news Canadian News
Good Evening Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Kansas gov. signs measure blocking Islamic law

Canadian Content
20858news upnews down

Kansas gov. signs measure blocking Islamic law | Fox News


Law & Order | 208575 hits | May 26 8:54 am | Posted by: maldonsfecht
22 Comment

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.

Comments

  1. by avatar maldonsfecht
    Sat May 26, 2012 4:02 pm
    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...

  2. by avatar xerxes
    Sat May 26, 2012 4:12 pm
    Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.

  3. by avatar martin14
    Sat May 26, 2012 4:35 pm
    "xerxes" said
    Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.



    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 ?

  4. by avatar Wada
    Sat May 26, 2012 4:40 pm
    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.

  5. by avatar CanadianJeff
    Sat May 26, 2012 5:11 pm
    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.

  6. by avatar xerxes
    Sat May 26, 2012 8:10 pm
    "martin14" said
    Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.



    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.

  7. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Sat May 26, 2012 10:20 pm
    "martin14" said
    Oh no. Edicts from the Vatican are fine. It's only Islam that's singled out with this law.



    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.

  8. by avatar sandorski
    Sat May 26, 2012 10:45 pm
    Another pressing crisis averted!

  9. by avatar andyt
    Sat May 26, 2012 10:51 pm
    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.

  10. by avatar DanSC
    Sun May 27, 2012 1:01 am
    "CanadianJeff" said
    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?

  11. by avatar GreenTiger
    Tue May 29, 2012 10:44 pm
    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.

  12. by avatar BeaverFever
    Wed May 30, 2012 12:48 pm
    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.

  13. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Wed May 30, 2012 1:49 pm
    "Wada" said
    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. 8O

  14. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Wed May 30, 2012 3:52 pm
    "BeaverFever" said
    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.

    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.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net