This is a no-brainer. It shouldn’t be controversial, but it is.
It wasn’t significant until the specter of Shariah loomed over the judicial system of the United States. Then it became “discriminatory”, an “infringement on religious freedom under the First Amendment”, and — dare we say it? — “racism”.
A couple of days ago Kansas became the latest state whose legislature has officially affirmed “American Law for American Courts”. In the following video, David Yerushalmi, the General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, discusses the issue with Ezra Levant.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this clip:
Below is an excerpt from American Law for American Courts (ALAC) explaining the rationale for the Kansas legislation, and other state legislation following the same model:
Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.
Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .
These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:
- Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
- Choice of law issues and
- Choice of forum or venue
Granting comity to a foreign judgment is 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.
The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.
By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preserving individual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.
None of this should be an issue. It’s only common sense. Unfortunately, we live in a time in which common sense has been suspended, suppressed, distorted, and destroyed by political correctness.
American Laws for American Courts. What could be simpler?
8 comments:
This seems crystal clear to me. A woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man under shariah.
I am thinking back several years to the international upset when muslim men were kidnapping children out of the U.S. and the mother could do nothing about it because the holding state operated under sharia.
Recently, a friend's daughter married an Algerian. My advice was to never allow the children to get passports.
So, anyone paying attention to the recent (and consistent) election upsets against Democrat as well as Republican incumbents?
Hmmm...
The average American's may no longer have a voice in the media, but they still have their vote.
Noticed story on creeping sharia that CAIR is trying to get governor not to sign this bill.
Unbelievable.
Although not directly applicable in the US, it is good to know that the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2003 that Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and individual rights. Key quotes on the implications of implementing Sharia in an otherwise secular society:
Firstly, it would do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights
and freedoms and the impartial organiser of the practice of the various beliefs and
religions in a democratic society, since it would oblige individuals to obey, not rules
laid down by the State in the exercise of its above-mentioned functions, but static rules
of law imposed by the religion concerned. But the State has a positive obligation to
ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys in full, and without being able to
waive them, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.
Secondly, such a system would undeniably infringe the principle of nondiscrimination
between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms,
which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. A difference in treatment
between individuals in all fields of public and private law according to their religion or
beliefs manifestly cannot be justified under the Convention, and more particularly
Article 14 thereof, which prohibits discrimination.
Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public
freedoms have no place in it. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements, which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole. It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Well, unless Europeans criticize the pedophile rapist homicidal genocidal psychopath Mohammed.
THEN, Sharia Law applies because Europeans must NOT say, see, read, or think anything 'negative' about THE worst Satanic prophet and his faux religion that worships and requires human slavery - and legalizes inferior slave status for Muslim women and children in addition to non-Muslims including the very Europeans who so lovingly protect their future slavemasters.
Egghead
(1) Sharia "law" is not, in fact a legal system, but a primitive method of social control, so it's entirely incompatible with the legal system of any democratic society, not only the US.
(2) Even the most liberal of democratic societies do not, in fact, allow complete 'religious freedom'
when the practice of a particular religion violates human rights. There are exceptions of course.
(3) Basically, the Islamists are calling for a parallel and separate "legal" system-- Sharia could not be incorporated into Western law. Only the most idiotic of useful idiots don't understand the Islamists' actual agenda
Multiculturalism at work.
Old Man
Even the most liberal of democratic societies do not, in fact, allow complete 'religious freedom' when the practice of a particular religion violates human rights. There are exceptions of course.
There is an important distinction between the right to have a religion and the right to exercise it. The former is unassailable, the latter is justly and meaningfully regulated by the law.
Since Islam has a very powerful public side to it, equally powerful regulation of that practice is fully in order.
If the universities hadn't been so corrupted by Islamic petrodollars in the past four decades and more, lawyers and judges would already know exactly what shari'a is, and would be aware that it is inimical to the US Constitution and to many federal, state, and local laws.
Obviously, had judges been abiding by their oaths of office to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitutions of their respective States, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Post a Comment