Doc's Talk: Why American Law for American Courts is Needed

Monday, April 15, 2013

Why American Law for American Courts is Needed

creeping

Thanks to Jerry Gordon at The Iconoclast where you can read the complete article.

Why American Law for American Courts is Needed
American Law for American Courts (ALAC) is ground breaking legislation seeking to ensure that courts have the requisite instructions to protect individual rights guaranteed in both State and Federal Constitutions. It is non-discriminatory and does not contain an outright ban on foreign law. Nor is Islamic Sharia law even mentioned. It seeks to provide protection to those most vulnerable in family law litigation, women and children. ALAC has been enacted in four states: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. It is currently pending in Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.
…
Evidence of why ALAC is needed
So why is ALAC needed in Florida and elsewhere? Let’s look at some evidence.
The Washington, DC–based Center for Security Policy in a 2011 report, Shariah Law and American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases, found 50 cases involving Sharia law in more than 23 states. At the trial court level 15 cases found Sharia to be applicable; at the Appellate Court Level, 12. Four of those cases were in Florida. Let’s look at some illustrative examples.

…
Florida: A graphic example is a case not included in the CSP study of Florida cases, that of Rifqa Bary.
Four years ago, a petit teenager seeking religious freedom huddled with her guardian ad litem in an Orlando Circuit Courtroom. Presiding Judge Daniel Dawson was in a quandary over whether he had jurisdiction despite concerns for her safety. Her name was Rifqa Bary. A native of Sri Lanka, she was seeking a basic freedom, the right to choose her faith by converting from Islam to Christianity. A right guaranteed under the State of Florida and US Constitutions, as well as Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Miss Bary had run away from her home in Columbus, Ohio seeking sanctuary in Florida. Her parents had demanded access to her and that she return to their belief community for counseling. This despite the fact that they and their daughter were illegal immigrants in this country. Miss Bary’s life was threatened in her country of origin because of her change in faith. She had been physically abused in her home. She was being treated for uterine cancer. Despite all of these daunting vicissitudes Miss Bary would complete her high school studies near the top of her class. Yet, the Florida Circuit Court did not believe it had the authority to rule in the matter except to remand Ms. Bary to the custody of the Juvenile Court in Franklin County, Ohio.
In an Iconoclast post we noted the challenging circumstances and the innovative solution propounded by Bary’s legal team at Ohio hearings in November 2009:
The petition before the court is for dependency, because Rifqa fears being sent home to her family. Her fears reflect a history of abuse, of being taken back to Sri Lanka and the distinct possibility of her being fatally punished under Sharia law for her apostasy as a Muslim who converted to Christianity. If the dependency petition filing is approved then Rifqa would become a ward (dependent) of the State of Ohio. She would then be automatically eligible for a fast track to obtain a Green Card under US immigration rules, regardless of the immigration status of her parents.
Her parents, Mohammed and Aysha have stayed beyond the limits of their 2005 Visa. They are here illegally under US immigration rules. Further, they have not complied with several court orders in Florida to produce their visas and passports. These facts – and not the family’s tax problems – are evidence of her parents’ unlawful behavior. If anything her parents’ tax problems make it more likely they would return immediately to Sri Lanka if the Ohio court ordered Rifqa returned. She is obviously afraid of being taken back there. Her parents therefore do not fear a US ICE order to leave America.
In August 2010, the Franklin County, Ohio Juvenile Court Judge Mary Goodrich ruled in favor of Ms. Bary’s dependency. A local Ohio news report cited Judge Goodrich’s stipulation:

“It’s not in the girl’s best interest to return her to her native Sri Lanka. Bary is (also) an illegal immigrant. The ruling allows her attorneys to file for a special immigration status to allow her to stay in the U.S. while she continues medical treatment following recent surgery for uterine cancer.”

Noted author, psychoanalyst and feminist Phyllis Chesler wrote this about the Franklin County Ohio Juvenile Court decision:

Thus, this case shows America at its best: A system that is capable of non-racism, a system that bears no hatred towards foreign aliens. This case is about legally rescuing a juvenile from serious harm at home and also honoring a very young girl’s right, no matter what her skin color or immigration status might be, to practice the religion of her choice.

The Rifqa Bary matter was not resolved under Florida family law. It clearly demonstrates why SB58 is needed to protect the individual rights of parties in such litigation.
There are those who argue that Florida SB58 – application of foreign law in certain cases – is unnecessary and duplicative of existing laws. Further, they suggest that the judiciary has the requisite knowledge to rule in such complicated family law and custody matters. We have heard arguments presented by Florida family and international law experts and Senators in prior hearings on SB58 that Florida Courts should recognize foreign customs regarding family law. That the failure to do so would hamper international trade in Florida. Muslim advocacy witnesses from Emerge USA at hearings on SB58 have even presented novel theories that English common law, exempted under Title 2 of SB58, discriminated against persons by virtue their faiths, sex or race. According to Rabbi Hausman these claims are false. See: Hausman: Jewish Domestic Law is Not Threatened by American Law for American Courts.
Rabbi Jonathan Hausman noted why SB58 is the answer:

The United States has a Constitution under which the government functions, and the Bill of Rights which protects basic human rights and freedoms – rights derived from the Almighty according to the secular foundational documents of these United States – freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of assembly. The key question in this debate is; does foreign law as a legal system act in consonance with the Constitutional legal principles so cherished by and supported by over two centuries of American case law or does it stand for a diminution of the rights of many segments of our population? SB58 is the answer to this question. It is one of the surest methods to protect our Constitutional legal system.

Rifqa Bary was guaranteed those rights in an Ohio Courtroom, not in Florida where her matter originated. Her case amply demonstrates why SB58 should be enacted into Florida Law.
Also see Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk