legislative Prayer Breakfast, Tallahassee

Professor Margaret McClain at CFC 2014 Legislative Prayer Breakfast, Tallahassee

That message was communicated  at the March 13th  Florida Christian Family Coalition (CFC)   Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast by Professor Margaret McClain , a retired Arkansas State University professor, whose  daughter Heidi  was kidnapped at the age of 5 and removed to Saudi Arabia by her ex-Husband..  See our New English Review article, An American Child Kidnapped in Accordance with Shariah.  Professor McClain’s experience was also  amplified  in a recent  Iconoclast  interview  with  Yasmeen Alexandria Davis, a Florida young woman, who at  13 years of age  was  rescued from  a kidnapping by her Saudi father through the resourcefulness and persistence of her mother and grandmother,  Her Saudi father relentless keep tabs on her through a  US lawyers and an ex-FBI agent retained by him.. See   An American’s Rescue from Abduction to Saudi Arabia.    Both incidents were violations of state, federal and international conventions on parental kidnapping, but sanctioned under Sharia Islamic law.  Professor McClain and Yasmeen Alexandria Davis testified about abduction of American children to  Saudi Arabia  in a panel of such women, children, and a father at a US House 2002 Government Reform Committee chaired by former Indian Republican Rep. Dan Burton.  Professor McClain  gave proof f to the CFC lobbyists based on   her personal experience why passage of ALA in Florida  was needed to protect American women and children against alien laws that imperil their  fundamental Constitutional  and basic human rights. The CFC has made passage of ALAC a priority in the 2014 legislature.

Sen. Alan Hays, Sponsor of Florida ALAC, SB 0386 at CFC Legislative Prayer Breakfast, 2014

Sen. Alan Hays, Sponsor of Florida ALAC, SB 0386 at CFC Legislative Prayer Breakfast, 2014

The 75  trained men and women, members of the CFC who heard Professor McClain and ALAC Senate Bill sponsor, Sen. Alan Hays,  Rep. Larry Ahern, sponsor of  a bill, Offenses against the Unborn Children (OAUC), fanned out to meet legislators. They  were  equipped with FAQs sheet on why ALAC  is needed and a  list of nearly  two dozen Florida lower court and appellate cases in which foreign laws were recognized .  How effective were they?   According to a report by the CFC:

They met with a total of thirty-nine (39) lawmakers and secured thirty-two (32) co-sponsors/supporters on our legislative priorities. Nineteen (19) co-sponsors and supporters on American Laws for American Courts and thirteen (13) co-sponsors and supporters on the Offenses Against the Unborn Bill.

Neither they nor CFC’s executive director, Anthony Vertigo is resting on their laurels.  They are planning another Legislative Prayer Breakfast and Citizen Lobby Day in Tallahassee the week prior to the close of the Florida legislative session on May 2nd, to assure that those ALAC commitments and others are honored.

Read more at New English Review

*****************

Florida Family Association:

Florida Senate Judiciary Committee to consider America Laws for American Courts bill which would prohibit Sharia and other foreign laws. 

Please click here to send your email to the committee members.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee will consider SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 between 9:00 and 11:00 am. 

This legislation, commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts”, would prohibit Florida courts from considering certain provisions of foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law, if such provisions are inconsistent with the Florida and United States of America Constitutions.

If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws or legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases: Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy on application of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, UCCJEA, & UIFSA; provides that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void; provides that certain contracts & contract provisions are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by state or federal constitutions; provides that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; provides that act doesn’t require or authorize court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters in violation of specified constitutional provisions or to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which U.S. is party to specified extent.  Full text of SB 386

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send urging the members of the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for SB 386 - Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases. 

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish. 

Please click here to send your email to the members of the Florida Judiciary committee. 

Florida Senate Judiciary Committee contact information.

Rabbi Hausman’s Letter to Georgia Legislators on America Law for American Courts

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman(1)

New English Review,

By Rabbi Jonathan Hausman:

Re: HB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions

Dear Congressman  Hightower,

My name is Rabbi Jonathan Hausman.  I have a BA in Judaic Studies, MA in International Affairs concentrating on the Middle East (both degrees from The George Washington University), JD from Emory University (licensed to practice in the State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), and my Rabbinic degree from Kollel Lomdei Torah of The Tifereth Israel Rabbinical Yeshiva.  I spent a great deal of time living and studying in the Middle East having lived and worked in Israel and studied at The American University of Cairo.  I read, speak and write Hebrew and Arabic, and am conversant in Jewish and Islamic sacralized texts and literature.

It has come to my attention that representatives of the Anti-Defamation League gave testimony opposing the aforementioned legislation SB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions

I write to you in response as one who possesses the unique skills to plumb the sources of two traditions (Judaism and Islam) along with the requisite legal training appertaining to US law and Constitutional governance.

Indeed, a comprehensive study was undertaken by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in 2011 which uncovered the extent of the use of Sharia (Islamic Law) as the basis for legal decisions.  50 Appellate court cases from 23 States were reviewed in this study.  Most of the cases referenced in this study involve Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process in cases dealing with divorce and child custody. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  However, all 50 Appellate decisions dealt with the application of Sharia in contravention to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The CSP study’s findings suggest that Sharia law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Sharia law in U.S. state court cases; yet the Center for Security Policy found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases in 2011.  The number of lower court decisions that did not result in appeals is not known as such cases are generally not reported.

With all due respect to the claims of the ADL that the aforementioned legislation’s supposed purpose is to counter the infiltration of our judicial and legal system by Sharia (Islamic) law while subsequently claiming that no Georgia court decision, or any other court decision, demonstrating an actual need for this legislation can be found is demonstrably incorrect.

Many have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Sharia law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; once again, the Center’s study found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Sharia was found to be applicable in these particular instances. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Sharia law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.  The complete study is available at http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

Some have also claimed that such legislation is applicable to all religious law. So, for instance, the observant Jewish community regularly uses religious tribunals (Batei Din) to resolve all kinds of disputes, including divorce settlements, which often are the basis for civil court divorce decrees and orders. But this legislation would prevent a Jewish couple in Texas from voluntarily using a Bet Din to resolve their divorce settlement, and also would invalidate an out-of state divorce based on a Bet Din arbitration.   This is incorrect.

There is a basic Rabbinic principle that has operated since roughly the year 226 CE. That principle is known asDina d’malchuta Dina, the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha.  Rabbinical developments evidenced a practicality regarding dealing with and maintaining positive relationships with the governing non-Jewish civil society (e.g. Parthian and subsequent Sassanid Persian rulers of Babylonia) which surrounded the Jewish community.  This extended to the Jewish communities of Europe and, subsequently, transplanted to the United States.

While it is true that Jews maintained their own courts in certain locales during certain historical periods whose decisions were enforced by the secular authorities, such Rabbinical court decisions always were set aside if there was a conflict with the society at large.  As a member of the Rabbinate who engages frequently with many different issues regarding matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, property settlements, etc.), I can attest to one basic fact of legal life.  If a Get (Jewish bill of divorce) is issued by a husband to a wife without a civil divorce, that couple is still married in every jurisdiction in this country.  This is just one example amongst many.

Halacha/Jewish Law has this precept that one must be reconciled to changed circumstances regarding government, and that civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society. The result was an internal recognition of Judaism’s non-supercessionist and non-conversionary character. According to the Prophet Nehemiah, Jews should obey the laws of their rulers (Nehemiah 9:37).  It extends to real property issues (after all, the government could/can confiscate property), common currency, taxes, recognition of administrative officers and documents and regulations issued by such authorities, as well as the appointed juridical positions within and outside of the Jewish community.

As for those issues dealing with personal piety (e.g. Kashruth, that is observance of the Jewish dietary rules), such only apply to Jews specifically and not to the world at large.  There is nothing coercive vis a vis general society.

Sharia, on its face might be described as the religious code for living the moral system according to Islamic tradition; perhaps, in the same way the Bible would serve for Christians. The difference is quite stark, however.

Sharia refers both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life. It is immutable, perfect, unchangeable, static, and unchanging.  Death penalty for apostasy, as well as homosexuality, adultery, freedom of speech issues when it comes to criticizing Islam or Muhammad or drawing satire cartoons, disfigurement for theft, depredations suffered by women (e.g. the increasing frequency of honor killings in the US protected under Shariah, female genital mutilation, child custody and absconding of minor children) and the irrelevancy of women’s testimony as well as lower percentage of inheritance and no rights regarding issues of child custody, plaintiffs exacting legal revenge (eye for an eye is taken literally), gambling, alcohol consumption all command exacting punishment under Sharia.

The only instance in the United States dealing with a criminal prosecution for female genital mutilation occurred in Georgia.  Furthermore, there are known to be two cases of children of a marriage between a non-Muslim American mother and a Saudi Muslim father who absconded with the children because Sharia law dictates that custody resides solely with the Muslim father and male relatives.

The United States has a Constitution under which the government functions, and the Bill of Rights which protects basic human rights and freedom – rights derived from the Almighty according to the secular foundational documents of these United States – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of education and freedom to organize political parties. The pertinent question regarding Sharia is thus.  Does Sharia, as a legal system act in consonance with the Constitutional legal principles so cherished by and supported by over two centuries of American case law or does it stand for a diminution of the rights of many segments of our population?  If the latter, then legislation such as HB 895, The application of foreign law and foreign forum selection in certain family law proceedings certainly is one of the surest methods to protect the Constitutional rights of parties in family law matters under Georgia law and practice, as well as in front of the Georgia Judiciary.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman

BA,MA, JD, Rabbinic Ordination

Spiritual Leader

Ahavath Torah Congregation

Stoughton, Massachusetts

Cc:  Congressman Wendell Willard, Chair, GA House Judiciary Committee

Congressman David Ralston, Speaker, GA State House

Congressman Alex Atwood, Secretary, Public Safety and Homeland Security

Committee

 

 

Islamist-Interfaith Alliance Battles Foreign Law Bans

IslamWillDominateWhiteHouseBy Ryan Mauro:

Shoulder-to-Shoulder, an interfaith coalition allied with the Islamic Society of North America, is mobilizing its supporters against state legislation that stops foreign law from superseding the Constitution. The Islamists’ non-Muslim allies are helping frame it as an unnecessary, bigoted initiative that threatens all people of faith.

The coalition is holding a webinar on February 27. The announcement correctly notes that current legislation does not mention Shariah, though it is covered under the terminology of “foreign law.” Seven states have passed such bills since 2010.

Shoulder-to-Shoulder’s description makes it sound like the legislation is a ban on foreign law influencing judges’ decision altogether. It states:

“Most religious laws that influence these contracts (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) were not developed within the United States and would be considered foreign law under such legislation. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still the motivating factor behind these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on religious freedom.”

This is an easily refutable misrepresentation of the bills, based on the American Laws for American Courts draft legislation. It does not ban religious contracts like those mentioned by Shoulder-to-Shoulder, nor is it a blanket ban on foreign law. It only applies when there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and foreign law in court and it victimizes no one, especially not Muslims because Muslim-Americans are benefactors of it.

2011 study found 50 cases where Shariah or foreign law based on Shariah influenced the court case. The American Public Policy Alliance has a list of 10 cases where a Muslim-American party objected to the role of Shariah. The summary is as follows:

“In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”

ALAC is sometimes criticized as unnecessary and driven by unsubstantiated paranoia. It is hard to imagine that an American judge would ever rule give foreign law precedence over American law. The American Public Policy Alliance explains that the bill fixes a troublesome loophole:

Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’s “public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’s public policy actually is.

The ALAC website points out the hypocrisy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In response to business dress codes enforced on Muslim-American women in France, CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper unwittingly supported the rationale behind ALAC.

“A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens,” he said. He said CAIR is “defending American law from foreign intrusion.”

The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy supports ALAC-type bills because it has seen how Shariah has affected Muslims in Europe. The bills’ purpose is not to pre-empt a hypothetical situation. It’s a reaction to what is actually happening right now.

2010 study found that Shariah courts in the United Kingdom lack accountability, to say the least. There are not clear standards for appointing judges and monitoring proceedings and rulings often conflict with British law. For example, British courts’ first priority is the interest of the child. Shariah courts rule that children automatically go into the custody of the father after a certain age.

The British Justice Ministry investigated Shariah courts and had to end give up because of a lack of cooperation from the court staffs.

The misrepresentations by Shoulder-to-Shoulder stem from its relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Foundation was another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. This isn’t six degrees of separation: The Holy Land Foundation operated within ISNA, according to a 2009 ruling by a federal judge.

ISNA said on its website last month that it “founded” Shoulder-to-Shoulder to counter increasing bigotry against Muslims. Elsewhere on its website, ISNA saysit “helped convene” the coalition of 28 religious organizations. Whichever way it is worded, the point is that Shoulder-to-Shoulder is largely a product of ISNA.

And who is the ISNA official leading its interfaith campaign and, therefore, its work with Shoulder-to-Shoulder? Former Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed, who is seen in The Grand Deception documentary saying in 2006, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” His current job title at ISNA is National Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances.

Read more at Front Page

AFLC’s Defense of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) & Response to Critics

download (14)AFLC:

In a must see video, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise responds to critics of AFLC’s public policy initiative, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which is model legislation that was drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.

In this compelling video, Muise debunks the often repeated and wrongheaded criticisms of ALAC advanced by those with good intentions, such as Joe Carter, who criticized ALAC in “The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws,” which was published in The Gospel Coalition Blog, and by those with evil in mind, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which objects to ALAC for obvious reasons: it undermines CAIR’s goal of imposing sharia in America.

American Laws for American Courts Protects Constitutional Rights against Foreign Laws

20120302_court+muslim+SHARIA+LAWFamily Security Matters, By Christopher Holton:

On Thursday, 15 August, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment (known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.

SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.

This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:

Fortunately, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and Oklahoma joined a host of other states this spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

Authored by Representative Sally Kern and Senator Gary Stanislawski of Oklahoma,  ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April.

Versions of ALAC have now been signed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, and Oklahoma. A version of ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in the next statewide election. A version of ALAC also passed both houses of the Missouri legislature but was vetoed by the governor; an override session is scheduled for September. Most recently, a version of ALAC passed the North Carolina Senate and House by a wide, bi-partisan margin and is awaiting the governor’s signature there.

ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

  • ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.
  • ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755′s.

Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated.  If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process.  This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

  • ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including in many cases, shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study conducted by the Center for Security Policy found fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law.  Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah laws.

Christopher Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and the Director of its Divest Terror Initiative. Chris Holton is a past president and marketing director of Blanchard & Co. and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit from 1990 to 2003. As chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit in 2000, he conceived and commissioned the Center for Security Policy special report Clinton’s Legacy: The Dangerous Decade. Holton is a member of the Board of Advisers of WorldTribune.com.

U.S. Islamists Press to Block Anti-Sharia Legislation

states enacting ALACBY CLARE LOPEZ:

As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.

To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).

In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.

Written in neutral language, this bill is modeled after American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) language offered by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The North Carolina bill, now before Governor McCrory for signature into law, specifies that the intent of the measure is to “protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.”

Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).

In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.

With the June 2011 publication by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of a report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of American Appellate Court Cases,” the American Public Policy Alliance took notice that Islamic law increasingly has entered into state court decisions in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution and state public policy.

Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

CAIR Targets Constitutional Rights in North Carolina

download (26)By Christopher Holton:

Recently the North Carolina legislature passed American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation with broad bipartisan support.

The purpose of ALAC is to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights in cases involving foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines. Among those fundamental constitutional rights are freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection under the law.

One of the primary opponents of ALAC legislation is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which seeks to supplant US constitutional rights and norms by accommodating foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

CAIR has targeted North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory with a nationwide e-mail and telephone blitz in an attempt to intimidate him into vetoing the ALAC legislation that both the North Carolina House and Senate approved with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/28/cair-hits-nc-governor-with-email-blitz-to-veto-anti-sharia-bill-80548

As the article linked above explains, promoting Shariah in the US is one of CAIR’s top agenda items. In March 2012, the organization published a tool-kit for promoting Shariah for community organizers across America.

CAIR has attempted to create many misconceptions about ALAC legislation which require correction and clarification.

For instance, CAIR suggests that the purpose of ALAC legislation is to target religious practices. This accusation is baseless.

Anyone who actually takes the time to read the legislation can readily see this. The purpose of ALAC is explicitly spelled out: American Laws for American Courts is designed to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights against the application of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, when the application of a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine would violate any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights—including freedom of religion.

In fact, the model ALAC language clearly states that it shall not interfere with ecclesiastical matters or be construed to violate anyone’s religious practice.

Moreover, CAIR’s supposition that ALAC is “unconstitutional” is laughable at best. ALAC has been in force in Tennessee and Louisiana since 2010, Arizona since 2011 and Kansas since May of 2012 and it has never been challenged. That’s because there is simply no legal basis for the embarrassingly contradictory theory that protecting individual fundamental constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.

America has an established tradition of allowing people of faith to make agreements and resolve disputes within the parameters of their religion, as long as any resulting contract complies with the US constitution. That is exactly what ALAC is designed to do—as is explicitly stated in the legislation.

CAIR documents have dishonestly portrayed ALAC. For instance, a letter sent by CAIR to the Oklahoma legislature in the spring of 2013 referred to the American Bar Association as being opposed to “such legislation.” This is an important point because it is not true. If you actually examine the American Bar Association literature on this, they were not referring to American Laws for American Courts legislation. In fact, the resolution they passed did not oppose American Laws for American Courts legislation.

CAIR has also created a phantom argument to scare state elected officials into thinking that standing up for individual, fundamental constitutional rights will somehow negatively impact the business community of a state or inhibit commerce in some way. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Not only does ALAC expressly apply to individuals, not businesses, but there has been no negative impact on business or commerce in any of the several states that have passed ALAC since 2010.

The reality of ALAC legislation can be summed up in three points:

1. American Laws for American Courts does not target a religion or religious community.

2. American Laws for American Courts is not explicitly aimed at Shariah.

3. American Laws for American Courts is targeted at safeguarding individual, fundamental constitutional rights and does not impact business or commerce in any way, shape or form. It has had no impact whatsoever on the business or commerce of the several states in which it has already passed.

Since we have taken the time to address the issues CAIR has raised with regard to ALAC, now we will take the time to address the myriad concerns thousands of freedom-loving Americans have about CAIR itself. These concerns are especially relevant given CAIR’s opposition to protecting the individual, fundamental constitutional rights of Americans:

Read the rest at Center for Security Policy