Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne came under fire in March as the Irving City Council put forth a resolution that sought to ban foreign law from being a part of Texas. Ultimately, this would do away with Islamic Sharia and the Islamic tribunal that was erected in Dallas. She warned Islamists that she would not be bullied shortly after the firestorm. On Thursday, Van Duyne penned an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News calling all of the controversy that had been generated by the resolution to ban foreign law in Texas “baffling,” and warned that she will not be deterred in standing against foreign law in Texas.
“My repeated commitment to uphold the primacy of American law and constitutional protections for Texans, including and especially immigrant women, has been characterized as something like a hate campaign,” wrote Van Duyne.
From the outset of her postings on Facebook, she was clear that the resolution was to protect the people’s rights and ensure that they were not violated by upholding constitutional law. However, the outrage from the Muslim community had her perplexed.
“It is baffling to comprehend the amount of controversy generated by my support as mayor of Irving for a state law that simply asks family law judges to uphold American fundamental constitutional rights when deciding a case that involves a conflicting foreign law,” she wrote. “Most often the victims of unjust foreign law are women and from immigrant communities. How can defending these newcomers to America be considered disrespectful or hateful?”
She then pointed out the recent establishment of the Islamic tribunal, which had its own share of problems as it used taqiyyah to push the propaganda that those involved were attorneys when the reality was they were not.
“The controversy was compounded by the recent news that Texas has a functioning Shariah tribunal in Dallas,” Mayor Van Duyne wrote. “It is true that I was alarmed by this development since Shariah law is clerically based and there is no evidence that this “court” (as it was called initially) aligns its determinations with American laws. Nor is there any procedural guarantee that constitutional rights are protected in this setting. Indeed, the very members of this “court” were holding themselves forth as both “attorneys” and “judges” despite the fact that none of them held a law degree or was licensed to practice in Texas. From inception, this was a violation of our laws.”
Not only that, but at least one of the members of this tribunal supports the designated terrorist Muslim Brotherhood group and prays for Muslims to see victory in Somalia, Palestine, Egypt, Syria and, no doubt, America.
The Irving Mayor also pointed out that though these tribunals claim to be “non-binding,” they are anything but that.
“Currently, Texas courts allow parties to subject themselves to foreign laws rather than state laws in family law matters (see the case Jabri vs. Qaddura from 2003). It states, ‘Once the party establishes the claim within the arbitration agreement, the trial court must compel arbitration and stay its own proceedings,'” she pointed out. “In other words, as much as we have heard that these tribunals are ‘nonbinding,’ the fact is they are enforceable in Texas courts even when foreign law is the foundation. Also of note, Texas has the third most Shariah law cases in the country.”
Van Duyne then pointed to a 40-page report, which is a British study of England’s nearly 85 Shariah courts. She found that most disturbing thing in that report to be the mistreatment of women under those tribunals.
“Americans should learn the errors of the British system and take prudent, measured actions to both educate, inform and secure the rights of women in our nation,” the Mayor warned.
I agree, but it isn’t just women who suffer under Shariah courts in Britain. A Christian pastor was tried, sentenced, fined and threatened with imprisonment by one of these UK Shariah judges for preaching out against sodomy and Islam.
According to Mayor Van Duyne, many women have contacted her and been appreciative of her courage to tackle this issue, stand her ground and be a voice for them. Then she leveled a warning to those who seek to attack her.
“Those who have worked to demean my intent and demonize my actions may not care about protecting these women, but that will not deter me from standing for them and their rights on American soil.”
So far, HB562, which would protect marriages and parent-child relationships from loss of constitutional rights to foreign laws, and HB670, which would reinforce the state’s civil code by preventing courts, arbitrators or administrative judges from basing any ruling ‘on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate’ a constitutional right, are both pending in committees.