Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State.
Photo: Associated Press via Politico
Laws targeting the non-existent threat of sharia, or Islamic law, in the U.S. have already been introduced in 31 states. But Republicans clearly want to see sharia targeted in all 50 states, with one official now hoping that the recently published GOP platform inspires even more more initiatives targeting sharia law.
Earlier this week, I noted that Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State and a right-wing anti-immigrant activist, inserted a plank into the GOP party platform targeting “foreign law.” While the word “sharia” does not appear in the now-released Republican platform, Kobach was explicit about who he was targeting when he was making the case for why his amendment should go into the platform.
“Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is inimical to the spirit of the Constitution,” the GOP platform states. “There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts’ adjudication of criminal or civil matters.”
Though party platforms “are often mocked as unread and unimportant,” as the New York Times put it today, Kobach is banking on his amendment mattering. He wants the platform plank to spark more calls to ban sharia–despite the fact that “there is no evidence that Islamic law is encroaching on our courts,” as a 2011 ACLU report (pdf) noted. In fact, it’s not even possible for Islamic law to “encroach” on the US Constitution, considering the “supremacy clause.”
But that doesn’t matter to Kobach. Appearing on sharia fear-monger Frank Gaffney’s radio show last week, Kobach says that “we’d like to see all of the states take a firm stand against Sharia law being used in their courts.”
Courtesy of Right Wing Watch, here’s the full back and forth on this between Kobach and former Congressman Fred Grandy (filling in for Gaffney on his radio show):
Grandy: Is this a way of saying through the Republican Party organs that perhaps these kinds of Kansas-like provisions should be introduced at the state level around the country?
Kobach: Absolutely, that is the unequivocal intent and I don’t think anyone reading ou[r] platform could come to any other conclusion. We’d like to see all of the states take a firm stand against Sharia law being used in their courts.
Grandy: I would have to say that particularly for those states where you have Republican dominated legislatures that have been somewhat reluctant to even consider this, or as in the case of Kansas had some pushback from some different minded Republicans, this is a terribly encouraging step. Because if the Republican Party nationally can say ‘no foreign laws in foreign courts’ particularly at the state level, because the point you make about it obviously being a threat from the top-down with the U.S. Supreme Court, but we also have to be mindful of the threat bottom-up at the state level, is something that I think enhances those of us that are trying to advance this initiative around the country in legislatures that up to this point have not been receptive.
Kobach: I hope so and I think it will allow state legislators who are trying to move similar legislation like Kansas’s and other states, they can point to the national party platform and say, ‘hey look, this is part of our national platform, this is not some unheard of or imaginary threat, this is part of the national Republican Party platform,’ and hopefully that will help assuage concerns that some of the more wobbly Republicans might have.
If they follow Kobach’s advice, state legislators should prepare for court battles ahead. An Oklahoma law targeting Islamic law was struck down early this year.
“There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts’ adjudication of criminal or civil matters.”
Thank Heaven that neither the Congress nor the Republican Party have the power to alter the Constitution. It allows Congress to prescribe punishments for offenses against the Laws of Nations, but that body cannot abolish them. It remains the job of the Judicial branch to rule on what exactly those laws have to say.
If we compare the results of the civil cases brought by Rachael Corrie’s family to the cases brought by the relatives of the Pakistanis killed by our CIA contractor, the Sharia Courts begin to look a lot more civilized than their Israeli counterparts.
RE: “Laws targeting the non-existent threat of sharia, or Islamic law, in the U.S. have already been introduced in 31 states.” ~ Alex Kane
MY COMMENT: Thanks in no small measure to Pamela Gellar’s “white supremacist” attorney, David Yerushalmi!
SEE: “David Yerushalmi, Islam-Hating White Supremacist Inspires Anti-Sharia Bills Sweeping Tea Party Nation, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam,
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com
P.S. ALSO SPEAKING OF ‘WHITE SUPREMACISTS’, SEE:
“UK Jewish Chronicle Hosts BNP White Supremacist Blogger”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 4/17/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to richardsilverstein.com
P.P.S. MEET THE BNP/EDL: This Is England, 2006, NR, 100 minutes
Set in 1983, this semiautobiographical drama from writer-director Shane Meadows follows a lonely 11-year-old boy named Shaun as he grieves over the recent death of his father, who was killed fighting in the Falklands War. When he falls in with a gang of young skinheads, Shaun’s pain and anger make him susceptible to carrying out the group’s hateful agenda, exposing a dark side of modern Britain not often seen in the movies.
Cast: Thomas Turgoose, Andrew Shim, Stephen Graham, Kieran Hardcastle, Frank Harper, Jo Hartley, George Newton, Jack O’Connell
Netflix Availability: Streaming and DVD
NETFLIX LISTING – link to movies.netflix.com
This Is England Trailer HQ (VIDEO, 02:28) – link to youtube.com
P.P.S. MORE OF THAT IRREPRESSIBLE URCHIN, THOMAS TURGOOSE – link to movies.netflix.com
Somers Town, Movie Trailer (VIDEO, 02:04) – link to youtube.com
Instead of wasting time, energy, resources, and money on proposing laws to address issues that DON’T exist in America, how about addressing issues that DO exist like failing school systems, racially motivated violence (like the recent shooting of Sikhs), maybe homelessness, poverty, white collar crime/corporate fraud, arms trading with repressive regimes like in Bahrain, Yemen, and Israel, sex trafficking, child abuse…are any of these important issues anymore?????????? How about addressing the shrinking of U.S. civil rights? How about addressing impunity, lack of transparence and accountability in regard to illegal actions perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Are we still pretending that Guantanamo Bay doesn’t exist? What about Bradley Manning and the freedom of information?
I have a different take on this. Outside of a border state like Arizona, the Republicans would rather not commit to a broad-ranging attack on America’s open immigration policy. Thus, they focus upon peripheral issues like border fences and opposition to amnesty for the undocumented. At the same time, they know that the conservative (and indeed much of the liberal) population in this country is susceptible to anti-immigrant xenophobia. The Republicans, by using anti-Islamic and anti-sharia rhetoric can essentially exploit anti-immigrant sentiments without coming out against the immigration of cheap labor that American business wants and that the Israel lobby is in favor of.
We see this in Europe as well. Anti-immigrant politics is elided with Islamophobia as a way of scapegoating Muslims, promoting Israel, but at the same time preventing xenophobia from taking on the openly anti-foreigner and white nationalist character it might otherwise assume.
i agree with you ranji. there is no real broad political support for preventing the entry of illegals (a term i hate) into the country, who, when needed, provide a cheap labor pool, a means of keeping wages depressed, and an easy target for unemployed, underpaid citizens. i think in magic circles, it’s called ‘misdirection’. (the anti-’sharia’ movement is just more evidence of national psychopathology. delusional or dishonest. i don’t think there are any other possible explanations for handwringing over the imposition of sharia law. muslims can’t even build a mosque on private property without a sh*t storm of controversy.)
Sounds just like the “Talmudic law” scaremongers (no, I won’t provide links), except that they are treated like the racist nutcases they are. This is very very scary.
Hope the Mondo team takes the time to listen to the Diane Rehm hour on Syria. The panel was unbelievably lopsided. All supported more U.S. military intervention. Diane never challenged never questioned just went along with the PNAC blueprint for the middle east. She had a woman on from the UNHCR repeating all sorts of information about Syrian refugees. Diane never even had the UNHCR on her program to discuss how many Iraqi refugees our invasion of that country created. Never a whisper. Not a mention of Egyptian President Morsi’s suggestion that a “contact group” be formed to negotiate with the Assad regime through peaceful means and diplomacy. Not a mention. This was one of the most lop sided panels I have ever heard on her show. One of the guest mentions that the Holocaust museum is now calling the Syrian situation a “genocide”. Did anyone ever hear the Holocaust museum folks call the deaths in Iraq created by our invasion a “genocide” Sickening and disturbing program. Diane and the Rehm team have not only stopped doing any shows on the other side of the I/P story. They are actively promoting the PNAC plan for Syria. Recently did a show on Hezbollah. Helping build support for ongoing U.S. policies in the middle east..not challenging at all.
Hopefully the anti-Sharia legislation will outlaw arranged marriages for women, such as is the case with Hasidic and many Orthodox Jews.