Kansas lawmakers pass anti-Islamic law measure
Kansas state Sen. Ty Masterson, left, an Andover Republican, speaks in favor of a bill meant to prevent Kansas courts government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, as Sen. Tim Owens, right, an Overland Park Republican, waits to reply, Friday, May 11, 2012, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. Owens opposes the measure. / AP Photo/John Hanna
(AP) TOPEKA, Kan. - A bill designed to prevent Kansas courts or government agencies from making decisions based on Islamic or other foreign legal codes has cleared the state Legislature after a contentious debate about whether the measure upholds American values or appeals to prejudice against Muslims.
The Senate approved the bill Friday on a 33-3 vote. The House had approved it, 120-0, earlier in the week. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn't said whether he'll sign or veto the measure.
The measure doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says that courts, 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.
But several supporters specifically cited the potential use of Shariah law in Kansas as their concern. Though there are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law, supporters of the bill cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.
The bill's supporters said it simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said a vote for the legislation is a vote to protect women.
"In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights," Wagle said during the Senate's debate. "They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law."
The bill passed both chambers by wide margins because even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn't represent a specific political attack on Muslims.
"We don't have any intolerance in this bill. Nobody's stripped of their freedom of religion," said Sen. Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican. "This is talking about the law — American law, American courts."
But several senators noted that supporters of the bill have singled out Shariah law in talking about it.
"This bill will put Kansas in a light that says we are intolerant of any other faith," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican who voted against the bill. "I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I didn't stand up and say I don't want to be that kind of person and I don't want to be in a community or a state that is that way."
Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Conference of State Legislatures say anti-Shariah proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.
"It is an effort to demonize Islam," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based council. "As Muslims are seen participating in a positive way in society, that really irritates some people."
In Kansas, 45 House members, led by Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican sponsored a bill aimed at Shariah law last year. The House approved it overwhelmingly, but it stalled in the Senate; this year, the House pushed another version, and pressure built on senators.
Mast had a news conference Thursday to highlight the Sedgwick County case, in which Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor, filed for a divorce in November 2010 from his wife, Hala.
Their Islamic marriage contract, made in Lebanon, promised her a $5,000 payment should they split. He argued that the contract settled property issues, while Islamic law limited spousal maintenance payments to her to three months. Her attorney said in a court document that following Islamic law would leave her "destitute."
Hussein Hamdeh's attorney declined to comment because the case is pending. Hala Hamdeh's attorney did not return a telephone message seeking comment.
Sen. Garrett Love, a Montezuma Republican, said even if no Kansas court has yet based a decision on foreign legal codes, "That doesn't mean we shouldn't still protect Kansans from those foreign laws being used in the future — a future that really may not be that far away."
But several senators questioned whether the legislation is necessary, arguing Kansas judges and officials already must adhere to the U.S. and state constitutions. Hooper derided it as "an anti-unicorn" bill.
"All it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims," Hooper said.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Massive tornado hits Okla. 63 Photos
- Children rescued from elementary school in Okla. 11 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado carves trail of destruction Play Video
- 20 children among at least 51 left dead by Okla. tornado
- Severe tornado tears through Oklahoma City suburb Play Video
- At least 51 dead after massive Okla. tornado 92 Comments
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- Mile-wide tornado rips through Oklahoma City area
Soooo. You want American courts to base decisions on something other than American Law or the American Constitution?
---------------------------------------------------------
Poor Fedup, so ignorant of the practice of law. Consider the following:
Air Midwest (which no longer exists so it should not mind my using its name), based in the State of Kansas enters into a contract with Saudi Aramco (fka ARAMCO) for the purchase of all its jet fuel needs. The contract provides, as many commercial contracts do, for a choice of law clause, so that courts do not have to engage in a Conflicts of Law analysis to determine which nation's law should apply to the international contract. Conflicts of Law resolution has been part of the Common Law for hundreds of years and happens in all the courts of this country, and - in fact - just about every country in the world.
The choice of law clause in my example provides that Saudi law shall be the law of the contract. Air Midwest fails to honor the agreement (e.g., either it buys from other suppliers or it fails to pay Saudi Aramco) and Saudi Aramco comes to Kansas to sue Air Midwest for breach of contract. This new law would say that despite the informed agreement of two corporate giants to apply Saudi law, the court would dishonor the contract and apply American law. That is crazy.
It regards basic human rights in this country.
If you have a friend who is a lawyer, print out my hypothetical and have him or her explain it to you. You do not have the basics needed for a brief explanation. You just saw the word "international" and flicked the switch to off.
In brief, though, in my example, the parties to the contract chose Saudi law, i.e., Sharia law, because in Saudi Arabia, commercial contracts come under Sharia law. This idiotic statute says that two grown-up huge corporations cannot choose Saudi law as the law of their international commercial contract. This is an everyday occurrence in the courts.
Take another situation. An American company contracts with an Israeli company for the latter to purchase a Chinese subsidiary of the American company. The contract provides that the laws of the State of New York govern and that only the courts of New York have jurisdiction to hear the case. Israeli company sues in China. Don't you want the Chinese courts to honor the contract and tell the Israeli company that they have to go to New York? Same issue in reverse.
"It's the right wing religious extremists..."
"These are the same people that think anything even close to Islam is automatically 'the evil enemy'. Even if what they see in front of them is a Sihk from India - they'll still shriek 'Islam'...."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. The right wing religifreaks who shriek 'Islam' at the sight of a Sihk are sick in the head. (sorry, I just couldn't resist the alliteration)
Total B.S. -- Sharia Law like they practice in places like Iran, has absolutely nothing to do with the Rule of Law in the U.S., since we are protected by Our Constitution along with federal and state laws!
Please educate yourself, and stop parroting the usual fox/rush lies!
---------------------------------------------------
True it is not a huge problem.
The only thing the Kansas law did was enforce that in America American law reigns supreme. The pressure is real on Judges.
I do believe the Kansas Lawmakers probably had better things to do ... But hey I guess this legislation kept them from doing something really bad.
Yes, it is very ironic....and just where did the far-right get this delusional idea that a religious law like they practice in Iran, would suddenly trump our Constitution, federal and state laws?
This smacks of heavy Tea-Party influence and plays on the fears of an uneducated electorate.
It does show the heavy influence of FEARmongering by ignorant teabaggging extremists from the religious right!
fedup12 - you gotta be kidding me.
---------------------------------------
I wouldnt kid a kidder sarge :)
Robobomneycare much?
Typical juvenile attack by the fox/rush parrots, unable to see the difference between thinking Americans and the far-right extremists!
BTW, I've never belonged to any political party in my life!
So I think any time you can clarify issues with well written clear code it only helps judges and other law enforcement do their job.
Lots of time the problem is getting it in well written clear code.
It looks like even the Kansas Democrats (an endangered species) voted for this.