Oklahoma is Safe from the Scourge of Sharia

Wingnuts • Views: 23,647

Yesterday the voters of Oklahoma sprang into action and passed landmark legislation to ban something that doesn’t exist.

Washington - Central US state of Oklahoma is to become the first state in the US to ban Islamic sharia law.

That’s the result of a voter initiative in the state that passed by a heavy majority in the midterm election on Tuesday night. State Question 755 amends the Oklahoma constitution to forbid courts in Oklahoma from considering sharia law or international law in reaching their decisions. With more than 60 per cent of precincts counted more than 70 per cent of voters had approved the measure, according to the Secretary of State’s website.

The measure was proposed by Republican State Representative Rex Duncan who said he was inspired to propose the constitutional amendment even though there have been no cases in Oklahoma in which judges had relied on international or sharia law.

‘I would describe this as a pre-emptive strike,’ he said. ‘We don’t want to let it get a toe-hold.’

Brilliant. A “preemptive strike” against a nonexistent right wing hallucination. Thank goodness Oklahoma is now safe from the Muslim boogeyman.

Jump to bottom

58 comments
1 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:15:01am

Whew! I was looking forward to a pork sandwich in Norman.

2 wrenchwench  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:15:16am

What about tigers?

3 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:15:42am

Are they the new white meat?

4 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:16:35am

Cognative dissonance is defined as the discomfort caused by holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

They're worried about Sharia Law, while they see to impose Dominionist doctrine in US Law.

That's not cognative dissonance, that's hypocrisy. Theocracy is Theocracy, no matter the guise.

5 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:18:15am

Since most US law is based off of British common law, does that mean that they have to throw out the entirety of Oklahoma law and start anew?

6 funky chicken  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:18:53am

Hey, we can apparently individually "opt out" of Obamacare too, thanks to a ballot initiative here. I wish I could "opt out" of having to live here, but my husband's job is in OK for at least two more years.

7 funky chicken  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:20:12am

re: #1 Jeff In Ohio

Whew! I was looking forward to a pork sandwich in Norman.

LOL. You'll have no problem finding one of those, I promise.

8 theheat  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:21:05am

Sharia law would really fuck their shit up as they inch toward a Christian theocracy and relegate the womenfolk to the broodmare band. Gotta TCOB one step at a time

9 darthstar  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:21:20am

Would someone be so kind as to flush Ron Paul in the previous thread before he comes in here and shits all over the place?

10 jamesfirecat  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:21:40am

Would anyone from Oklahoma like to buy my rock that keeps away tigers?

11 theheat  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:23:06am

re: #10 jamesfirecat

Does it repel witches as well? If so, let me know if you take PayPal.

12 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:23:43am

re: #4 PT Barnum

Cognative dissonance is defined as the discomfort caused by holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

They're worried about Sharia Law, while they seek to impose Dominionist doctrine in US Law.

That's not cognative dissonance, that's hypocrisy. Theocracy is Theocracy, no matter the guise.

I gotta get me a programmable keyboard so I can have it tell me to spell check before I post.

13 Ericus58  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:24:03am

re: #9 darthstar

Would someone be so kind as to flush Ron Paul in the previous thread before he comes in here and shits all over the place?

"Clean up, Aisle Three!"

14 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:24:16am

re: #11 theheat

Does it repel witches as well? If so, let me know if you take PayPal.

That's called a good education. Apparently Delaware had it last night.

15 darthstar  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:24:57am

re: #13 Ericus58

"Clean up, Aisle Three!"

I'm normally a pretty tolerant person, but when someone continually makes veiled racist comments, it makes the whole site look bad. This isn't Hot Air, after all.

16 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:26:34am

I think we gad it about that this is the Ron Paul. That oughta cause a great deal of fun.

17 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:27:50am

re: #16 PT Barnum

Gad it about? Shall we do it on the way to an ether frolic? I'll whip up a quick mimeograph on the subject; can you take a daguerreotype of him?

// with apologies to Patton Oswalt.

18 funky chicken  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:31:18am

Congrats to the GOP, I suppose, for managing to convince old people that Democrats (WTF?? the party of Truman, FD Roosevelt, and LBJ?) were going to take away their Medicare...which is probably behind that stupid ballot measure I mentioned above that would allow people to individually opt-out of health care reform.

[Link: www.newsweek.com...]


On Tuesday, this senior support helped Republican candidates get the results they wanted. But in the long run, it may prove to be a double-edged sword. It is difficult, for example, to fulfill your promises to balance the budget and reduce the national debt without enacting substantive reforms to Medicare and Social Security, and it's almost impossible to reform Medicare and Social Security if your most important constituents are the people who benefit the most from those programs. The result is a lot of hypocrisy—like Republicans resisting precisely the kind of Medicare cuts they've advocated for decades—and a potential split between spending-obsessed Tea Partiers and the establishment conservatives who know they owe their jobs to seniors.
19 Basho  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:34:19am

30% voted against it??

20 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:34:27am

re: #17 Obdicut

Gad it about? Shall we do it on the way to an ether frolic? I'll whip up a quick mimeograph on the subject; can you take a daguerreotype of him?

// with apologies to Patton Oswalt.

Would bandy it about have been any better?

Though better ad pedant than a pedarast I suppose.

21 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:35:27am

re: #20 PT Barnum

Would bandy it about have been any better?

Though better ad pedant than a pedarast I suppose.

Charles can we get a posting box that knows what we mean to say and spell checks based on that? Get on that will you?

//

22 Slap  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:35:47am

re: #4 PT Barnum

No dissonance here.

Now that they've handled the virulent scourge of Sharia, they're free to focus on their own war on terror women's bodies.

23 Nervous Norvous  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:38:21am

Got an email from an ex friend (he became a total wingnut and became difficult to even talk to) this morning. It consisted of a subject line: "No, you can't"

If I cared enough to bother I will send him a similar email at the start of Obama's second term: "Neither could you"

24 SmithCommaJohn  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:41:18am

I wonder how this will affect arbitration clauses in private contracts that call for disputes arising from the contracts to be resolved in private arbitration, under Sharia. Those are typically enforceable.

Will they remain enforceable?

Or can we just add the right to contract to the list of "fundamental" rights that conservatives hold dear, along with religious freedom, family autonomy, and property rights, that now only apply if you're not Muslim?

25 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:43:48am

re: #5 Obdicut

Since most US law is based off of British common law, does that mean that they have to throw out the entirety of Oklahoma law and start anew?

Well I suppose they won't be starting anew with this exciting new aspect of British law.......[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

26 Decatur Deb  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:43:53am

Looking for a fairly comprehensive wrap-up. Nate Silver is still showing the "Forecast" pages. Looks to be close to his middle ground predictions, with a few bright spots. I'll run an update to the Lizard anti-nominee page later.

27 darthstar  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:44:32am

OT: bidding on another house today (last one we were outbid)...patio view looking back at bedrooms


Wish me luck.

28 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:44:35am

re: #25 barflytom

I don't think you really understood what I said.

Do you get that US law derives largely from British common law?

29 lawhawk  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:46:35am

re: #27 darthstar

Looks like a nice house with what seems to be a great view. Just be sure to get a home inspector/engineer in to check and make sure that everything is up to snuff - don't want to get any nasty surprises after you move in. Good luck!

30 Big Steve  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:46:48am

I live in Galveston county Texas. It is usually fairly balanced in elections because the city of Galveston generally goes Democratic while the rest of the county Republican. Every single local race in the county went Rebulican yesterday. Swept out was a long time and very effective County Commission leader along with the Lerk of Courts. Nearly every election was a 60:40 split republican to democrate. I did a little math on this in comparison to past elections. For this result to happen and for the ratio to be so consistent, nearly a quarter of the electorate must have pulled the one party republican lever. It is pretty amazing to me that the lady who talks to juries and gives them instructions basically lost her job over what Obama has done or not done in Washington.

31 theheat  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:47:37am

re: #26 Decatur Deb

I'm looking forward to it. I was just checking the Do Not Vote For Any Reason peeps against the ones who won. I kept the list!

32 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:55:58am

re: #28 Obdicut

I don't think you really understood what I said.

Do you get that US law derives largely from British common law?

Yes. I was born there.

Do you not find it a bit odd that Britain is now recognising some parts of sharia law ? Oklahoma isn't exactly the West Midlands, so their "pre-emptive strike" is more a gesture than anything, but what's wrong with reasserting that there is one set of laws for everyone ?

33 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 9:59:24am

re: #32 barflytom

I'm sorry, but you're still not understanding what I'm saying.

This law says that US courts may not consider any foreign law. US law derives from and is based off of foreign law. So, given that the original reasoning for many US laws lies in British common law, doesn't this law imply that for any law that cannot be derived solely from the constitution and decisions stemming from it, there can be no decisions made?

If not, why not?

but what's wrong with reasserting that there is one set of laws for everyone ?

There was no capability of sharia law supplanting US law in the first place, though. This law hasn't changed that one whit.

34 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:11:30am

re: #33 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but you're still not understanding what I'm saying.

This law says that US courts may not consider any foreign law. US law derives from and is based off of foreign law. So, given that the original reasoning for many US laws lies in British common law, doesn't this law imply that for any law that cannot be derived solely from the constitution and decisions stemming from it, there can be no decisions made?

If not, why not?

I did get your rather silly point the first time. I assume they can distinguish between US enacted laws and legal precedent and, for example, some ruling by a court in the Hague, which I assume is the point of excluding "Foreign" laws from consideration.

35 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:13:40am

re: #34 barflytom

You're really not understanding my point at all, I'm afraid.

This law rejects the consideration of foreign laws.

The nature of US law is that it is derived from a foreign source.

Do you get that?

36 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:21:04am

Oklahoma and the rest of America was safe from Sharia Law as soon as we ratified the First Amendment.

I can only assume that this is Oklahoma's first step in abolishing that...

37 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:28:10am

re: #35 Obdicut

You're really not understanding my point at all, I'm afraid.

This law rejects the consideration of foreign laws.

The nature of US law is that it is derived from a foreign source.

Do you get that?

Yes, I'm not 3 years old. You're splitting hairs. If a state has adopted a particular form of law since it came into existence as a state, then those laws aren't "foreign" in any meaningful way, wherever the legal tradition they're based on comes from.

You know perfectly well that the intention is to stop courts from considering some trendy piece of human rights law or whatever because it suits them.

38 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:31:14am

re: #37 barflytom

Yes, I'm not 3 years old. You're splitting hairs. If a state has adopted a particular form of law since it came into existence as a state, then those laws aren't "foreign" in any meaningful way, wherever the legal tradition they're based on comes from.

So, in other words, it's like that our laws, even though they're derived from foreign sources, have, because of our constitution and our interpretation of those laws, become ours.

Nifty.


You know perfectly well that the intention is to stop courts from considering some trendy piece of human rights law or whatever because it suits them.

Oh really? That's why it specifically talks about Sharia law?

39 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 10:58:33am

re: #38 Obdicut


Oh really? That's why it specifically talks about Sharia law?

The article mentions International law and sharia law. If you want to define "International" law as "laws that have been in place since before the state entered the union but which happen to be based on English common law" then you're the one (deliberately) missing the point.

You haven't said anything about the irony of the country which gave you the tradition of common law now recognising sharia law in civil cases.

And by the way, Mr Hair Splitter, there's no "British" common law. The laws of England and Wales ain't the same thing as Scottish law.

40 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:02:32am

re: #39 barflytom

there's no "British" common law. The laws of England and Wales ain't the same thing as Scottish law.

Sorta like how the Brits all call all Americans "Yanks" even if we come from Alabama...

41 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:08:03am

re: #39 barflytom

Why does it talk specifically about civil law?


You haven't said anything about the irony of the country which gave you the tradition of common law now recognising sharia law in civil cases.

It recognizes sharia law as contractual law in so far as it doesn't come into conflict with British law. Do you understand that?


And by the way, Mr Hair Splitter, there's no "British" common law. The laws of England and Wales ain't the same thing as Scottish law.

Actually, it is and has been for awhile. Though they have different roots, the House of Lords was the final court of appeal (until that got changed recently) for both Scottish and English courts. So, in final appeal, they're the same Common Law.

And you're simply wrong about Welsh law, sorry. That's been English common law for a long time. They've recently gained some law-making powers of their own, but only since 2007.

42 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:08:07am

re: #40 ralphieboy

Sorta like how the Brits all call all Americans "Yanks" even if we come from Alabama...


I've cured myself of that one long ago ! Doesn't go down too well where I live now !

43 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:08:31am

re: #41 Obdicut

Why does it talk specifically about civil Sharia law?

PIMF.

44 Kronocide  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:15:27am

Good think this is on the books when it will be needed in 300 years. Way to be out in front Oklahoma!

45 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:32:31am

re: #41 Obdicut


And you're simply wrong about Welsh law, sorry. That's been English common law for a long time. They've recently gained some law-making powers of their own, but only since 2007.

Wow, that's fascinating.

I did tell you I was born in the UK didn't I ?
I didn't mention specifically that I'm from Wales, and lived there for 30 years.

The laws of "England and Wales" is a common term. I thought it was obvious to a distinguished legal scholar such as yourself what I was talking about.

I prefer not to be reminded about the Welsh Assembly.

46 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:35:46am

re: #42 barflytom

I've cured myself of that one long ago ! Doesn't go down too well where I live now !

We talk about "Holland" even though that is only one province of the Netherlands, The French call the Germans "Allemands", although the Allemannen were only one of the Germanic tribes, the Italians call them "Tedeschi" after the Teutons, who were also just one of the tribes.

And my wife is from Scotland, and she does not like being referred to as "English"

47 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:37:29am

re: #45 barflytom

I'm not a legal scholar in the least. I do, however, know that even though Scotland had it's own tradition of common law, the house of lords was the final court of appeal for Scotland as well as for England and Wales.

And again, on Sharia law in Britain:

It recognizes sharia law as contractual law in so far as it doesn't come into conflict with British law. Do you understand that?

48 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 12:15:31pm

re: #47 Obdicut

Scotland had it's own tradition of common law

That was the hair-splitting point I was making.


It recognizes sharia law as contractual law in so far as it doesn't come into conflict with British law.

That's the intention no doubt, but it seems a bit optimistic to think that principle will survive very long. If the same outcome could be achieved under either law, there wouldn't be much point in having separate systems would there ?

I can see a case for Indian tribes, for example, having some jurisdiction over their own affairs. There is absolutely no case for setting up a parallel legal system to suit a particular ethnic or religious group of relatively recent immigrants. Once you've conceded the point that particular groups of people can set up their own legal system outside the existing civil courts, you're on a rather slippery slope I think.

49 Charles Johnson  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 12:23:03pm

re: #48 barflytom

That's the intention no doubt, but it seems a bit optimistic to think that principle will survive very long. If the same outcome could be achieved under either law, there wouldn't be much point in having separate systems would there ?

No, that's not the "intention," that's the ruling. I know it conflicts with the narrative that "Britain allows shariah law," and that's why you're trying to make light of it, but it's the key point -- if shariah arbitration conflicts with British law, it will not apply. Period.

50 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 12:32:33pm

re: #48 barflytom

That was the hair-splitting point I was making.


That's the intention no doubt, but it seems a bit optimistic to think that principle will survive very long. If the same outcome could be achieved under either law, there wouldn't be much point in having separate systems would there ?

.

You bring up another point: Britain colonized a number of predominantly Muslim countries and imported entire Muslim communities as immigrants.

We also allow Native American jurisdiction over the reservations, as long as Tribal Law does not conflict with Federal Law.

51 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 1:10:30pm

re: #49 Charles

No, that's not the "intention," that's the ruling. I know it conflicts with the narrative that "Britain allows shariah law," and that's why you're trying to make light of it, but it's the key point -- if shariah arbitration conflicts with British law, it will not apply. Period.

Granted that shariah arbitration is only enforceable in very limited circumstances - for now. I don't share your confidence in future British governments - or even the current one - holding the line there. It's also not hard to imagine the higher courts being, let's say, rather flexible in deciding what does or doesn't conflict with British law.

How the system works in practice is another matter again. If, for example, Muslim women were being coerced into submitting to "voluntary" arbitration, I don't have much confidence that the police or courts would make any great effort to safeguard their interests.

52 Obdicut  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 1:19:06pm

re: #51 barflytom

If you doubt the court's ability that much, then what on earth does the introduction or not of Sharia law in civil courts matter? I mean, your portrayal of British courts is that they don't actually care about holding the line on British law at all.

You don't seem to have any faith whatsoever in the UK's legal system.

And you seem, for some reason, to think that, even if that were true, that applies to the US legal system as well.

53 Ming  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 1:24:51pm

Gee, I wonder if Oklahoma will also pass a resolution against Christian biblical law.

54 barflytom  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 1:39:03pm

re: #52 Obdicut

You don't seem to have any faith whatsoever in the UK's legal system.

Well, now I think about it........

A fellow I was in school with, who used to address everyone as "comrade", was recently appointed as a High Court judge.
Cherie Blair is a judge as well, which should tell you something about the calibre of people at the top of the UK legal system.

I don't see the introduction of sharia as a step in the right direction though.
Ignoring EU law and firing every judge and chief constable with trendy ideas would be a start.

55 claw  Wed, Nov 3, 2010 11:54:38pm

Imagine that, passing a law to ensure that judges only use the constitution and our laws to try cases. What a bunch of radicals.

56 chupa  Thu, Nov 4, 2010 6:59:43am

re: #49 Charles

I know it conflicts with the narrative that "Britain allows shariah law," and that's why you're trying to make light of it, but it's the key point -- if shariah arbitration conflicts with British law, it will not apply. Period.

Unfortunately for those most affected by Shariah courts (women), they do not always have the option to have their cases overturned in a regular court. And, even when they understand that the option exists, they are put under tremendously strong community and peer pressure to utilize the Shariah system if available even if it will not grant the fairest verdict.

While I think this initiative in Oklahoma is unwarranted and a little silly, I also do not see it as that big of a deal. Stating that no other legal system will carry weight in the US doesn't hurt anyone as far as I can see, even if they are specifically targeting what is currently a non existent threat.

57 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 4, 2010 7:44:39am

re: #56 chupa

Unfortunately for those most affected by Shariah courts (women), they do not always have the option to have their cases overturned in a regular court. And, even when they understand that the option exists, they are put under tremendously strong community and peer pressure to utilize the Shariah system if available even if it will not grant the fairest verdict.

58 Obdicut  Thu, Nov 4, 2010 8:00:35am

re: #56 chupa

Whoops, lost my comment.

1. If women are being coerced into not seeking proper legal protection, that issue exists with or without the existence of sharia arbitration courts. The courts are in the open and overseen by the UK legal system. If women are being coerced, that is a problem in and of itself, not of the arbitration courts.

2. The law actually forbids judges from considering any other foreign legal decisions when coming to a conclusion. This means that even if there's a case that was excellently reasoned in a country with very similar legal principles to us, they can't include it. Can you explain what the value of this is?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 84 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 257 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1