Rep. Carl Gatto listens to testimony during a hearing on his foreign law bill Wednesday, March, 30th, 2011, at the Alaska State Capitol. (KTUU/Carolyn Hall Jensen) |
A bill to ban foreign law in Alaska (HB 88) is generating some intense debate in the Legislature.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Gatto (R-Palmer) says he sees certain individuals linking religion with civil laws, and that the state needs to make clear that all individual rights are guaranteed and protected through the state and U.S. Constitutions.
"We want to give the courts some pretty good sideboards that absolutely tell us there are things you cannot do here in spite of the traditions from your old country," said Gatto at a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing on his bill.
Gatto said he's not targeting any one group, religion, or culture; but he writes in an initial sponsor statement that his bill is meant to prevent the influence of Shariah law into Alaska's court system. Much of the testimony Wednesday focused on Shariah law.
Shariah law is a set of Islamic principles and religious interpretations that have been adopted into the laws of certain countries, mostly in the Middle East.
Several groups called in Wednesday denouncing Shariah law – some defended it -- but it clearly bothered some lawmakers when the conversation stopped focusing on the bill at hand; and turned to a condemnation of certain religious and cultural values.
"I'm getting very uncomfortable at what I’m seeing as some fairly negative testimony against a large segment of society," said Rep. Lindsey Holmes (D-Anchorage) "and I think we're getting off into some pretty dangerous, divisive territory."
Another sticking point is the bill's effect on business relations. The latest version of the measure exempts corporations, but it does not leave out sole-proprietorships and individuals who have contracts with corporations.
Holmes, a contract attorney, said multi-national corporations frequently litigate in several countries, and that if a state were to require that certain court cases be held within its borders, companies would look elsewhere.
"That could have huge negative implications on business in the state," she said.
"If we want to make sure that the laws are clean and clear then we should support the bill," said Gatto earlier in the hearing.
The Department of Law echoed Holmes' concern about business relations, and said that it has not found any scenarios in which the bill would have a useful application to Alaska law.
The Judiciary Committee held the bill and will hear additional public testimony at a later date.
