American Laws for American Courts in GOP Platform (video)

The Republican National Convention adopted an amendment in the spirit of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to their platform

Related articles:

 

Jihadist Infiltration

By David Meir-Levi at Frontpage:

Judging from the progress that anti-Israel “Lawfare” and pro-Shari’a movements have made in advancing the “Palestinian Cause” and Shari’a compliant programs in a distressingly vast array of our society’s institutions over the past decade, one must conclude that the Muslim jihadist forces working to infiltrate our society are winning.

The most obvious peril arises from terrorist infiltration. Terrorists identified as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian agents continue to enter our country via Mexico as illegal immigrants.  Yet, almost a decade ago the present writer and others published analyses of the danger posed to our country’s security by such infiltration.  If these agents were not bent on doing us harm, they could easily enter our country via normal ports of entry.  The fact that they disguise themselves as Mexicans and try to sneak past our border guards is a very good indication that they are here on jihadist missions and know that if they were to try to enter the USA via normal channels, they would be identified as wanted terrorists.  Once in the USA, they easily disappear into the American Muslim community, undocumented, untraceable, invisible and unstoppable.

The problem on our southern border has grown only worse since then, with continued jihadist entry via Mexico and the new alliance between Iran and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.  The Iran-Venezuela connection and Iran’s quest for deployable WMDs create the threat of a nuclear armed Venezuela under Iranian influence holding the USA hostage with nuclear-armed missiles having in their cross-hairs all of the southern USA from San Diego to Sarasota.

Expert witnesses reporting to congress have indicated that Iran has active agents, both Hezbollah and Iranian government operatives, in the USA:  sleeper cells awaiting orders while conducting surveillance in preparation for future attacks.  While some pundits are convinced that Iran does not plan to attack the USA on its home front, the operative word that they ignore is “yet.” Iran has successfully laid the groundwork for future terrorism inside the USA with Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist agents primed, ready and invisible.

Less obvious, but no less perilous, is the quiet, gradual and peaceful infiltration of Muslim operatives and their supporters into our social, legal, educational and political systems under the guise of legitimate democratic activism in the form of the Divestment movement, the  BDS movement, the “One-State Solution” proponents, lawyers implementing “Lawfare,”  those who seek to legitimize Sharia law, and a host of socio-political organizations including “Jewish Voice for Peace” and other “Peace and Justice for Palestine” groups.

The Divestment movement, which sought to pressure institutions (mostly churches and universities) to divest their retirement funds from companies doing business with or in Israel, began more than twenty years ago and soon became a nation-wide phenomenon gaining support and followers in churches, on campuses, and in a variety of other institutions holding substantial retirement funds.  While few assets were actually divested, the real purpose of the movement was achieved: create a new podium from which to demonize Israel and by means of which to grab public attention and mainstream media coverage.  Over time interest in divestment waned, and presenters found themselves preaching to the choir.  So the movement morphed into” BDS,” boycotts, divestment, sanctions.  By including calls for boycott and sanctions, the proponents of this movement created a wider panoply of audiences, since boycotts and sanctions do not need investment funds that can be divested.  And as was the case with the divestment movement, the BDS movement cut a swath through college campuses enjoying large audiences on accommodating campuses with little opposition.  Later, as audience interest diminished and presenters found themselves again preaching to the choir, the forces waging the campus war against Israel re-organized to create the newest front, the “One-State Solution” movement.  Starting at the top, “One-State Solution” conferences were recently held at the University of Pennsylvania and at Harvard University, schools of international repute whose status lent credence and legitimacy to this new venue for Israel-bashing.   None of this could have happened were there not already on campuses a cadre of willing enablers, student and faculty activists and complicit or complacent administrative leadership, who energetically support these anti-Israel and anti-Jewish efforts.

The advance of Shari’a law displays a similar trajectory. From modest beginnings in the USA and Canada as local Muslims petitioned to have family disputes adjudicated by a Muslim religious court, Shari’a law and Shari’a finance have now become institutionalized.  Thanks to Justice Elena Kagan and Professor Noah Feldman at Harvard, and other promoters of Shari’a as an alternative form of jurisprudence compatible with American secular law, we are witness to a gradually growing number of states accommodating the institutionalization of Shari’a courts into American legal venues; and we see the struggle of Shari’a supporters to prevent or overturn state-sponsored regulations that would exclude Shari’a from American law.  Facilitating this struggle to give Shari’a credence, legitimacy, and legal valence are a host of lay folk, cheer leaders for Shari’a, including some rabbis, encouraging our legislators to grant Shari’a legal status in America.  The dire and existential peril that Shari’a poses to women and Jews, to all Americans, to America, and to Western Civilizations has been adumbrated elsewhere.  Suffice it to say here that much of Shari’a legislation is diametrically opposed to our society’s cornerstone freedoms and to our fundamental concept of all citizens’ equality before the law.

The “Lawfare” movement presents another new front in the infiltration of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-American forces into our legal system.  The present writer attended the conference in San Francisco in 2010 where academics and lawyers enumerated the ways and means whereby American courts could be turned into staging grounds for anti-Israel lawsuits which could later be used as precedents for future legal battles against Israel, Israelis, and any legal or natural persons supporting Israel.  Then it is only one step from legal decisions to legislation.

The proliferation of the organizations such as the “Jewish Voice for Peace” and numerous other groups claiming to be “for peace and justice in Palestine” on campuses, churches, world-wide Christian organizations, and on the grass-roots level of local communities, is another form of infiltration.  Almost without exception, these groups promote the Arab side of the Israel-Arab conflict, ignore the reality of Israel’s need for defense against vicious genocidal terrorism, and act as mouthpieces for Arab anti-Israel propaganda.  Rank and file membership may be dominated by benighted do-gooders whom Lenin would have classified as “useful idiot,” but leaders and funders know that the real purpose of these groups is to create an almost limitless supply of new venues for Israel-bashing and for the dissemination of Arab lies about Israel and the “Palestinians.”

All of the above are aggressively agitating in the here-and-now to convince us that Israel is evil and the “poor Palestinians” are victims of that evil.  But there is also the long-range battle for American hearts and minds.  From Harvard to high schools our education system has become the target of Arab revisionism.  Decades of Arab oil money pouring into our universities and colleges is now well documented.  That oil money’s influence goes well beyond the university classroom.  Saudi and other Arab largesse has targeted universities with Title VI federal funding, funding which supports university outreach programs that teach our children about the beauties and blessings of Islam.

A Saudi-owned publishing house in New Mexico churns out curriculum supplements which are aggressively marketed to public and private school teachers from kindergarten to college.  Using a well-honed strategy of deceit and tactic of serial lying, this mendacious material not only demonizes Israel but also whitewashes Muslim history by purging it of its jihadist imperialism, and exonerates Islam by ignoring the religious and gender apartheid inherent in its doctrine of Muslim and male supremacy.

Once the invasions and conquests and murders and massacres and genocides of 1,400 years of Muslim jihad are magically retold as nothing more than a gentle religious revivalism; and 1,400 years of religious repression and discrimination are recast with literary sleight of hand as a Golden Age of religious tolerance; then our younger generations can be convinced that the current Muslim war against Israel and Western Civilization is really justified self-defense against evil Zionist land theft and brutal western imperialism.

This year’s sophomore is next year’s Senator.

If we do not stop this tsunami of infiltration, we will lose this war.

Ten questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations

By Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims.

That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect – infringing upon Muslims’ and others’ right to freedom of religion. CAIR’s real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine.

A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma’s constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC’s bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html_ .)

ALAC’s very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as “transnationalism.”

This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets.

The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC’s fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down.

Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms.

How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood’s mission in America is “a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution “from within” is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR’s designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer.

Specifically:

  • CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas.
    No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism.
    CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world’s most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest – second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any “blasphemy” against Shariah law.
  • The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy.
  • The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR’s national organization.
  • CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members.

With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let’s analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38.)

Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR’s opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn.

ALAC: Purpose

“AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United
States or [State] Constitution.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR’s motivation? Do they think Muslims either don’t deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being “infidels”) may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims?

2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or “Islamophobic”? (This made-up term is used by Shariah’s adherents to brand anything or anyone who “gives offense” to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them “Islamophobic,” as well?

ALAC: Finding

“The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it “the supreme law of the land” and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women’s ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah?

4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah?

ALAC: Definitions

“As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

5. How can this definition be construed as applying uniquely to Shariah? In fact, it applies equally to all foreign laws. Period. What is more, it does not preclude the application of any foreign law, including Shariah – except insofar as it violates constitutional rights or state public policy.

6. In view of ALAC’s key definition, isn’t it disingenuous and misleading to depict American Laws for American Courts as an “anti-Shariah” bill? CAIR is certainly mischaracterizing ALAC in the campaign that it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts have been mounting against such legislation. Given the clarity of the language in question, one can only conclude that these Brotherhood groups are doing so knowingly for the purpose of deceiving the American people.

7. Which “foreign law, legal code, or system” does CAIR wish to see incorporated into American constitutional law? Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they violate the U.S. Constitution, or just Shariah?

ALAC: Operative Provision

“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

8. What legal authority is the Council on American Islamic Relations defending by its attack on American Laws for American Courts? Specifically, we need to know: What does CAIR prefer by way of a court, arbitration panel, tribunal or administrative agency that bases its decisions on a code that would not grant our fundamental liberties, rights and privileges?

Clearly, as we have seen, ALAC has been drafted in order to provide guidance so that legal disputes in our courts do not result in the violation of the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. and our state Constitutions.

Thanks to the guarantees incorporated into the Constitution, no U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied such liberties. Ensuring that is the case, however, is why ALAC is needed, particularly with respect to women and children. These communities have been identified by international human rights organizations as the principal victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

9. Why does CAIR oppose an inclusive bill extending civil liberties and due process to all citizens and legal residents, given the proven cases of discrimination, especially against Muslim women resulting from too much deference to foreign laws?

There is a certain irony at work here, as shown in an analysis of a sample of legal cases in the United States where Shariah has been successfully introduced to resolve the matter (www.shariahinamericancourts.com): The most frequent victims of the trampling of constitutional rights by foreign legal codes in actual cases in the United States, are Muslim women and their families.

That’s bad enough. But CAIR’s stance suggests that it seeks to relegate all women – not just Muslim ones – to an inferior status incompatible with the equal rights they are entitled to enjoy under the U.S. Constitution.

ALAC: Explicit Exclusions

“This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.”

Question for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

10. Why is CAIR opposed to preserving and protecting religious freedom for all Americans, as spelled out explicitly in the American Laws for American Courts act?

CAIR falsely maintains that American Laws for American Courts trespasses against religious freedom. That assertion is laid bare as patently dishonest by reading this important passage from the model American Laws for American Courts legislation: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.

CAIR and its allies have been known to claim that American Laws for American Courts would interfere with canon law or Jewish law. As the plain language of the bill makes clear, this is patently untrue. Indeed, prominent interfaith leaders – including experts in the legal codes of their respective faiths – have endorsed American Laws for American Courts, including Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, J.D. and the Reverend Canon J. Philip Ashey, Esq. (See the Interfaith letter of support for American Laws for American Courts at http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=653).

In short, American Laws for American Courts is a necessary and constitutional initiative that protects our fundamental freedoms against all foreign legal regimes that would threaten them. Representations to the contrary, particularly from groups like CAIR that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization seeking our destruction, should be seen for what they are – fraudulent deceptions – and rejected in the most effective possible way: by ensuring that every state in the union joins Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona in enacting American Laws for American Courts.

Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the Founder and President of ACT! for America, the nation’s largest grassroots citizen action network dedicated to preserving national security and combating the threat of radical Islam. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, Because they Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America; and They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Originally published at:

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/03/22/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/

http://www.freepressers.com/2012/03/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/

Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

By JanSuzanne Krasner at American Thinker:

A controversy over the defeat of Florida legislation that would have restricted state courts from considering foreign laws as part of legal decisions has intensified.  This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law “pursuant to the Quran” in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this…and the Florida Appellate Court denied the petition to appeal the judge’s ruling.

The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR and the ADL.  It drew the passionate attention of many in the Florida Jewish community, where opinions seem to be drawn on party lines.  These groups erroneously argue that this ban will actually put other religious laws in jeopardy as well, especially Jewish religious law, called Halakhah.

Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL, claims that passage of the law would have been “harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.”

He and others are seriously mistaken.  The defeated law and others proposed by several state legislators are meant to make it clear that disputes heard in religious alternative courts must not contradict or interfere with the administration, application, or exercise of state and federal constitutional law, and either party has the right to immediate redress in the civil secular court system for enforcement of those rights.  These proposed legal guidelines do not prohibit the use of other religious laws — only sharia law.

In a recent Florida Jewish newspaper article, the publisher emeritus made an argument in defense of sharia courts in America based on the existence of other religious courts.  He believes that sharia law is constitutionally compatible, just like Halakhah and Canon Law and is more economical, and that banning it is simply unconstitutional, discriminating against one religious group over others.

This position is substantiated by comparing sharia law to Jewish law, noting the similarity of the two.  But this editor falls short in his argument by avoiding a comparison of the serious differences that exist in the laws of the Quran, which sharia legislates.  Like others espousing this position, the editor presents an incomplete picture and uses it to belittle those who take an opposing viewpoint.  It is most important to include the inequalities inherent in Islamic law in any discussion of this nature because they expose the unconstitutionality and incompatibility of sharia law within the American justice system.

American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called “Islamophobes” or “bigots,” the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society.  The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws…specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws.  It is clearly the dissimilarities that distinguish other religious laws from the unconstitutionality of sharia laws.

Opponents to SB 1360 offered as proof of the wisdom of their position that religious laws are already being used in local civil courts in determining judgments regarding family matters, dietary requirements, and business disagreements…and they point out that nothing disastrous has happened.  The guidelines applied to these decisions are in line with, and enforceable by, the American court system.  But it is also necessary that both parties agree to participate in a religious court rather than a secular court and that they both agree that the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

On the face of this, as the editor pointed out, is there is nothing “sinister” about religious courts settling family, dietary, and financial disputes, especially with this practice already having gone on for years in arbitration courts.  Some even wonder why anyone would question our Constitution’s and appellate courts’ ability to prevent the impact by Islamism in America.

The “sinister” fact is that Islamic ideology makes Muslim women and children powerless, intimidated by the obscene rules of a male-dominated society.  Sharia law requires women to present practically impossible proof of their innocence, such as eyewitnesses to being raped.  A woman who seeks justice for this crime, files for divorce, or desires child custody, or a child that strays into Western ways, has hardly any means to win in a sharia court.

Read the rest…

Sharia in the U.S.? Florida’s proposed ban draws attacks from Muslims

 

Florida state lawmakers are enduring attacks from an organization many call a “terrorist front group”  who oppose legislation aimed at banning the use of Sharia law — the religious doctrine that’s applied by Islamists in their own countries – from courtrooms throughout Florida, claims a non-profit, public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and crime.

Although the bill targets Sharia law, the legislation seeks to prohibit the application of any foreign law, code or system in legal cases, especially in family court. It was introduced after a state appeals court allowed a county judge in central Florida to consider “ecclesiastical Islamic law” to decide a civil case involving a mosque. 

As a Florida state House committee considers the bill this week, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, is blasting it as an attempt to demonize Islam, states the Judicial Watch blog.  

If the measure passes it will also restrict religious freedom, according to CAIR.

A few years ago CAIR pressured a south Florida county’s transit agency to drop bus advertisements considered by the group to be “misleading and bigoted” against Muslims. CAIR asserted that the ads created a campaign of hatred and intolerance because they gave the false impression that Muslims are “trapped” in their religion with no means of “escape,” thus facing certain death.  

CAIR bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization but top FBI counterterrorism chiefs, such as the late John O’Neill, describe it as an entity that promotes and finances terrorism.

According to a report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland  Security: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy, said the Senate report.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim who challenges groups such as CAIR, in an NYPD-used training video The Third Jihad details how CAIR was created shortly after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. Their goal was to lead opposition to the 1993 Oslo accords and generate support for Hamas, the terrorist organization that now runs the government in Gaza.  

Read the rest…

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

AFDI/SIOA Pro-Freedom Anti-Sharia Billboards and Radio in Kansas City

Atlas Shrugs:

The war in the information battle-space heats up.

In an effort to stop the protection of constitutional liberties, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) has kicked off its national sharia disinformation campaign in Kansas City. They are running billboards and radio ads in an attempt to deceive and mislead the American people on the sharia. ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group, according to a captured internal document of the Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to norm Sharia, mainstream Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Sharia and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth.

We are on the forefront of this fight. Our billboards are going up in Kansas City this week, and our radio ads will be breaking this week as well. We will be running billboards and radio ads in major citys where foreign law prohibition legislation is under consideration, to counteract the Muslim Brotherhood pro-sharia campaign. Muslim Brotherhood groups, you are on notice. To paraphrase Churchill, we shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Congress, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our freedoms, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the billboards, we shall fight on the radio, we shall fight in our protests and in the streets, we shall fight on the hill; we shall never surrender.

This very simple and clear cut legislation should be the proverbial no-brainer. And yet the fact that it is being met by so much resistance, both overt and covert, indicates how very needed it is.

How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We all accept that state and federal constitutional rights to a jury trial in CIVIL cases can be waived almost by default (thus two parties agreeing to be bound by German or French law where there is no jury trial right in a civil matter) and would not be affected by the bill, since the jury trial right is per the law waived by default.

Here is the copy of our 30 second radio ads:

Subversive groups will tell you that Sharia is just private religious law. They’re lying. Sharia is a political system that contravenes American freedoms in numerous ways. Sharia asserts authority over non-Muslims. It mandates discrimination, harassment, and second-class status for both non-Muslims and women. It denies free speech, which we’re seeing in America increasingly under the guise of “hate speech laws.” How can anyone support Sharia when its undermines our fundamental Constitutional liberties? Look for our billboards on I-70.

Also see my previous posts:

Counter billboard initiative takes on promotion of sharia law in KC

Kansas City Target of Sharia Campaign

 

FAQ for State Legislators On American Laws for American Courts

As 22 state legislatures are considering bills banning court use of shariah and foreign laws it has become evident that more education is needed on why we need these laws. There is a lot of misunderstanding among our legislators about just what Shariah is as well as a knee jerk reaction that assumes our Constituion couldn’t possibly be vulnerable.

In a previous post, Shariah & American Laws for American Courts, David Yerushalmi explains the issues.

The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) has provided the following FAQ on answers to common objections raised by opponents to ALAC. Citizens should send it to their representatives.

AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS:

FAQ, Issues & Objections

 

1. American Laws for American Courts is not needed because it states what is already reality in state courts

First, this is not true. 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.  For the state to make clear that comity, choice of law, and choice of venue issues must still safeguard fundamental state public policies and constitutional rights is precisely the role of the state legislature.

Second, there are actually many cases on the books in which foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines were invoked by parties to a dispute. In many cases those foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines are directly opposed  to our constitutional ideals and state public policy.

Details on examples of foreign laws being invoked in US court cases can be found in a study conducted by the Center for Security Policy: “Shariah Law and American State Courts.” That study is available for free at the following web site: shariahinamericancourts.com

2 . American Laws for American Courts is not needed because shariah and other foreign laws are not in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy  in the US, and no cases are in our court systems.

The ALAC Act is not simply about shariah and other foreign laws, but also transnationalism—or the documented creep of foreign and anti-public policy laws being recognized by state and federal courts. More, shariah has already entered into the legal systemsof Western Europe, including 85 shariah courts operating openly with the full authority of law in the United Kingdom. There are numerous cases inwhich shariah doctrines have been invoked in the US.   The Center for Security Policy’s recent study found 50 legal cases across 23 states, all published appellate cases, where shariah was either relevant or highly relevant to the arguments or outcome of the case.

3. American Laws for American Courts interferes with foreign treaties.

By operation of law this cannot be. Treaties, when signed by the President ofthe United States and ratified by the United States Senate, are the law of the United States, and not foreign law. Thus, the Act, or a specific application ofthe Act, could not by operation of the Supremacy Clause affect in any way a treaty.

Some uninformed critics of American Laws for American Courts assume, without citation, that certain ratified treaties require the enforcement of foreign judgments or the application of foreign law in contradiction with the Act. Although some treaties address the treatment of foreign arbitral awards or child custody judgments, all of these treaties have an exemption when the foreign tribunal enforces a law that violates the fundamental public policy of the domestic state. This is also the common law and state statutory rule for recognizing foreign judgments of any kind not affected by federal treaty or federal preemptive statutes.

Furthermore, the model American Laws for American Courts language advising courts that they are not to use American Laws for American Courts to create a conflict with any treaty or international agreement to which the USA is a party:

http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=170

American Laws for American Courts articulates what the boundaries are for the state’ s important public policy—to protect fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

Further, state courts consistently hold that it is up to the state legislature to set the state public policy in the first instance.

4 . American Laws for American Courts restricts the right to contract.

The right to contract is not unlimited. The state may legitimately restrict the right to contract if the contract is found to have some deleterious effect on the public or to contravene some other matter of public policy. As the Supreme Court has noted, a state’ s police power to protect the health and safety of its citizenry in the area of contract law not touching upon a suspect class is subject to a rational basis scrutiny—does the state law have any rational basis?

Innumerable regulations exist governing contractual provisions, including choice of law and forum selection clauses. For an impairment of a contract to violate the constitutional right to contract, the state regulation must constitute a substantial impairment, and no significant and legitimate public purpose may justify the regulation. The requirement of a legitimate public purpose is primarily designed to prevent a state from embarking on a policy motivated by a simple desire to escape its financial obligations or to injure others through the repudiation of debts or the destruction of contracts or the denial of the means to enforce them.

It is patently clear that the ALAC Act—which merely sets fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties as protectable interests—is constitutional.

Indeed, all of the state courts and the federal courts have allowed such impairments of contract when the provisions violate the public policy announced in statutes.

Moreover, American Laws for American Courts only restricts the right to contract in terms of 
enforcement. Theoretically, people can contract for whatever they 
want to, on whatever terms. Obviously the only time the state gets 
involved with regard to policy is when there is a dispute and the 
parties go to the courts to resolve and enforce. In this case it is properly the role of the state to protect constitutional liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

5. This bill impacts “comity” and violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution

The Full Faith & Credit Clause only applies to sister states. Moreover, even sister states may deny comity if the sister state’ s foreign judgment violates the domestic state’ s public policy. In the context of the American Laws for American Courts Act, however, only foreign country judgments are at issue. All state courts have ruled, as has the U.S. Supreme Court, that foreign judgments from abroad are subject to the public policy of the state granting comity.

Granting comity to a foreign judgment is thus a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with  our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

Even in the case of granting domestic arbitral awards, comity or recognition in state courts, the Federal Arbitration Act permits states to preclude granting comity or recognition if the arbitral award was based on a decision process or law that was contrary to public policy.

6. American Laws for American Courts interferes with business activity and commerce and thus would adversely impact economic development in a state.

Because the overwhelming majority of the cases involving foreign laws that violate constitutional rights infiltrating our state legal systems involve family law, particularly the rights of women and children, appropriate language has been included in the model language to exempt businesses and corporations while still protecting individual constitutional rights, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state:

“Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.”

7. The business exemption language used in American Laws for American Courts violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

American Laws for American Courts would not likely be struck as violative of “ equal protection” simply because it exempts contracts involving corporations. There is no “protected class”, such as race, religion, sex or even age, affected by distinguishing individuals from corporations, that would require “ strict scrutiny” by the judiciary. All the legislature requires is a “ rational basis” for the distinction, the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. As constitutional rights affecting individuals rationally receive greater concern than rights of businesses, and businesses tend to be more sophisticated in entering contracts, the legislature has a rational basis for making the distinction and allowing businesses to contractually waive rights when submitting to foreign law, but to provide greater protections for individuals’ rights, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

8. Provisions of American Laws for American Courts would violate the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

The UCCJEA only applies to foreign child custody judgments for those foreign countries not “ contracting parties” to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The UCCJEA specifically exempts states from granting comity or enforcing a foreign child custody judgment or foreign jurisdiction when doing so violates “ fundamental principles of human rights.” It is hard to imagine how fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties are not fundamental human rights in the context of state law.

And, even among the contracting parties to the Hague Child Abduction Convention, the treaty exempts cases where the foreign jurisdiction or judgment would violate the public policy of the domestic jurisdiction.  Therefore there would no conflict for signatory juridictions.

9. American Laws for American Courts could violate the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)

The PKPA does not apply to foreign jurisdictions. It applies within the US between the states.

10. American Laws for American Courts would violate international treaties dealing with child custody, namely the Hague Convention.

As noted above, the Hague Convention itself provides a public policy exemption. Beyond this, as a treaty entered into by the federal government, the Hague Convention is federal law and cannot be trumped by state law.  There is no way for ALAC to do so. Moreover, it is important to note that  the only country that employs shariah in its legal system that is a memberof the Hague Convention is Morocco.  Out of 193 sovereign nations worldwide, only 85 are signatories to the Hague Convention, so possible conflicts between foreign laws and state laws on child custody and abduction are widespread.  Conflict of law cases in Japan in particular, and China, regarding child custody and state public policy are not uncommon, so foreign laws other than shariah are also relevant.  The following countries are not parties to the Hague Convention and also adherent to Shariah law to varying degrees, particularly for family and personal status cases, and may have a conflict of law with state public policies:

• Egypt• Iran• Pakistan• Saudi Arabia• Syria• Jordan• Libya• Sudan• Somalia• Algeria• Lebanon• Indonesia• Afghanistan• Iraq • India• Bangladesh• Nigeria• Kuwait• Bahrain• Qatar• Tunisia• Yemen• United Arab Emirates• Oman

11. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with English Common Law.

To the extent that English Common Law forms the foundation of our legal traditions, it is not a foreign law. Moreover, all states have by statute or by  “common law” adopted the common law as adopted by the courts in that state to be part of state law and thus not foreign.

Moreover, this bill does not ban all foreign or international law, just the use of such law when it would violate the constitutional rights of someone in the state AND specifically applied in the particular case. The fact that a country might have some law that violates our constitutional liberties is wholly irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the particular offensive law is the law at issue in the particular case being litigated in the domestic state court.

12. American Laws for American Courts would open up states that pass it to expensive law suits.

This legislation already passed in two states in 2010 (Tennessee and Louisiana) with no legal challenges, and another state so far in 2011 (Arizona), also with no legal challenges. There is no basis on which to challenge a law which seeks to safeguard individual constitutional rights as its express purpose. Indeed, it is absurd to even suggest such a proposition. A state might be sued if it does  NOT protect fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties.

13. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with Native American tribal law.

Federal law, in the form of treaties with Native Americans, preempts state law. Thus, ALAC does not apply to tribal law because it could not as a matter of law affect those federal laws. Moreover, language has been included in the model ALAC language expressly defining Native American tribal law as outside the scope of the ALAC legislation.

14. American Laws for American Courts would interfere with Jewish law or Catholic Canon Law.

American Laws for American Courts would not interfere with Jewish law because Jewish law has a provision inherent which instructs people of the Jewish faith to follow the law of the land in which they live. Moreover, ALAC only applies when the use of a foreign legal doctrine in a court would violate someone’s constitutional rights or state public policy. This is not the case with Jewish law.

Moreover, the model ALAC language contains specific language in recognition of the fact that it cannot be applied in such a way that would interfere with a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.

15. American Laws for American Courts unfairly targets Muslims.

Nothing in the ALAC bill prevents any person from freely exercising his or her right to freedom of religion and worship. ALAC only applies to legal doctrines in our court systems. Furthermore, ALAC is facially neutral. It does not discriminate in any way based on faith of any kind. The bill makes no mention of Islam or Muslims and is not even principally focused on religious law, but any foreign law that violates constitutionally protected liberties, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.

In fact, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, acknowledged the desirability of protecting American constitutional rights and liberties in a recent statement regarding efforts in France to impose a dress code on Muslim women:

“Our position is that no company doing business in America has the obligation to enforce discriminatory foreign policies on American employees,” he said. “A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens.”

It is ironic that while Muslims are being smeared for wanting to upend the constitution and institute sharia law, that we at CAIR are defending American law over foreign intrusion,” Hooper said.

 

CAIR’s Fight Against Pennsylvania Foreign Law Bill

by David J. Rusin
FrontPage Magazine


Resistance to a new bill aimed at limiting foreign law in Pennsylvania courts serves as a case study of how Islamists and their allies operate: peddling falsehoods about Shari’a, painting Muslims as victims, and denying that anyone seeks to institutionalize aspects of Islamic law — even as they vigorously promote that very agenda. With similar legislation being debated across the U.S., understanding their tactics is critical.

At issue in Pennsylvania is House Bill (HB) 2029, which stipulates that “a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant … the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges” as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Introduced in November, it follows the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model and makes no mention of Shari’a. A preliminary memo sent to legislators last June in the name of Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, HB 2029’s chief sponsor, does highlight Islamic law, but she later said that it had been circulated accidentally. Regardless, concerns about Shari’a are warranted due to its many provisions that conflict with the standards of American jurisprudence. For example, it disadvantages women in terms of inheritance, divorce, child custody, and other areas of family law. Shari’a already has shaped numerous cases nationwide, including in Pennsylvania, where one state court decided how assets should be distributed according to Islam.

Pushback against HB 2029 has been led by the Philadelphia office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-PA) and was punctuated by an interfaith press conference (video here) at CAIR-PA headquarters on December 14. The overall campaign reflects CAIR’s usual recipe of distortion, victimology, and contradiction between words and deeds.

Attacks on bills like HB 2029 begin by sowing confusion about Shari’a. Because Islamic law encompasses virtually every facet of life — governing personal activities such as eating and worship, but also forming an oppressive social and legal structure — suit-and-tie Islamists work to emphasize its unthreatening pieces whenever possible. CAIR-PA executive director Moein Khawaja’s suggestion that Shari’a should worry Pennsylvanians no more than halal gyros is a fine example of this technique.

Others brazenly misrepresent the unsavory components, as Haider Ala Hamoudi, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, did when he was interviewed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Hamoudi insisted that women and children would suffer if judges could not consider Shari’a — a stretch, given how it discriminates against women, including in disputes over children. Moving beyond the types of cases that are adjudicated in U.S. courts, he depicted the requirement of testimony by four male witnesses to convict someone of adultery as an exemplar of Islamic enlightenment that protects against false accusations. In practice, however, it can be a nightmare for women in those Muslim countries where the same scriptural passages are interpreted as mandating four witnesses even to prove rape. Robert Spencer further explains, “If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery,” too often leading to her imprisonment.

Hamoudi also contended that harsh punishments used in Iran and elsewhere, like cutting off hands for stealing, have little to do with Shari’a and are “more a matter of identity politics” in response to Western influence. The man deserves credit for artful misdirection, as it is not every day that brutal penalties prescribed by the Koran itself are chalked up to blowback from cultural imperialism.

When distortion of Shari’a is insufficient, Islamists and their collaborators characterize Muslims as the targets of a shadowy cabal of “Islamophobes.” Hence, Pennsylvanians were treated to Marwan Kreidie, a major figure in the Philadelphia Islamist scene, describing Swanger’s faith-neutral bill as “an exercise in discrimination” and claiming that “there’s a conspiracy afoot here.” CAIR-PA’s Khawaja followed up by taking the ad hominem route, trashing HB 2029 as the brainchild of “anti-Muslim, white supremacist David Yerushalmi.” See Yerushalmi’s recent article for a reply to the typical assaults on his character.

Yet no hyperbole topped that of Rabbi Linda Holtzman, who played the Nazi card at CAIR-PA’s press conference. “The echoes for me are strong of Germany in the 1930s,” she said, “when repeatedly Jewish law was brought forward and defamed in the courts as a means of defaming all of Jewish tradition.” Aside from the sheer ugliness of the analogy, Shari’a could be “defamed” only by spreading inaccuracies about it. HB 2029 does not reference Islam or Islamic law, while the memocorrectly labels Shari’a as “inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties.” Sometimes the truth hurts.

Islamists also maintain that bills such as HB 2029 are unnecessary because, they say, there is no attempt by adherents of Islam to undermine the American legal system, but their actions away from the cameras inevitably belie their soothing words. Indeed, not long after it issued a press release dismissing concerns about the advance of Shari’a as “conspiracy theories” to be “mocked,” CAIR-PA announced that its 2012 banquet will be headlined by two men who have expressed support for transforming the U.S. into a Shari’a-run state: Siraj Wahhaj and Sherman Jackson.

Wahhaj, a radical imam who appeared on a federal prosecutor’s “list of unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has warned that “unless America … accepts the Islamic agenda,” it will fall. He has talked positively of Islamic law supplanting the U.S. Constitution and opined that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Jackson, now a professor at USC, has been equally explicit. Calling him “an outspoken proponent of the Islamist subversion of Western civilization,” Cinnamon Stillwell explains that in a book Jackson coauthored, he “proposes that American Muslims approach the ‘difficult task of penetrating, appropriating and redirecting American culture’ … to ‘influence the legal order in America.’” He writes that “once this is done, there are no Constitutional impediments to having these [Islamic] laws applied in the public domain.” Jackson even muses about how gradual “changes in American culture” could result in the normalization of barbaric punishments such as stoning and flogging.

In short, Islamists do not merely insult the character of those who back bills like HB 2029; they insult the intelligence of all through claims that turn reality on its head and are contradicted by their own actions. Nothing less should be expected. They obfuscate Islamic law and portray Muslims as victims because the facts about Shari’a simply are not palatable to most Americans. Moreover, stealth jihadists shamelessly say one thing and do another because they have faith that the mainstream media will not hold them accountable.

How to proceed? Education neutralizes falsehoods, so Americans need to continue the long-term project of informing themselves about Shari’a and the challenge it presents; useful resources may be found at this website. Likewise, all politicians must learn to speak more precisely about Islamic law, carefully distinguishing between practices that are protected by the U.S. Constitution and those that are not, thus minimizing the confusion that Islamists exploit. As for individuals who equate Nazism with defending Americans from foreign laws that infringe on fundamental rights, they should be called out for affronting both history and decency. Citizens also must encourage legislators to press on with these bills despite Islamist propaganda, biased media, and the occasional scolding from their multiculturalism-obsessed counterparts; readers wishing to contact the primary sponsor of HB 2029 may do so here.

Finally, as Islamist groups often argue against restrictions on foreign law by denying the existence of any campaign to insinuate Shari’a into American society, their own records of participating in this very movement should be hung around their necks for all to see. Given that much of the opposition to ALAC-inspired efforts throughout the U.S. has been helmed by branches of CAIR — an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, which dreams of implementing Islamic law worldwide and describes its mission in North America as “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” — the letters, op-eds, and blog posts can practically write themselves.

While it is important to wade into the details and answer specific criticisms of bills to curb foreign law, the best defense may be a good offense. Just as Islamists make the supporters of such legislation an issue by smearing them as bigots, those supporters must make the opponents an issue by exposing their rank dishonesty and jihadist objectives, which comprise exactly the kind of subversion that these bills are designed to thwart.

David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Fighting Sharia legislatively will be at the state level until United States leadership changes

DAVID CATON

This will be a long term effort.

We are committed to it and hope you are too.


The legislative effort to prohibit courts from recognizing international laws including Islamic Sharia law is at a stand still at the federal level.  

U.S. Representative Sandy Adams (R-Florida) sponsored H.R.973 – “To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes” on March 9, 2011.  Click here to read HR 973.

HR 973 has gained the support of eighty five (85) co-sponsors in the House of Representatives which you can see by clicking the previous link.  However, this legislation has not moved since it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee on March 21, 2011.  

There is NO companion bill to HR 973 in the United States Senate.  This may be the reason why HR 973 has not moved in the U.S. House of Representatives.  On the other hand, numerous bills have passed the House without consideration in the U.S. Senate.  Additionally, President Obama’s documented public adoration for Islam makes HR 973 a strong veto target.

It is very disturbing that legislation to protect American public policy from the negative influence of international law is not quickly approved especially since Sharia law is religious doctrine.  Many government officials are quick to proclaim that the separation clause prohibits Judeo-Christian doctrine in our political system but cannot seem to equate that same position also applies to Sharia law.  This disparity is daunting.

It should be alarming to most Americans that there are many elected officials who do not believe that only American Laws should be enforced in American Courts.

For now it is important that we focus our resources on showing support to those state legislatures that are considering bills to prohibit their courts from recognizing foreign laws.

Florida Family Association is committed to this long term effort.  We hope that you will stand with us in this important endeavor by sending our suggested emails to these legislators, forwarding the email alerts to friends and sharing the articles on Facebook.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David Caton

David Caton
Executive Director
Florida Family Association

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Introduced in Mississippi and Kentucky, advancing in Florida & South Dakota, dying in Virginia

 

February 13th, 2012 by Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel:

The two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Mississippi’s introduction of HB 2 and Kentucky’s HB 386 brings to 22 (versus 24 states in 2011) the number of states to have a bill banning the use of international law/sharia by state courts in 2012
  • South Dakota has heavily modified their bills and achieved committee approval with a single sentence statute: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”
  • Virginia’s bans, while initially appearing to be advancing, were deferred into the 2013 legislative session.

Full roster of 36 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

 
Bill Provisions Status
Alaska HB 88 Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution. Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment) Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment) Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment) Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Florida HB 1209 Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Approved by House Judiciary Committee, Civil Justice Subcommittee 1/31/12.
Florida SB 1360 Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 1/25/12.
Georgia HB 45 Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia HB 242 Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia SB 51 Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166 Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization. In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36 Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90 Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Iowa HB 489 Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HB 575 Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kansas HB 2087 Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.” Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kentucky HB 386 Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought. In House (no committee).
Michigan HB 4769 Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701 Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Mississippi HB 2 Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system
established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states
or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator,
administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement
authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a
right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United
States.”
In House Judiciary A Committee.
Missouri HB 1512 Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state. In House (no committee).
Missouri SB 676 Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. In Senate (no committee).
Nebraska LB 647 Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska. In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
New Hampshire HB 1422 Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution. In House Committee on Judiciary.
New Jersey AB 919 Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America. In Assembly Judiciary Committee.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” In Senate Rules Committee.
North Carolina HB 640 Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.” In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
Oklahoma HB 1552 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029 Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490 Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444 Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota HB 1253 “”No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/10/12.
South Dakota SB 136 ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” Approved as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 631 Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 825 Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law. Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
West Virginia HB 3220 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011

 Related articles:

Shariah & American Laws for American Courts

Appeals Court Blocks Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law

American Laws for American Courts

CAIR falsely attacks ALAC – Virginia Action Alert!

 

American Laws for American Courts

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Shortly before Newt Gingrich’s decisive victory in South Carolina last week, he was asked a critical question by a Palmetto State voter:  Would he support a Muslim candidate for president?  The former Speaker of the House answered in a way that was both characteristically insightful and profoundly helpful with respect to one of the most serious challenges our country faces at the moment.

Mr. Gingrich responded by saying it depends on a critical factor:  Is the candidate “a modern person who happens to worship Allah”?  Or “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in shariah, any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us”?  Speaker Gingrich observed that the former would not be a problem, while the latter would be a “mortal threat.”  The Georgia Republican went on to assert the need for federal legislation that would prevent shariah from being applied in U.S. courts.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are squealing like, well, stuck haram (or impure) pigs.  After all, they have been working overtime to try to obscure the true nature of shariah and to prevent the enactment of legislation that would interfere with the considerable progress being made below the radar in states across the country: the insinuation of shariah into the American judiciary.

Resorting to their standard technique of ad hominem attacks, CAIR and its friends have derided Mr. Gingrich’s stance as “racist,” “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”  Such comments evidently were not persuasive to South Carolina voters – and they should be equally dismissed by everybody else.

The simple fact of the matter is that shariah defines the fault line between people who are Muslims but can love our country, respect and enjoy its freedoms and support our form of government and Constitution on the one hand, and those who are obliged by doctrine to oppose all those things.  Worse, adherents to shariah must – in accordance with that doctrine – seek, as Speaker Gingrich says, “to impose it on the rest of us.”

For the latter Muslims, the preferred way of achieving such submission is, as Mohammed taught, through violence.  Where that would be impractical and/or counterproductive for the moment, however, their doctrine encourages the use of stealthy techniques to advance the same, supremacist goal.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America calls this “civilization jihad.”  It seeks through, for example, the use of shariah in U.S. courts to insinuate their program here at the expense of our constitutional rights and state public policy.

A sense of how far along we are in this process was provided by a study conducted last year by the Center for Security Policy.  Entitled Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases, the report is a microcosm of U.S. jurisprudence.  Its findings were alarming:  Out of a sample of 50 cases, in 27 instances in 23 states, the courts involved allowed the use of shariah to adjudicate the dispute.

In almost all of the cases, that outcome was at the expense of the constitutional rights of American women or children.  Under shariah, they simply do not enjoy the same stature and are not entitled to the same freedoms as they are under U.S. law.

In November 2010, seventy percent of the voters of Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state constitution that would have barred shariah from being used in Oklahoma’s courts.  No sooner had the balloting ended than the local franchise of CAIR – an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial – asked for an injunction on the grounds that such a prohibition would violate Muslims’ constitutional rights.  A federal judge agreed, and was recently upheld by an appellate court.

Fortunately, those who concur with Newt Gingrich on the nature of the threat posed by shariah and who want to prevent its further penetration into this country have another option.  Three states – Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona – have already enacted a statute known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).  It prohibits the use of any foreign law in the state’s courts that would interfere with U.S. constitutional rights or state public policy.

While shariah would certainly be covered by ALAC, it is not singled out for special treatment.  No challenge has been mounted thus far in any of the states where it is the law today.  And some 20 other states are actively considering ALAC’s adoption in the current legislative session.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its friends desperately hope to stave off the further enactment of American Laws for American Courts.  They recognize that it can effectively thwart a key part of their civilization jihad in this country.  They also have seen that, wherever ALAC is considered, more and more of our countrymen are becoming aware of the problem Newt Gingrich has helped define: the threat from shariah and the need to keep its adherents from imposing that toxic, anti-constitutional doctrine on the rest of us, whether by stealth in our courts (among other places) or through terrifying violence.

For all these reasons, we should ensure that neither shariah nor any other form of foreign or transnational law is allowed to trump our constitutional rights.  To the Muslim Brotherhood’s fury, ALAC is a way of doing it in a constitutionally sound and highly teachable way.

Appeals Court Blocks Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law

Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban on Islamic sharia law is likely unconstitutional and should not take force, the federal appeals court in Denver has ruled, upholding a lower court decision and injunction.”Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best,” the three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. “Delayed implementation of a measure that does not appear to address any immediate problem will generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually found to be constitutional and enforceable.”Read the full ruling (pdf).A U.S. District Court judge in Oklahoma City found the ban likely unconstitutional and temporarily blocked its implementation. The case, brought by the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, now returns to the lower court, which will hear arguments in the lawsuit and rule on the constitutionality of the measure. A permanent injunction is expected.

The amendment, approved in November 2010 by 70% of Oklahoma voters, declares that state courts “shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”

As the American Bar Association Journal notes, the appellate panel writes that the wording of the amendment “implies that whatever religions the legislature considered to be part of domestic or Oklahoma culture would not have their legal precepts prohibited from consideration, while all others would,” the opinion continues. Hence, “because the amendment discriminates among religions, it is ‘suspect,’ and ‘we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.’ “

Pamela Geller had this to say:

We are screwed.

This is a complex issue and dabbling in it, poor legal language is a recipe for failure. David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise should have been arguing the case. Join me at AFDI/SIOA Event at CPAC 2012, Islamic Law in America.

It’s not religious law, sharia is political law. How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We all accept that state and federal constitutional rights to a jury trial in CIVIL cases can be waived almost by default (thus two parties agreeing to be bound by German or French law where there is no jury trial right in a civil matter) would not be affected by the bill since the jury trial right is per the law waived by default.

But there is no jurisprudence in the federal system and none in any state that would allow a party to waive Equal Protection—that is, could an african american agree to be discriminated against by the state? Absolutely not, so why would we allow a party to “waive” an equal protection claim in court where the state’s police power is being used to enforce an offensive foreign law?

We now have groups that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here and are working to institute it.

And Robert Spencer comments:

This ruling has come because of Leftist judges who don’t know anything about Sharia and have swallowed the smooth deceptions of Islamic supremacist groups like Hamas-linked CAIR, but it can also be attributed to the fact that the laws themselves have not been focused properly. Americans want to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice, but in response, Islamic supremacists claim that Muslim religious freedom will be infringed upon.

The point has to be made that these anti-Sharia measures are aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars — notably, in its denial of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims. But unfortunately, even many of the proponents of these measures are unable to make this case effectively.

American Laws for American Courts is the way forward. For a discussion on where the Oklahoma “Save Our State” amendment went wrong and how ALAC will solve the problem, see Christopher Holton‘s September 18, 2011 article at American Thinker:

  
The reality is that there is an effective alternative to SQ 755 legislation and its various copycats around the country.  That legislation is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and it can be accessed here

ALAC has already been passed into law in 3 states — Tennessee (April 2010), Louisiana (June 2010), and Arizona (May 2011) — and has not incurred any legal challenges, because there is simply no legal basis on which to challenge ALAC.  This is significant because SQ 755 was challenged in federal court within days of passage.

ALAC remedies the flaws in 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’ constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process.  This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.  ALAC also contains a specific provision for corporations and businesses so as not to interfere with commerce; it exempts Native American laws; it specifically says that the law cannot detract from the right to free exercise of religion, which would include religious courts like Jewish Bet Din or Catholic ecclesiastical courts; and it states that the law would not interfere with compliance with international treaties the U.S. has signed.
  • ALAC is not vague.  It provides specific instructions for judges on complex legal issues involving comity and choice of forum, thus closing potential loopholes for activist judges.
  • 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 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.

It is important that activists, legislators, and the media recognize the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, so that they do not use it as a model. 

Fortunately, most legislators have already made the right choice.  The American Laws for American Courts Act — already passed in three states and never challenged in court — is progressing through legislatures in several states with two-year or year-round sessions, and is either scheduled to be introduced or under consideration in over 25 additional states for the coming legislative session. 

Reflections on the Preserving Freedom Conference

The Constitution or Sharia Preserving Freedom Conference on 11/11/11 in Madison Tennessee was an incredible experience. I went with my friend Kasey and we stayed at the Gaylord Opryland which was an experience in and of itself! We had never been to Nashville before and were nervous about finding the Cornerstone Church.

Cornerstone Church hosts Geert Wilders

As we approached,  the first thing we saw was a huge American Flag waving in the sky. It was almost as big as the church itself! Once inside, the excitement began to build as we found out later that about 500 people had arrived. The church was perfectly suited for this event with amphitheater type seating that must hold well over a thousand. The stage was impressive with a beautiful colorful lighted backdrop of a very stylized cross and two large video screens.

As I wandered around I recognized John Guandolo talking with a group of people and ran into Scott Cooper and William J. Murray, both of whom I had met before. They were intensely busy coordinating the event. I was pleased to see security in evidence. Scott then introduced me to Dr. Andrew Bostom, Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University and author of “The legacy of Jihad” and “The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism“. I have read of his articles and was very pleased to meet him in person. I asked him about his opinion on the controversy over whether there is a “radical Islam” or “Islamism” that is distinct from Islam proper. Andrew McCarthy and Robert Spencer had a recent back and forth on this on National Review. Dr. Bostom said his views align more closely with Spencer’s view that there is only one Islam and it is wishful thinking on the part of the West to try to envision a “moderate” Islam that could be the basis for reform. He acknowledged the difficulty in reaching out to moderate Muslims who do not follow orthodox Islam while holding the position that Islam cannot be reformed.

The conference began with the National Anthem sung by Dr. Shelli Baker Manuel. She has an amazing voice! Then E. W. Jackson got our patriotic spirits soaring even more with a rousing invocation.

 

John Guandolo

Up next was John Guandolo from the Strategic Engagement Group, outlining the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood. John made it absolutely clear that the evidence gathered during the Holy Land Foundation trial naming the Muslim Brotherhood as a co-conspirator is still valid. Following John was a panel on Sharia and Legal action with a video presentation by David Yerushalmi, Esq. General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy.

 

Dr. Wafa Sultan

Dr. Wafa Sultan received a very emotional introduction by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman who is obviously very fond of her. I had never heard her speak before and was absolutely riveted. She told of her experiences in Syria as a woman under Sharia and contrasted that with her experiences here in America. She expressed her profound appreciation for our freedoms.

 

Bill Warner

Next was a panel on fighting Islamic propaganda in the Media Battlespace with Kenneth Timmerman, Steve Gill and Dr. Bill Warner.  I had seen a video of Bill Warner before and he did not disappoint. He had a very good suggestion that our movement hire a good public relations firm. I was able to meet him later and bought some of his books. He is delightfully personable and has a good sense of humor. Dr. Warner is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. As with many others, 9/11 prompted him to begin writing about Islam so that people could understand the ideology behind that horrific attack. His approach to Islam is very analytical and he has the ability to condense the volumes of the Koran, Hadith and Sira into smaller digests that take out the duplication making it easier to learn Islamic ideology.

It was then time for lunch and as we ate the box lunches provided we had a chance to mingle. I met some very nice people and we exchanged cards. People came from all over the country for this event. Many books were sold and the church was a beehive of activity.

After lunch, I missed Don Feder’s Islamophobia: A Created Crisis to Crush Dissent because I was talking with Bill Warner but I got to hear Frank Gaffney’s excellent presentation on the Muslim Brotherhood and the extent of their infiltration in our government. Chilling! Our national security is being guided by the enemy! The process of civilizational jihad is well under way and that is why this conference is so important.

Dr. Mark Durie

We then had a panel on religious persecution under Sharia. Dr. Mark Durie, a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church in Australia spoke. He is the author of “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom” He was asked how the fight against Sharia in Australia is going and he said they are better off than we are in the United States. Their politicians are standing up to the propaganda more than ours. He commented that our leaders are “shutting down” and bowing to politically correct pressures.

 

Barrister Paul Diamond

Barrister Paul Diamond was up next to talk about the legal climate in England. It was very instructive to see where we are heading if we don’t protect ourselves with anti-Sharia legislation. I posted an article written by Paul Diamond here in which he relates some of the stories he told us about the cases he has been involved in. Islam is being propped up as the favored religion in England and Christianity is being persecuted.

The rest of the afternoon consisted of two panels: Grassroots Organizing Against Sharia  and Rabats (including Mega Mosques) and Defending Liberty in Legislatures as well as a talk by Andrew Bostom titled “Unmasking the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America” It was a lot of information to take in. All very worthwhile.

We then went offsite for dinner and got to talk with our new-found friends. Much information was shared and we are already looking forward to the next conference!

When we got back to the church we found that the number of people attending had doubled! The evening speakers Included Pastor Maury Davis, William J. Murray, Dr. Wafa Sultan, Barrister paul Diamond and Brigitte Gabriel. Pastor Davis is a dynamic positive speaker and he is not afraid to make his views on Islam known. He was very brave to host this event. Murray gave a very informative speech on religious persecution and the advance of Islam. He called out a reporter in the room, Bob Smietana, for publishing Brigitte Gabriel’s personal information and essentially “putting a bullseye on her back.” For the details on the story and Brigitte’s rebuttal at the time go here.

Brigitte Gabrielle

Brigitte Gabriel rocked the house! She gave the most stirring speech on Islam I have ever heard. I had never heard her entire personal story before. It is amazing what she went through in Lebanon as a teenager hiding from Hezbollah for 7 years in a bomb shelter until the Israelis pushed them back. She then became a journalist in Israel, married an American and moved to the United States to raise a family. She thought she was through fighting radical Islam and her children could live in freedom until 9/11 happened. She then found herself telling her 13-year-old daughter the same thing her father told her at the age of 13 in Lebanon in answer to the question why did they do this? “Because they hate us and want to kill us”. It was then that she realized the fight against radical Islam is global and will not go away unless the people rise up and fight it. She started ACT for America, the largest grassroots citizen action network dedicated to preserving national security and fighting Islamic supremacy. Brigitte’s attitude towards the peaceful law-abiding majority of Muslims is positive and loving…..it is the radical Islamist minority that she is fighting against. She had the veterans in the audience stand while she gave a very stirring tribute to them and thanked them from the “bottom of her heart” for their sacrifice and service. I will never forget that speech. It was so uplifting!

A DVD of the whole conference will be available soon.

 

The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America

By JanSuzanne Krasner at American Thinker:

The incompatibility of Islamic sharia law with secular courts stems from the underpinning of Islamism — the unyielding union of the laws and punishments of the Qu’ran and Hadiths with the country’s legal and political system.  Sharia law is the legislation of these religious and criminal rules, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and legal penalties.

The Qu’ran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia, eventually establishing Islamic law worldwide.  Islamic courts want their fatwas to supersede the civil and criminal laws, untying Muslims from civil secular courts.

The facts reveal that in 2008, when the first sharia court was recognized in the U.K., within one year, over 85 recognized sharia courts were established within the U.K.’s Tribunal Court system.  The problem with this rapidly spreading dogma is that several of these courts have issued some fatwas that are completely incompatible with British and European law.

As Islam is a male-dominated ideology, the laws of the Qu’ran make half of its devotees, its female population, second-class citizens.  This inequality has drawn recent attention to the need for additional British legislation to rein in these courts so they abide by British law.

It appears that once any legal system opens its doors to Islamic law, that door will be hard to close…and eventually, the only thing missing will be a parallel Islamic government.

But even with this reality in front of Americans, there are still many who insist that our laws will prevent such circumstances from ever occurring in the U.S.  And because of this nonchalant attitude, there are numbers of people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who believe that sharia law is not a threat to non-Muslim Americans or to the Western liberal democratic rule of law.

Sharia Law Is in the U.S.

The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created in the U.S. seems unimaginable to most Americans, but it already is a reality.  Just travel 150 mile northwest of New York City to the woods of the western Catskills, and you will find Islamberg, a private Muslim community founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani.  Sheikh Gilani is said to be one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra, a terrorist organization believed to be responsible for dozens of bombings and murders in the U.S. and abroad.

Islamberg is only one of twenty to thirty Muslim-only communities and training compounds that this Pakistani group supports through Muslim affiliates in America.  This radical group has purchased land in isolated areas close to city networks and infrastructure.  Jamaat al-Fuqra now has sites in Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, and Illinois, as well as Canada, Venezuela, and Trinidad.

The sharia debate in the U.S. is heating up as more and more Americans are reacting to lawyers requesting rulings based on sharia law, and local judges agreeing to make them.  This has happened in a New Jersey divorce case, a Maryland child custody case, and most recently in a Florida property case.  These cases are now a precedent for other American-Muslim communities.  In addition, according to the Center for Security Policy study that was published in May 2011, there are actually over fifty Appellate Court cases from 23 states that all involve conflicts between sharia law and American state law.

There are numbers of Muslim community leaders challenging the delicate line between religious freedom and the laws against state religion by petitioning in favor of living under sharia law.  The moment one court allows the establishment of an independently ruled enclave, others courts in liberal cities across the nation will petition for the same opportunity.

Another example of efforts to usurp the Constitution are the actions of the global Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose main agenda is to have “hate speech” laws enforced against anyone who criticizes Islam.  And, unfortunately, there are those determined to enforce sharia on their own who attack and murder any nearby dissenters.  The Qu’ran justifies and protects these people’s violence by declaring that it is blasphemous to mock or degrade any component of Islam.  According to sharia law, such activity is punishable by death.

It is this ongoing effort to shut down public criticism of Islam that presents the gravest danger to America — one that the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist organizations regard as key to limiting individual rights over the rights of the community.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with other Islamic activist groups, continues to push back, often with demonization of character and follow-up lawsuits.  Recently, intimidation and character assassination have been used against U.S. politicians who question Islamism or want hearings on issues relating to radical Islamic terrorism, along with those Congressmen who introduce state legislation to ban all foreign law.

Preventing Sharia through Legislation

The Court of Appeals is the system used to review lower court decisions and believed by some to be the stopgap against foreign law, including sharia, from entering our legal system.  However, some Islamic cases that have reached the Appellate Court for review have retained the sharia rulings even in the face of sharia’s contradiction to American civil law.

The U.S. is heading towards dangerous territory if its citizens buy into the twisting of constitutional amendments.  Indeed, what everyone really needs is the interpretations of the laws as they are written in order to prevent the encroachment of Islamism into the court system.

The establishment of sharia courts within the arbitration laws is a leading objective of every peace-loving, kindhearted, moderate male Muslim.  I have asked several male American Muslims whom I know, some living very happily in my community and in the U.S., what their one greatest wish is.  The answer is always the same: “Everyone should be a Muslim.”

The line must be drawn in states’ legislatures, not in the courts.  It is imperative that we recognize the differences between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islamism.  Political correctness is leading to interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments that are pushing America across that line.

If non-Muslim Americans do not recognize how close they are to the precipice, then they are beyond a shadow of a doubt going to fall victims to an Islamic conquest.  Time is running out.

Church Agrees to Host Anti-Shariah Conference After Hotel Cancels

From The Blaze:

A Madison, Tennessee, house of worship has agreed to be the site of an anti-Shariah conference on November 11.

Cornerstone Church agreed to host the initiative after a Nashville hotel terminated its contract to be the conference facility for the Shariah Awareness Action Network’s controversial event.

According to the Christian Post, Pastor Maury Davis says that the church agreed to rent the space to the group, because the event will serve as an educational experience. Daves also says that he knows some of the speakers and that they are “very reputable people.”

“I don’t believe informative speech or educational speech is hate speech,” he said. “I want to know what is Sharia law, how did it come about, what does it mean and how is it implemented – just as a citizen and as a Christian, what is Sharia law?”

The event, called, “Preserving Freedom Conference: The Constitution or Sharia?,” will address these very issues. According to a web site for the conference, it will provide information about Shariah Law and its incompatibility with U.S. Constitutional law. Additionally, the conference will address the potential dangers that Shariah law poses to the American lifestyle.

“Conference has moved … The Hutton Hotel refuses to honor its contract because they want to be “sensitive” to Islamists and Jihadists who have threatened their property,” reads a statement on the group’s registration site. “A new conference the same day at a greatly reduced price of just $20.00 will be held at the Cornerstone Church…”

Lou Ann Zelenik, an organizer of the conference and a former congressional candidate, claims that she was turned down by 20 hotels after trying to find a new location after the hotel cut the event. ”There was no room in the inn for freedom, but Pastor Maury Davis of Cornerstone Church opened his doors for free speech,” said Zelenik.

According to UPI, “Organizer William Murray said 300 people have signed up for the event, more than had registered before the cancellation.” Here’s a list of speakers who will attend and present at the event:

Pamela Geller, who runs the popular Atlas Shrugs blog, canceled her appearance once the venue was moved. She claimed that, though she isn’t opposed to speaking in a house of worship, she was upset that her voice had been silences in the public square.

“While I have nothing against speaking in a church per se, I refuse to have my message driven from the public square…Right now I’m more concerned with the marginalization and ghettoizing of our message of freedom,” Geller wrote in an email. “I am not going to consent to the attempts of the left and Islamic supremacists to drive our defense of freedom from public spaces.”

Tentative Conference Schedule - additional speakers added: Brigitte Gabrielle, John Guandolo, Andrew Bostom