[Newsbot]

Title: Kansas gov. signs measure blocking Islamic law | Fox News
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: maldonsfecht
Date: 2012-05-26 08:54:53

[maldonsfecht]

The fact that foreign law, other than treaties, having no sway over American courts isn't a given anymore is worrisome... Our land, our rules. That goes double for religious edicts from theocratic lands, including Vatican City...

[xerxes]

Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.

$1:

administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

That is broad enough, it may include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.



So you are in favour of having Islamic courts in Canada ?

[Wada]

Well, for all those who complain about our present court system I'm a little surprised your not at least willing to try something new.

[CanadianJeff]

There was already a measure for this....it's called the 1st amendment of the constitution.

Oops that's right if we reference that we have to include the Christians wouldn't want that.

edit: Thanks for correcting me I did in fact totally get the amendments confused and quoted the wrong one entirely.

[xerxes]

martin14 martin14:

xerxes xerxes:

Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.

$1:

administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

That is broad enough, it may include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.



So you are in favour of having Islamic courts in Canada ?

Not in the least. Not because they're Islamic courts, but because our secular legal system shouldn't recognising religious jurisprudence be it Islamic, Jewish, Christian or whatever.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

xerxes xerxes:

Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.

$1:

administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

That is broad enough, it may include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.



So you are in favour of having Islamic courts in Canada ?

Toewsed three replies in. Call Guiness.

[sandorski]

Another pressing crisis averted!

[andyt]

I don't see what the problem is with the law as written - laws should grant parties the same rights as the state and US constitutions. I don't see how it could be otherwise - any law that infringed on those rights would be open for challenge. In fact that happens every day with laws passed by the various legislatures.

[DanSC]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

There was already a measure for this....it's called the 4th amendment of the constitution.

What do warrantless searches and seizures have to do with this?

[GreenTiger]

I don't think this law is necessary at all. The protections again the kind of weird extremist dogmatic oppressive edicts from twisted sects of Christian, Muslims or anybody else are in the Bill of Rights.

[BeaverFever]

This law is pretty pointless. As already mentioned, there is no threat that a "foreign" law would be used. This is pretty much a symbolic gesture to keep.the right-wing vote.

[Freakinoldguy]

Wada Wada:

Well, for all those who complain about our present court system I'm a little surprised your not at least willing to try something new.

As long as all it included was the good parts like, stonings, beheadings, public executions in sports stadiums and dismemberment, I might consider it.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

This law is pretty pointless. As already mentioned, there is no threat that a "foreign" law would be used. This is pretty much a symbolic gesture to keep.the right-wing vote.

Nope, it is not pointless.

$1:

Many are wondering whether a Pennsylvania judge went too far in dismissing a harassment charge against a Muslim who attacked a man for mocking Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

Atheist Ernie Perce had dressed up as what he called "Zombie Mohammed" for a march at a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

That's when Perce charges a Muslim man named Talaag Elbayomy attacked him on the street.

"He grabbed me, choked me from the back and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," Perce recalled.

Police charged the Muslim with harassment. But when the case went to court, Cumberland County's Judge Mark Martin not only threw it out, he slammed Perce for mocking Islam, calling him a "doofus."

So according to a Pennsylvania judge it is permissible for Muslims to physically assault people who 'mock' their religion because such a thing is illegal under islamic law. Never mind that the US Constitution makes free speech a right even if muslims don't like it.


Therefore the good people in Kansas got this one right.