It is time to stand up for American rule of law and individual rights for all. And Montana is doing just that. Senate Bill 199, introduced by state Sen. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, would nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law contrary to rights guaranteed to Montanans by the state or U.S. constitutions.
Taylor’s bill is entitled “Primacy of Montana Law,” and prohibits the use of foreign laws and customs from being considered in a Montana court of law. This is Montana’s version of an anti-Sharia law bill, modeled off similar legislation that has passed in Louisiana, Kansas and Tennessee.
This bill has been introduced to Montana’s Senate Judiciary committee and will be voted on today. If you are in Montana, contact your state senator now and urge him or her to vote for this bill.
This should be the proverbial no-brainer. And yet, the fact that such laws are met with so much resistance, both overt and covert, indicates how very needed they are.
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 have 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.
For example, Islamic law contravenes American freedoms in numerous particulars.
We have seen sharia law in New Jersey. Back in July 2010, a Muslim husband raped his wife, and the judge determined that no sexual assault occurred because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex on demand from their husbands. Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court was not allowed to stand—this time. But there have been over a hundred cases of Sharia jurisprudence in the US, and Jeffery Mittman of the ACLU has testified that “all have been overturned by a higher courts, therefore there is no problem since the American constitutional system worked.” Of course, this begs the question of why should this have happened in the first place. Secondly, it is simply not true that all cases have been overturned. In fact, there are cases in CAL and MD in which trial courts were overturned by appellate courts, the latter of which turned the blind eye to the threat from shariah.
There are also ongoing initiatives to compel businesses to adopt Sharia norms. In March 2007, Target stores in Minneapolis shifted Muslim cashiers who refused to check out pork products to other jobs in the stores. The J. B. Swift meat packing plant in Greeley, Colorado in September 2008 fired Muslim workers who turned violent and walked off their jobs when denied special break periods to end the Ramadan fast at the appointed time. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, sided with the Muslim workers and forced Swift to reinstate them. Ultimately, Swift added footbaths and bidets to its plant for the Muslim workers. Cab drivers in the Minneapolis airport several years ago tried to stipulate that they wouldn’t carry passengers who had alcohol with them – passengers had to conform to Sharia law or not get a cab.
In November 2008, a federal judge ordered Gold’n Plump, Inc., a chicken processing plant, to pay $365,000 to Somali Muslim workers for firing them for walking off the job to pray, and for making new hires sign a form acknowledging that they may have to handle pork on the job. And in February 2010, a group of Muslims in Colorado sued Wal-Mart, claiming that they were fired in order to provide jobs for local non-Muslims, and that they had been denied prayer breaks while on the job. Mind you, it is not necessary for a Muslim to pray at a certain time if necessity makes it impossible to do so. These actions are merely devices in which to impose Islam on non-believers. Prayer is not absolutely required on a strict schedule, and Muslim prayers are commonly “made up” after work or school. This is true even in Muslim countries, i.e., Iran.
The irony is that the ACLU would oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties.
The idea “presented by Muslim Brotherhood groups that ‘Sharia Law’ is not actually ‘law,’ but religious traditions that provide guidance to Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith” or that ‘Sharia Law’ differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides is patently false. For example, in the Oklahoma case against the foreign law prohibition, the plaintiff stated that marrying more than one wife is permissible in Islam but in the United States, where that is illegal, Muslims do not marry more than one wife because Sharia in the United States mandates Muslims to abide by the law of the land and respect the law of their land.”
And yet in August 2007, when asked how common polygamy was among Muslims in the United States, unindicted co-conspirator CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper said that a “minority” of Muslims here were polygamous, and added: “Islamic scholars would differ on whether one could do so while living in the United States.” He didn’t say anything about Muslims in the U.S. being given pause by the fact that the practice remains illegal in the United States. Iman Aly Hindy, has stated this about the relationship between Islamic law and American law: “This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion. If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”
Apparently many Muslims in America as well as Canada think the same way. A May 2008 estimate found between 50,000 and 100,000 Muslims living in polygamous arrangements in the U.S., in defiance of American law. This shows that we need to stand against Sharia or Muslims will continue to defy American law and instead live according to Shariua dictates.
Legal expert David Yerushalmi, a pioneering legal authority in the drafting of such state laws, points out that “the global jihad leadership against which we have aligned most of our military and intelligence resources since 9/11 informs us in Arabic, Pashtu, Urdu, Persian, and even in English that the global jihad against the West is fundamentally directed and determined by Islamic law, or sharia. The jihad leaders further tell us that their ultimate goal, in addition to that of the ‘defensive jihad’ incumbent on every Muslim to rid the Islamic world of an occupying infidel presence is the implementation of sharia law as the law of the land in any place Muslims step foot.”
“Surveys in the Muslim world consistently evidence that somewhere between 50% to 70% of the global Muslim community desires to create a unified Caliphate for all Muslims and to order that political hegemony according to a strict al Qaeda-like sharia.”
The separation of mosque and state is essential to preserving American freedom and our way of life. Yet the Islamic supremacists have made real inroads. We have seen over the last few years the encroachment of Islam on the secular marketplace. Muslims have demanded, and received, special accommodation in public schools, in the workplace, in our government, and in privately owned businesses.
One only needs to look at the disintegration of Europe and the establishment all over that continent of enclaves in which Sharia is enforced and the law of the land disregarded, to glimpse a bleak future made possible by “good intentions” and the failure of multiculturalism. In those areas of Europe, women and non-Muslims suffer institutionalized discrimination, and there is no freedom of speech or freedom of conscience.
“Foreign-law bill gets local support,”
By SAMUEL WILSON/The Daily Inter Lake, February 9, 2015
HELENA — A state Senate committee hearing Friday drew over a dozen speakers from the Flathead Valley supporting a bill that would restrict the use of foreign laws in Montana courts.
Senate Bill 199, introduced by state Sen. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, would nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law contrary to rights guaranteed to Montanans by the state or U.S. constitutions.
The proposed law provides exceptions for business contracts and tribal court proceedings.
Taylor said her bill would particularly protect the rights of women and children, who do not necessarily receive the same protections under other legal systems that they do in the United States.
About 20 people, most from Kalispell, Bigfork and other locations in the Flathead Valley, spoke in favor of the bill at a Judiciary Committee hearing. They paid particular attention to Sharia law, the Islamic legal code.
“My concern is based on an awareness of the price we’ve paid to secure the freedoms that we have, that are enshrined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights,” Tom Osborn of Kalispell said. “It’s just unconscionable that we would allow any law, and in particular Sharia law, to violate the integrity of our rights and our country.”
Osborn referred to a case in which a man in New Jersey was acquitted after beating and raping his wife, with the court deferring to its permissibility under Sharia law. Osborn said ultimately an appellate court overturned the case.
Taylor explained her rationale for the bill by describing a case in which a Muslim man living in Michigan with his wife obtained a divorce in India, unbeknownst to his wife, and under Sharia law she was only granted property that she had brought into the marriage. A Michigan court upheld the Sharia court’s decision until the case was successfully appealed by his wife.
“She had no prior notice, no pronouncement, no right to be represented, no right to a lawyer and no right to be present for a hearing,” Taylor said.
Taylor said there were at least 50 cases in 23 states in which Sharia law was used in deciding a case. She added that the imposition of global laws could also pose a similar threat, referring to the United Nations as a potential source of legal problems in Montana courts.
Despite the insistence by Taylor and many of the speakers that the bill is not aimed at any specific group, several of the comments characterized Islam in strong terms.
“Emboldened by American weakness in the international arena … they are using the rights guaranteed under our Constitution to push their form of law as a religious right,” Davida Constant said. “This seventh-century, Middle Eastern, barbaric Islamic tribal practice … is now a threat to the civilized world.”
Rachel Carroll Rivas, representing the Montana Human Rights Network, was the only speaker to oppose the bill, pointing out that it is modeled after legislation developed by the American Public Policy Alliance called “American Laws for American Courts.”
“While this model is sold merely as a recommitment to upholding our constitutional rights, this model legislation is intended to indeed take on Sharia law,” she said, calling it “an effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam and to keep Muslims in the U.S. on the margins.”
Carroll Rivas also noted that the first version of the bill had explicitly targeted Sharia law and was struck down by a court after four months as law.
Taylor said Tennessee, Louisiana and Kansas had passed similar laws with several other states in the South and Midwest poised to do the same.
There was no committee discussion on the bill. Committee chairman Scott Sales set executive action on the bill for Tuesday.