Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Over the Rainbow in Kansas: Anti-Sharia Legislation Passes Undercover of ‘Women’s Rights’ Rhetoric

Posted on 13 May 2012 by Emperor

Dorothy…we’re still in Kansas?:

Kansas Legislature Passes Discriminatory Anti-Muslim Bill By Calling It A ‘Women’s Rights’ Issue

by Faiz Shakir (ThinkProgress)

Last week, the Kansas Senate became the latest state to enact a discriminatory measure against Muslims in America by passing a so-called Sharia ban. The bill goes before Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who has not indicated whethere he will sign or veto it.

Oklahoma passed a Sharia ban by ballot in 2010, but that measure has been deemed facially unconstitutional by the courts because it specifically targets Muslims for discrimination. Because of Oklahoma’s experience, state legislatures are moving bills that are more oblique about their discriminatory intent. South Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona, and Tennessee have all passed laws that ban “foreign law in American courts” and don’t mention Muslims or Sharia by name.

Kansas’ proposed anti-Muslim law also similarly asserts it is about promoting “American law for American courts.” (Note: the Constitution already establishes this in its Supremacy Clause.) Kansas Republican state Sen. Chris Steineger noted, the measure was “presented” to him as a billspecifically targeting Muslims:

But Sen. Chris Steineger, R-Kansas City, said a marketing campaign by supporters of the bill inundated him with materials that “explain why sharia law is coming and Muslims are trying to take over America.”

“I thought that was quite ludicrous at the time, and I still do,” Steineger said. “I pointed this out, because this was not presented as protecting the Kansas Constitution. The proponents of this measure, clearly by the literature they gave me and by the video link they directed me to, they presented this as protecting us against sharia law. Despite the fact that this doesn’t mention sharia, that’s how this whole issue was presented.”

Indeed, Kansas was bombarded by anti-Sharia emails and letters from out-of-staters. The bill’s sponsors and advocates proclaimed that it was really about protecting “women’s rights.” The bill helps “women know the rights they have in America,” said sate Rep. Peggy Mast (R). “To me, this is a women’s rights issue,” said Sen. Susan Wagle (R). Nevermind that these same legislators have been engaged in a war against women’s healthPlanned Parenthoodthe right to choose, and so many other far more relevant “women’s rights” causes.

Right-wing legislators have been pushing Sharia bans across the country; roughly 20 other states are also considering similar legislation. The anti-Sharia legislative movement was spawned by David Yerushalmi, an influential Islamophobic lawyer who we profiled last year in Fear, Inc.

The anti-Sharia movement continues despite the fact that no evidence has been provided that there is any threat that a Sharia takeover is occurring. Kansas Republican state Sen. John Vratil “said he quizzed the bill’s supporters on when a Kansas court had ever based a decision on sharia law and had yet to be provided with an example.” As Vratil asserted, “Ladies and gentleman, this isa solution in search of a problem.” True, unless you are someone who views the increasing presence of Muslims in America as the problem.

  • http://webdawah.blogspot.com/ Webdawah

    The fight against Sharia is born of ignorance. Sharia has never replaced or sought to replace penal codes of any country where a secular constitution already exists. Sharia, like other religious laws guide civil disputes, especially in marital, inheritance, financial matters etc.

  • workingstiff

    @ mindy1

    Why are they wasting precious resources on this crap? Because its important, thats why. Most people in the US want no part of Sharia law (stoning men or women is barbaric for one thing) and outlawing Sharia is an affirmation of america’s democratic and humanistic values. So just say no to Sharia law (or canon law or any other religious law).

  • Hatethehaterz

    @critical dragon: it’s not ironic at all. It makes perfect sense actually that those who are doing the most to harm women’s rights are also attacking Islam. Islam gives rights and freedom to women and protects them.

  • Abdul-Rahman

    @deccal

    The only time any form of religious law (be that Islamic Shari’ah law, Jewish Halakha law, Catholic Canon Law, etc) comes into play is in very small issues usually relating to issues of divorces, child custody, and some business issues. In the case of Shari’ah law this website made an interesting point: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108010026

    “In the United States, Shariah, like Jewish law, most commonly surfaces in court through divorce and custody proceedings or in commercial litigation. Often these cases involve contracts that failed to be resolved in a religious setting. Shariah can also figure in cases involving foreign laws, for example in tort claims against businesses in Muslim countries. It then falls to the American judge to examine the religious issues at hand before making a ruling based on federal or state law.”

    So unless you want to try to outlaw religions all together I don’t know how you can stop some cases of divorces, child custody, business issues or something else that originally started out in a religious court but could not be settled there then going to a general court. Because people are going to get married often according to their faith be that Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, etc.

    Then generally for this silly Kansas law it is cleverly worded bigotry, xenophobe, and fear mongering against Muslims. It is as many people have noted modern day McCarthyism (funny and disturbing that many on the right wing today also try to defend the legacy of Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism against the supposed “Red Menace” in the US itself from that past history).

  • Haddock

    @Deccal This is not about “secularism”, and you know it. If the good people of Kansas State Government were so concerned about “foreign law”, then why are there only signs decrying Sharia Law? Hmmm? Why were there no signs with verses from the Bible, which state that a non-virgin wife must be stoned to death if she was not a virgin before her wedding night? Why were there no signs decrying Sati, the ancient practice among some Hindus where a widow would “jump in the fire” of her husband’s funeral pyre, and kill herself?

    The fact that the Sharia is the only “foreign” law that gets mentioned in these “debates”, is a good indication that it’s more about Muslim-bashing than “upholding secularism” or “protecting women’s rights.”

  • deccal

    @Dawood, its law on a civil level. If I go to Saudi, I am subject to Sharia, if I am in America, I should not be subject to religious law. The United States is not a confessionalist state, religious courts should not exist in any capacity at all imho (this includes Jewish and Christian courts) even for the purpose of adjudication. Secularism is the way to go.

  • Christian-friend

    question; what is sharia (please keep it simple) and why are they opposing it?

  • mindy1

    Good god, WHY ARE THEY STILL WASTING PRECIOUS RESOURCES ON THIS CRAP!?!?!?

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold?feature=mhee CriticalDragon1177

    @Emperor

    Isn’t it Ironic how the people who are doing the most to actually harm women and take away their rights, are now pushing for this in the name of protecting women’s rights?

  • Amanda

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65733.html

    Senator Susan Wagle said that it was passed for women’s rights because they stone women in countries with Shari’ah Law. However, she failed to mention stoning is done more to men than to women and only for serious crimes and that it’s not illegal for a man in her own state to beat his wife for no reason whatsoever.

  • Dawood

    If it’s so oblique as to not allow *any* foreign law in American courts, then I think there might be a bit of a problem when it comes to international trade agreements and contracts using things like British law, French or other European laws and so on. Oh well, hopefully Kansas doesn’t rely on such things as a major part of the state’s revenue.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here