Montana State Senator Janna Taylor has introduced a bill, “Primacy of Montana Law,” that would nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law. This is Montana’s version of an anti-Sharia law bill, modeled off similar legislation that has passed in Louisiana, Kansas and Tennessee.
Hamas-linked CAIR will no doubt complain that this law would violate the religious freedom of individual Muslims. Non-Muslims want to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. These anti-Sharia measures are aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars: Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. That is what people want to restrict, and the elements of Sharia that contradict Constitutional freedoms are all they want to restrict.
The measure comes up for a vote tomorrow. If you’re in Montana, be sure to contact your state senator.
“Foreign-law bill gets local support,” by Samuel Wilson, The Daily Inter Lake, February 9, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
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….
Joseph says
IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE LAWS IN THE U.S. THEN LEAVE.
I hope this bill passes too. We must not give up our sovereign rights to make our own laws. Laws based on the constitution and the ten commandments.
Don McKellar says
Sorry to burst your bubble, Joseph, but the ten commandments are not in accord with the Constitution or Montana’s laws. For example, worshipping the judeo-christian god alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. ALL OF THESE would be prohibited by this legislation — and rightfully so. They are unAmerican laws.
Don McKellar says
But of course you are free to do those things. You are not free to force them on other people. Just like moslems observing sharia law themselves, they must not be allowed to force them on other people.
Western Canadian says
They are not in the least un-American, they are part of the roots of your constitution, and are in no way contrary to it.
Joseph says
Thank you Pumpkin, the key word there was “based”. We’re all here to learn and if knowledge was gained for the better, then I’m OK with it.
Another point is for the Christians that are afraid to defend themselves to the point of the bad guy losing his life on the basis of “Thou shalt not kill” it is really “THOU SHALT NOT MURDER”. Big big difference.
Pinchas Baram says
excellent point which many people, Jews included, do not know (or choose not to know). The 6th commandment is, Do not MURDER, NOT do not Kill. Self-defense, personal or through collective warfare, is totally defended in the Torah. Indeed, there is a parallel statement in the Talmud: if one rises up to kill you, kill him first.
Judaism is not macho, but is certainly not pacifist. Unfortunately, as said, way too many Christians and Jews, especially the lefty/liberal Reform and Reconstructionist type, have “sanitized” this commandment so it’s more politically correct.
Pinchas Baram says
well said. the 6th commandment refers only to murder. killing for self-defense is justified in Judaism. (Talmud: if one rises to kill you, kill him first.) Judaism is not macho, but is certainly not pacifist.
Mo says
@ Joseph
“Another point is for the Christians that are afraid to defend themselves to the point of the bad guy losing his life on the basis of “Thou shalt not kill” it is really “THOU SHALT NOT MURDER”. Big big difference.”
Absolutely right! This is something I didn’t learn for quite some time. As you said, it does make a huge difference. Some people love to bring up “turning the other cheek” as proof that the Bible teaches complete pacifism. That’s nonsense. It’s not supported by other passages. This passage has to do with not taking personal revenge, especially for insults. It has nothing to do with self defense.
Self defense (to the point of lethal force, when necessary) is not prohibited in Scripture. Self defense on a national level is not prohibited either.
Rascal says
Muslims are free to leave if they feel they can not live by such harsh freedoms. There are still a few Sharia barbaric law countries in kicking around and you should feel right at home there beating your wife.
katherine says
What a relief to see that American States have more independent lawmaking mechanisms than those in Europe. a secret organization in Brussels that’s turning the EEC into an Islamic dictatorship.
This ‘Primacy of State Law’ legislation should be THE standard in every secular nation or federated state.
jihad3tracker says
THIS “PRIMACY” BILL — IF PASSED — WOULD BE A CONFIDENCE BUILDER FOR OTHER STATES, and a model for statutory language.
We can be sure that CAIR and its seditionist pals are working to convince elected officials in the U.S. that primacy laws are “Islamophobic”.
SO, PLEASE TAKE 5 MINUES to email the office of Montana state senator Janna Taylor with support. Mention your own favorite counter-jihad website resource.
Here are my own courageous champions, beside, of course, Jihadwatch :
http://www.inquiryintoislam.com / http://www.pamelageller.com / http://www.politicalislam.com / http://www.citizenwarrior.com / http://www.thereligionofpeace.com / http://www.answeringmuslims.com / http://www.barenakedislam.com.
You certainly have more suggestions . . .
katherine says
Happy to know that US states still have independent law-making mechanisms to thwart the sharia-law activists, especially now with the most dangerous traitor (mole?) in American history in the White House.
Compare this to the secretive organization in Brussels that’s imposing Islamic legislation all over Europe.
Do wish UKIP in Britain can break that country away from the death-trap.
For those who are not aware Sharia law is worse than Communism; it permeates every detailed aspect of a citizens life : how and what you eat : when and where you pray : what is and isn’t knowledge : who is and isn’t your enemy : when and with whom you must marry…… (the list is just too long). You are obliged to follow because there is absolutely no choice – the paramilitary units will enforce their god’s laws on his behalf.
Apologist Deceivers always claim that non-Muslims are not required to comply but that is a total lie as is evident in every nation that has fallen under its yoke. Please do not let that happen to the US.
Michael Copeland says
For a handy rhyming guide: “Your Easy Guide to Sharia Law”……
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5758-your-easy-guide-to-sharia-law
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Back in 2010 there was a similar movement in Oklahoma.
http://www.edmondsun.com/news/local_news/sharia-law-courts-likely-on-ballot/article_a9028340-24bd-5675-9b2a-9c62650e3cae.html
quotes the No. 2 imam at the home mosque of a congregant
named Jah’Keem Yisrael (slave name Alton Nolen):
==QUOTE==
Saad Mohammed, director of Islamic information for the Islamic Society of
Greater Oklahoma City, said 80 percent of the U.S. Constitution is
compatible with Sharia, which leads to justice and equality for all.
==UNQUOTE==
Imam Saad, who now goes by the nickname of
“Dr. 80”, must be very gratified to learn today from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/the-founding-muslims.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
that the NY Times now acknowledges that Sharia is
as Oklahoman as Gene Autry and the rodeo.
But what is astonishing about this latest report is that
the jinns of irony have been working overtime on
the first name of the heavenly sponsor of this bill,
Senator Jannah Taylor; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah
Kevin Walker says
Wish we could have such ‘Primacy of State Law’ in Canada, needs one desperately.
Just last week our Federal court ruled against the state legislation to ban burkas & niqabs during citizenship oath ceremonies.
If we’ve one such law then no corrupt or foolish judge could repeal a law passed in our parliament by our elected representatives on a whim.
BC says
Well Ms Rivas the fact is that sharia law contravenes almost every Western law that we have fought for for centuries to establish, so of course it is against Sharia law. If people are so passionate about sharia
there are plenty of countries where they can enjoy it. If they want to live in non Muslim countries and nobody is making them do so, they must accept the laws of the countries in which they live, as in fact non Muslims have to do in Islamic countries
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Back in 2010 there was a similar legal movement in Oklahoma.
http://www.edmondsun.com/news/local_news/sharia-law-courts-likely-on-ballot/article_a9028340-24bd-5675-9b2a-9c62650e3cae.html
quoted an imam of the mosque patronized by the Zionistically
named convert Jah’Keem Yisrael (slave name Alton Nolen):
==QUOTE==
Saad Mohammed, director of Islamic information for the Islamic Society of
Greater Oklahoma City, said 80 percent of the U.S. Constitution is
compatible with Sharia, which leads to justice and equality for all.
==UNQUOTE==
This imam, who has come to be nicknamed “Dr. 80”,
will be very gratified to learn that the NY Times, in
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/the-founding-muslims.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
now has acknowledged that Sharia is
as Oklahoman as Gene Autry and the rodeo.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Maybe we’re missing the big story here.
Take a look at the sponsor of this legislation:
Senator Jannah Taylor. It’s a heavenly gift
from the jinns of irony:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah
Ren says
The laws of the land will prevail whether muslims like it or not.
Elisheva says
Another big problem can be the Primacy of State Laws vs. Federal Law. Today the Federal Government is trying to control everything. We need to push back their powers.
Torquemada says
Why not reinstate the Inquisition while we are at it? It would be no different from what is going on with sharia courts. It would literally be the same thing! Just study the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe.
Western Canadian says
A good starting point for you would be to study the history of the inquisitions…. If you are so ignorant, repeat, IGNORANT!!! as to compare them to sharia, you have no business opening your mouth.
You should be ashamed of your level of ignorance.
Torquemada says
Oh, I have studied the history of the Inquisition. Authorizing sharia courts would mean compromising the principle of secularism, including the right to be free from religious rule and teachings. It would mean imposing religious rules and practices on people, which is exactly what the Inquisition did. Furthermore, the Inquisition was mainly concerned with heretics within the Catholic Church, not with people from other religions (the 15th century Spanish Jew hunt was an exception). Similarly, sharia courts are only concerned with Muslims. If their rulings gained legal force, Muslims would lose their constitutional right to be free from religious authority.
By the way, if you are objecting my comparison because of the torture committed by the Inquisition, let’s make some historical facts clear: first of all, the Inquisition was much more benevolent than its reputation. Many of the horror stories are just propaganda made up by Protestants and philosophers of the Enlightenment (not all of them, though). Second of all, the brutalities committed by present day Islamic regimes are much more frequent than those of the Inquisition. Beheading, whipping, crucifixion, stoning to death, amputations, they are going on all the time in countries like Saudi-Arabia. Believe me, I would prefer the Inquisition!
Angemon says
Torquemada posted:
“Furthermore, the Inquisition was mainly concerned with heretics within the Catholic Church, not with people from other religions (…) Similarly, sharia courts are only concerned with Muslims.”
Sharia law is supposed to apply to all, non-muslims included. And sharia law deals with more than religious practices – sharia has rules for finances, interpersonal relations, marriage, inheritance, etc. Quite different, in nature, from the Inquisition’s hunts for heretics.
Torquemada says
Yes, in Islamic countries it’s supposed to apply to all, but not if introduced in the United States. Indeed, it deals with more things than the Inquisition, which makes it more totalitarian (in Islamic countries ruled by the sharia) than the Catholic Church ever was in Europe. Therefore, it can have no official status in the US justice system.
Western Canadian says
You’ve contradicted your first post. Make up your mind, or employ /sarc off.
Joe Shmo says
This is great news and we need to acknowledge every small victory we can. I hope it passes, but it sounds like it will.
“Montanta Human Rights Network” I’m really doubting the efficacy and accountable of human rights in general in todays world. They seem to have become another tool for certain people to claim a moral high ground (like with hate speech etc), control the narrative and supercede national law makers. The European Court of Human Rights is a real pain in the eye teeth.
duh_swami says
The term, ‘foreign law’, is tricky since sharia is not exactly foreign. At one time it was foreign, but now it’s here, Mahoundians can never fully practice freedom of religion in the US because of sharia. Parts of it are unconstitutional, and already against established US law.
It will be interesting to see who votes against this measure.
Prinz Eugen says
Some hate-Amerika judge will probably declare this “unconstitutional.” We are no longer guided by the Constitution, but are being led to ruin by our traitorous khalifa, the 12th imam, Barry Sotero. Barry is in league with islam — our citizens and congress must wake up!
Angemon says
Because having American courts upholding American law is a bad thing, right?
What a turd. You don’t keep someone “on the margins” by making them follow the law of the land, you keep someone “on the margins” by ensuring they can do their “thing” even if it conflicts with the law of the land.
Huh, I don’t see Hindus pushing for Hindu law, or Jews and Christians pushing for Biblical law the same way muslims are pushing for sharia law, a aw that discriminates against muslim women and non-muslims. Islamic orthodoxy mandates sharia to be the law of the land and applicable to non-muslims, so what’s wrong with trying to make sure it doesn’t happen?
Praia says
Ah, nothing better than to fill your lungs with the sweet air that is free of Islam & Sharia
Keil says
All states should adopt similar legislation or enhance the existing. That goes for the nations of the EU too. All Western nations are under pressure from the ideology of Islam (aka Islamofascism). In the US CAIR is the forerunner for Sharia and in Europe various Islamic bodies such as Wahabism, Euro-Islam, Hamas shadow organizations press for inequality in the society.
Hummer says
Really glad to see Montana taking this up. It is not alarmist to stand up for American Laws for American Courts-that’s just plain common sense but it needs stated in law. Foreign law belongs in countries to which it applies not here. I too hope this passes. I like particularly what Tom Osborn said-just plain common sense. No stealth jihad here.
Mo says
I’ve always wanted to visit Montana.
Taking a step back, it’s a shame a law like this has to be made in the first place!
Roy says
What will this do for the UN treaties and laws they are trying to shove down our throats
jay says
Good. It’s not the Muslims that are the true threat, it’s their co-conspirators and the traitors. Muslims require their compliance to succeed, without it or with it restricted, their influence would be nil. We need to make sure our laws are protected by those who purposefully harm their own.