“Islamophobes” in the Florida state legislature think that the third is a charm.
After anti-Shariah
legislation was killed and defeated in 2011 and 2012, Florida lawmakers
Larry Metz and Alan Hays are at it again, peddling laws to restrict OUR
religious freedom. These cleverly-worded bills
focus on family law, but are targeted specifically against Muslims and
impact the religious family laws of everyone—Muslims, Christians and
Jews. If passed, these anti-Shariah laws would restrict and/or deny the
use of religious law for matters involving marriage, divorce, and child
custody. Florida state senators Alan Hays
and Greg Evers have sponsored SB 58: Application of Foreign Law in
Certain Cases. Florida representative Larry Metz sponsored the companion
HB 351. We need your help to defeats these bills. “The Legislature’s leadership
should block this legislation because it is legally unwarranted and
morally abhorrent,” said David Barkey, counsel for Anti-Defamation
League, in the Tampa Tribune. Do not allow state legislators to
use the politics of hate and foxy ploys to limit your religious
freedoms. It was your support that defeated anti-Shariah laws in years
past. In 2013… prejudice and bigotry have no place in our country.” The movement to ban the practices of the Muslim faith, or Sharia,
is an unconstitional assault on our religious liberty. CAIR Florida has
defeated the effort to ban sharia and thereby restrict religious
freedom in 2010 and 2011.
Sunshine State News
One of the most controversial pieces of legislation confronting the
2013 session passed the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee
Thursday, largely along partisan lines, to curb the influence of
certain “foreign laws” in family court proceedings.
HB 351, formally titled “Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases” but more popularly referred to as THE “Anti-Sharia Bill.”
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Larry
Metz, R-Yalaha, is a scaled-down version of one that passed last year in
the House but failed in the Senate: it prohibits the application of
“any foreign law, legal code, or system” only in family law courts, if
that foreign legislation “does not grant the parties affected by the
ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and
privileges guaranteed by the state Constitution or the United States
Constitution.”
The four Democrats
on the House panel fielded a number of criticisms of the proposed
legislation: that it is redundant, is motived by anti-Muslim bigotry,
would paint Florida in a bad light for foreign investors, and would bog
the state down in costly litigation as its constitutionality is
challenged.
Metz struggled to offer concrete
examples of foreign law nefariously affecting Florida’s system of family
law when challenged to do so by Rep. Jim Waldman, D-Coconut Creek,
though he did offer a hypothetical example of when such a conflict might
arise:
“Let’s say a couple moves to the
United States and they have a prior agreement about the disposition of
assets that would occur in the event of a dissolution of marriage, and
it’s based on the law of a hypothetical foreign country. … Let’s assume
further that that country has a bias toward the male in the
relationship; the wife in that situation might object to the application
of foreign law.”
Waldman replied that Florida law already has mechanisms in place to protect a woman in such a scenario.
“This bill was triggered by blatant
bigotry; that is what this law came out of,” Waldman told the panel,
after citing several remarks by ultra-Orthodox Jewish attorney David
Yerushalmi, who authored the model “anti-sharia” legislation and who is
reported to have made disparaging remarks about African-Americans and
Jewish liberals. “It’s offensive, it doesn’t cure any problem that we
have, it is solely designed to get at what some people don’t like, and
that would be the Muslims. … It’s a waste of our time [and] it’s a waste
of our effort.”
“The fact of the matter is the bill
basically takes our fundamental rights, liberties, and privileges in our
federal and state constitutions and turns them into a front and center
filter through which foreign law will run if it is going to be applied
in a family law proceeding,” Metz countered. “I don’t know how that can
be offensive.”
No comments:
Post a Comment