Monday, March 24, 2014

The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Law Society

Of course the guidance notes issued by The Law Society on the provision of Sharia-compliant wills do not represent a change in the law of England and Wales. No one said they did, but this seems to be the principal objection to the previous "overstated" article and the substantive assertion for it being a "non-story".

This is not just a professional trade body explaining how its members may best serve the interests of its Muslim clients within the current law. This is The Law Society of England and Wales adopting and propagating Islamic law even where it conflicts with human rights and equality legislation. Of course their recognition of Sharia-compliant wills does not confer legal right: it is for the courts to determine whether such anti-women, anti-gay, anti-kuffar, anti-illegitimate inequalities, if contested, may be enforced. But the recognition by The Law Society that such discrimination may be written into a will amounts to a de facto apologia for Sharia, and that is bound to deter all manner of gay/female/apostate/illegitimate Muslims from ever contesting a will in case it should result in community "pressure" to comply with the wishes of the deceased.

But this guidance is also not a "non-story" because it shows The Law Society to be hypocritical, duplicitous and fundamentally anti-Christian.

Two years ago they revoked a booking made by Christian Concern and others for a debate on the nature of marriage. It was part of a family values coalition, the World Congress of Families, and the colloquium was entitled ‘One man. One woman. Making the case for marriage for the good of society’.

Despite having previously agreed to host this conference at their HQ in Chancery Lane, the Law Society cancelled it at short notice and explained by email that the event “is contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage”.

It must be observed that this new "diversity policy" was adopted before any change in the law.

Chief Executive of the Law Society Desmond Hudson said: “We are proud of our role in promoting diversity in the solicitors’ profession and felt that the content of this conference sat uncomfortably with our stance."

Funny, isn't it, that a Christian group seeking merely to debate the legal, hetero-normative and biblical view of marriage is contrary to The Law Society's diversity policy, "espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage", yet guidance issued by The Law Society on Sharia-compliant wills does not contravene its diversity policy, despite espousing, as it does, an ethos which manifestly discriminates against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims.


Blogger English Pensioner said...

Suppose a solicitor prepares a will in accordance with sharia law, would someone disadvantaged by the will be able to contest it under British law? It seem that this could be more work for the legal profession - perhaps that's the idea!

24 March 2014 at 10:38  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The dog thst did not bark...the mysterious alliance between left-liberal ciltural revolutionaries and Islam, despite the clear threat posed by Islam to open, liberal society.

Can anyone solve this mystery?

24 March 2014 at 10:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Steve, Happy Jack says it is likely to do with money, as suggested by English Pensioner. Can't have Muslim lawyers cornering the market for a population on the rise.

24 March 2014 at 10:50  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

So Jack, the learned ones have never heard Lenin's dictum ' When the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.'

And lend us the money to pay for it too......

24 March 2014 at 11:02  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, I suggest that all these 'small' concessions to islam and sharia law, can be regarded as feeding us an elephant in small pieces. Further, I'd say that the vast majority of people in our country are normal in thought and behaviour and we are bemused at what is being done because normal, sane people would not do this to themselves and others.

24 March 2014 at 11:05  
Blogger William Lewis said...

We had the BBC and now the Law Society demonstrates its liberal credentials by tripping over its absurd hierarchy of contradictory rights.

As long as it's "diversity" i.e. not Christian, heteronormative or white or English or male, then it must be OK - simples.

24 March 2014 at 11:06  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

The hypocrisy of the Law Society is grotesque in the extreme.

I am a law graduate and used to be a member of the society but the legal profession and the Law Society that represents it are very, very different from those that existed thirty years ago when I graduated.

Whereas the LS may not make law (of course that is Parliament) it is nevertheless the most influential organisation on the legal profession. It is also true that its guidance and regulations have an influence on those who make our laws, so its guidance in this area may well herald an eventual shift in the law to accommodate Sharia.

The LS is also woefully short-sighted on this difficult issue. On the 7th March 2014 the LS issued a press release condemning a terrorist attack on a Pakistani court in Islamabad, in which terrorists killed 11 even people, including a judge. A Taliban splinter group called Ahrar-ul-Hind was responsible for the attack, saying the courts were targeted because they are not bound by the strict Islamic (Sharia) law that should govern the entire country.

Yet in this country, those who wish to promote what is in essence the same Islamic legal system (some of whom having already shown themselves willing to resort to murder to prosecute their objective) are issued with clear guidance as to how they might do so.


24 March 2014 at 11:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

The Law Society of England is creating a pincer movement, Your Grace, and nothing beats a good conspiracy theory. As we know, the British state holds that an independent judiciary is a key element in the implementation of the rule of law. As part of a range of measures that ensure this goal, the legal profession is allowed extraordinary powers of self-regulation, and more importantly, this matters. If the chartered accountants, the chartered surveyors or the chartered actuaries take a walk on the wild side, British democracy and the British state are not immediately threatened. But if the lawyers actively subvert the system, in potential breach of their obligations as officers of the Court, it is time to be deeply concerned. Such is the power of the legal lobby that any government that starts a fight with the lawyers is embarking on a high risk strategy. The lawyers are, after all, extremely well represented in the Parliament and ex-officio, key members of the establishment. Thus a dispute between the Government and the legal profession has the potential to turn very nasty indeed.

Like the BBC, the legal profession seems to have been captured by the ideological enemies of British society. Is this merely a coincidence? Or is it part of some very well thought out game plan?

The Attorney-General is clearly going to have to have words, to intervene. In doing so he risks screeches of indignation from the Labour lawyers and their fellow travellers. One can imagine the shocked and appalled op-eds in the Guardian and similar fury emanating from the BBC too. What the lawyers are doing is only politically feasible if the support of the BBC and the Guardian has been pre-arranged. So, has it?

In any event, the encroachment of sharia and the double standards being advocated by the lawyers' professional body cannot go unchallenged in Whitehall. It must be time for the Government to wind back the use of sharia, by statute.

24 March 2014 at 11:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

As English Pensioner today, and OIGIO yesterday, both noted; Follow the money.


"Two lawyers can always make a living in a town where one would starve to death"

24 March 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Rambling Steve @ 10:45

How about, 'My enemy's enemy is my friend'?

24 March 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ bluedog (11:35)—is it part of some very well thought out game plan?

I think the game plan centres on the fact that it is professional suicide not to celebrate diversity. If, in the process, you can give Christianity a kick in the teeth, so much the better—turning against your own people and your own culture is proof positive that you free of any suspicion of racism. It’s eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where livelihoods depended on toeing the party line and dissidents became non-persons.

24 March 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

" it shows The Law Society to be hypocritical, duplicitous and fundamentally anti-Christian."

Couldn't agree more.

The different treatment of Christians and muslims under the law reveals an indisputable bias towards the latter. This is a good example of how multi-culturalism endss up defeating itself by practising the very prejudices it aims to defeat.

24 March 2014 at 12:34  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

There's been a rather curious statement from the Law Society that they were simply "reponding to demand".

Since when is the law of the land changed for a particular minority without the expressed will of Parliament? Is this kind of "making it uo as they go along" the beginning of the demise of our legal system?

24 March 2014 at 12:43  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...


This is not an actual change in the law, but rather a set of recommendations which may, in fact, prove contrary to existing legislation relating to equality and succession (which, for example, guarantees dependent children a share of the estate, irrespective of the wishes expressed in a will).

Ironically (comically) the LS may have left itself open to legal action from an aggrieved party where an attempt has been make to exclude that person from inheritance based upon the LS's 'illegal' advice.

That would be fun.

24 March 2014 at 13:09  
Blogger Owl said...

Exporer and Bluedog have summed it up rather nicely.

'My enemy's enemy is my friend'


'conspiracy theory'

puts everything in place.

Who or what is the common enemy and what arguement can be derided as a conspiracy theory?

No prizes for guessing?

24 March 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger Simon said...

There are two aspects of the Law Society. One is as the governing body for solicitors. The other is as a members club for solicitors, which solicitors may, but do not have to, join; and many do not join it.

The guidance is issued in its first capacity. It is for writing wills in accordance with long established English law which replicate the passing of the estate as it would under Sharia. Sharia might not provide what we regard as the best division, but it has to be better for the wife and children than giving the lot to Battersea Dogs' Home.

In refusing to allow a meeting on its premises, it was acting as a members' club. The decision was disgraceful, but I will defend the right of a members' club to make bad decisions.

There are few organisations as capable of getting it wrong as the Law Society. It is a mark of just how misguided these attacks are that I can even be bothered to defend it.

24 March 2014 at 14:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Law Society is doing what the rest of the Establishment is doing; treating Islam as if its just another benign religion. It isn't; it's another complete, social, global concept; ratcheting up its endless demands, notch by notch by notch: not by revolution (yet), but by stealth.

Worse still, by association it is lending legitimacy to a set of laws that were constructed to stand alone with no intention other than to be the only law Shari'a - that is the translation what the word is 'Law'

In the case of a will of a male who can 'have' four wives, who gets what has to be decided in this Country has to be within British Law. Muslims in other lands, don't educate their women for their own unjust reasons; an illiterate woman without access to representation is a victim if injustice. There should be no place in our society for accommodations that reduce women to chattels.

Been there.

Done it.

Undone it.

No apologies for repeating this from the preceding post:

It's a typical example of the liberal nature of British laws/customs being bent to illiberal ends by a large community that does not share the basic cultural assumptions behind it.

24 March 2014 at 14:41  
Blogger 4thwatch said...

Simon 14.33

Dogs Home? Sharia?

You have lost me. Of course no Will written under Sharia could possibly entail anything to a Dogs Home.

Presumably the LS would use client representation as its defence.

Intervention by Statute to curb Sharia 'creep' sounds good. Curbing the lawyers ditto.

Lawyers are the new postmen.

24 March 2014 at 14:54  
Blogger William Lewis said...

"Sharia might not provide what we regard as the best division, but it has to be better for the wife and children than giving the lot to Battersea Dogs' Home."

So the Law Society is issuing Sharia compliant guidance to stop Muslims giving all their money to the Batersea Dog's Home. Yes, it all makes sense now. They do love their doggies after all. Thanks for clearing that up Simon.

Obviously it's the members club that follows diversity/equality rules etc whereas the governing body of solicitors doesn't need to bother with that nonsense. Did someone say duplicitous?

24 March 2014 at 15:02  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Further to my comment of 12:05, it occurred to me, while washing up after lunch, that some of the most effective kicks in the general direction of Christianity’s teeth are delivered by senior clergy of the Church of England, who defend Islam, curse the pro-Christian BNP and EDL, and call for the adoption of Islamic law. They clear the path for Christianity’s mortal enemy but, on the plus side, no one can call them racist. In today’s Britain, nothing else matters.

24 March 2014 at 15:10  
Blogger dav phi said...

Well, although I agree with His Grace I also feel that none of this will change until those who are in power, or hoping to gain power, are given the most almighty shock. If you are concerned register that at the ballot box. Until then, all people can do is whinge and witter!

24 March 2014 at 16:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Excellent post Dr C. I don't know enough about what the Law Society has said about Sharia to get cross about it, in itself. But the hypocrisy is extraordinary. We were all equal under the law. If that principle still holds they have some explaining to do.

Since when did the judiciary because an instrument of the left?

24 March 2014 at 16:40  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

so much accommodation for minorities - and yes, or course, a society can be measured by the way it regards minorities and the safeguards in place to protect them - but what about the majority of folk who are not moslem and who find their heritage, culture and beliefs constantly brushed aside? It's hard being a revolutionary in a crinoline (though of late I have often thought it is the perfect garb for hiding a band of armed assassins, provided they promised not to 'look up'), but one is tempted to throw one's lot in with the Chartists and demand change...that hopey think Mr Obama promised and flucked up. I'm feeling very dyspeptic this evening, perhaps dear Happy Jack would busk awhile in my boudoir whilst the Bishop is voting in the Lords to abolish Harriet Harman.

24 March 2014 at 19:16  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Apropos of nothing, did anyone else know that Archbishop Welby's father was a bootlegger in prohibition America and the one-time lover of Vanessa Redgrave? Is she really that old?

24 March 2014 at 19:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Could not his Grace gather together his ashes and intercede with the Almighty to resurrect Mr Disraeli to make a political come-back? These are desperate times...

24 March 2014 at 19:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack would welcome the chance to play in your boudoir. (Don't tell Explorer though as he will be jealous).

24 March 2014 at 19:40  
Blogger Roy said...

Funny, isn't it, that a Christian group seeking merely to debate the legal, hetero-normative and biblical view of marriage is contrary to The Law Society's diversity policy, "espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage", yet guidance issued by The Law Society on Sharia-compliant wills does not contravene its diversity policy, despite espousing, as it does, an ethos which manifestly discriminates against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims.

Haven't any journalists of the major newspapers asked the Law Society how they explain their double standards? I don't suppose their is any chance that a BBC or Channel 4 reporter would feel like challenging the Law Society. They would be more likely to help them to bury the news.

What about members of the Law Society? Are there any lawyers of integrity in Britain? If so, are they members of the Law Society? If they are, why aren't they challenging this double standard?

24 March 2014 at 20:15  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Mrs Proudie 19:19

Goodness me Mrs Proudie. Has the Jupiter stooped to printing such titillation? The mind boggles at what they will start printing on page 3. Ladies without bonnets perhaps?

24 March 2014 at 20:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack @ 19:40

I might just slip a word to the Bishop.

Then you'd be the one hiding out in Rambling Steve's forest.

24 March 2014 at 20:44  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Hear Hear, that Bluedog at 11:35 !!

For some reason never completely understood by the Inspector, these professional bodies have NEVER been accredited as to what they actually are. To wit, trade unions. Not even glorified trade unions, at that – just run of the mill trade unions, but only for white collars, and maybe a few letters behind their name.

So it should come as no surprise to us all that just as the manually skilled unions were infiltrated by left wing cultural Marxists, so it’s Zulu Dawn for these types now. The sons and daughters of solicitors who went to university, corrupted there by small m Marxism, and afterwards joining the family business taking their revolutionary kit with them. It was only a matter of time before these blighters started running the Law Society. Their time has arrived, don’t you know !

‘Diversity policy’ indeed ! Where the hell did that one come from - the back of a cigarette packet in a trendy restaurant ? The decent thing to do is it, in the opinion of their crippled thought pattern ? Were the members canvassed on this, or is it a case of what we frequently find in autocratic lefty organisations these days, THE ISSUE WAS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE BROUGHT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MEMBERS, (lest it be thrown in the bin…).

One is in absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of legal types are quite content with their comfortable lifestyle and are not revolutionaries. They might even decide that their professional body might one day once again reflect this…

24 March 2014 at 20:44  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Mr 45 Minutes - what a strange appellation I do declare, especially as it refers exactly to the time it takes me to wake my Lord the Bishop from his slumbers after Sunday luncheon. Oh my goodness...perhaps you are indeed he...that would explain his time spent in the library consulting 'the church fathers.'

24 March 2014 at 21:17  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Mr Inspector, I had no idea the brave defenders of Rorke's Drift were Marxists...does that make the Zulu impis proto-Capitalists?

24 March 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Happy Jack, do you Morris dance? I have a sneaky suspicion that you do...

24 March 2014 at 21:19  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

One does think you have it the wrong way round, Mrs Proudie, dear heart.

By the way, one is listening to the excellent Robert Plant, and his group who’s name escapes at the moment. Suffice to say, so inspired is the Inspector by the heavenly sounds forthcoming that the next time he visits Barchester, you might allow him to give you “every inch of his love”, which whatever it is, is a sign of deep action in Rock and Roll circles. {AHEM}

24 March 2014 at 21:35  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

"Affection" even.

Damn spell checker, ruining a rare romantic moment like that...

24 March 2014 at 21:37  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Inspector, I stand corrected, and await the planting with baited breath...

24 March 2014 at 21:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Heavens, Mrs Proudie @ 19.19. You say, 'Apropos of nothing, did anyone else know that Archbishop Welby's father was a bootlegger in prohibition America...'

What are you trying to tell us, that Welby is the illegitimate son of Joseph P Kennedy and long lost younger brother of Jack?

24 March 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack hopes you can live up to Mrs Proudie's expectations. We all expect a full report.

25 March 2014 at 00:28  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The FCO has just published a Foreign Office Research Analyst paper-
The Christian Churches in Latin America

25 March 2014 at 01:30  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The GDR was culturally Christian.
All the important Christian festivals were holidays.

25 March 2014 at 01:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Perhaps Happy Jack should see the movie the " Crying Game" before contemplating games in Mrs Proudie's boudoir.

These boudoir sporting activities are suited to more worldly ambidexterous types like the Inspector and the Explorer.

The shock of the encounter could render you speechless and you may never be able to busk again!

25 March 2014 at 03:13  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Ispector 20.44 yesterday.
No contradiction between being left leaning cultural revolutionaries and drinking Champagne. I assume you have heard of John Mortimer, Tony Blair and ( pardon the expression) Haariet Harman? Champagne socialist lawyers every one, and there are many more.

Long march through the institutions.

The mystery remains why cultural Marxists should be aiding Islam to replace what's left of our fading Judaeo Christian cultural heritage when the most superficial research reveals that Islam is more hostile to their values than Christianity. And its also a stronger 'meme' than secular liberalism. Dreadnaught, unless I misread him, gets this.

Former Trotskyite revolutionary Peter Hitchens has written on this in his books The Cameron Delusion and The Rage Against God.

The term Useful Idiots comes to mind.

25 March 2014 at 05:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed,

To address your question in para 3 of your 5.55 post, I have the following ideas, although they are merely tentative, but generating ideas may be helpful.

They have almost zero knowledge and education regarding faiths in general and maybe foolishly view Islam, and other recently imported faiths, as restricted to certain ethnic/cultural groups as a sort of inevitably, declining heritage faith. After all they have hard evidence that Christianity is declining in our society, and extrapolate from that. In their assumed loftiness and moral superiority they cannot conceive of even the most strongly held religious and political systems not decaying once successive generations are exposed to the clear atmosphere of reason and socialism. So they assume that all imported faiths will, like the native one, slowly decay. In the meanwhile they can have fun hastening the decline in the formerly dominant native one by picking up the weapon of false socialist informed "equalities", and of course the other favourite, diversity, the latter being a sub-branch of the former?

Inconvenient truths like the resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia, the burgeoning growth of Christianity in Africa and its spread like wildfire in China, are simply ignored and the obvious social disadvantages of deconstructing our formerly, vaguely Christian moral code are simply welcomed as progressive improvements, e.g. widespread fatherlessness. The fact that the state is becoming bankrupt ameliorating the side effects of such deconstruction are also ignored, as capitalism is assumed to always be available to yield a fat tax yield. So they stick to their socialist dogmas, their world view, through thick and thin. The tragedy is that very over the last, what 30 years, so called Liberals and then the so called Conservatives have absorbed these essentially relativist ideas, and have become zealous in their promotion, and the intolerant destruction of true liberalism and social conservatism. So they have been successfully recruited into the socialist's cause. It's all very strange and represents again, in my opinion, a loss of nerve amongst the western so called elite, just around the time that success, at least politically became evident, with the collapse of Russian and Chinese led communism, due to perhaps, exhaustion?
Ironically Russia now protects and promotes its indigenous branch of Christianity, Orthodoxy, whilst other denominations grow rapidly despite persecution; China sees clearly that it was Christianity that led to the supremacy of the west, and allows, even encourages, a state led form of the faith, whilst persecuting the free Churches. Anyway there are some thoughts for you. It's all very intriguing and on the present trajectory is not likely to end well for the UK, europe and the North America. However all is never lost, as the spirit blows where it wills.....

25 March 2014 at 08:39  
Blogger bluedog said...

A very good post, Mr David Hussell @ 0839. You say, 'So they stick to their socialist dogmas, their world view, through thick and thin'. Undoubtedly the crux of the matter; the hardest thing for a certain personality type to do is to admit that their idee fixee is wrong. Of course, it goes without saying, ours is right.

25 March 2014 at 08:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David H @ )8:39

One is reminded of the wastrel descendants of a rich parent, blithely squandering the inheritance: including the capital on which their income depends.

Moral capital, as well as financial, being taken for granted: until both run out.

25 March 2014 at 09:08  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer,

Quite !


Yes, self-awareness let alone humility is not integral to political creeds, especially socialism.

25 March 2014 at 10:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Cressida:

These boudoir sporting activities are suited to more worldly ambidextrous types like the Inspector and the Explorer.

What good judgment you have, Madam. Mrs Proudie, one has heard from her talkative Vicar, is rather fond of explorations and inspection.

25 March 2014 at 18:16  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Appleseed, well done that man for reminding us of the ‘champagne socialist’. Mustn’t leave those goodly types out, not after all they’ve done for the British Working Class. They were the original recipients of their patriarchal magnanimity, though it now appears they were used only for training purposes, the preferred recipients being the millions of immigrants hurrying over here. They could really get going then, and be at their beck and call, to finally close the door on any chance of REAL integration by failing to limit the flood to assimilative numbers or even asking the question that was never answered – “Why in hell’s name are we bringing this lot in for anyway ?”

David Hussell, you too Sir, for 08:39 ! Perhaps one or two solicitors choked on reading it during breakfast. We can but hope, what !

25 March 2014 at 18:55  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Cressida and dear Avi, I feel my honour besmirched...

25 March 2014 at 19:01  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

There has been an hysterical overeaction to the Law Society's Guidance on the drafting of Sharia Compliant Wills.

English Law permits people to draft wills according to their own desires. If they want to give less to daughters than sons then they are allowed to do so. If they only want to bequeath money to persons of a specific religion, whether Muslim, Mormon or Methodist then they are entitled to do so just in the same way that they are entitled to cut a child out of the will for any irrational reason they wish. Many relatives disagree with how particular wills are written but that is the decision of the person making the wiil.

The job of a lawyer is to draft a will that reflects the clients wishes it is not the job of a lawyer to impose their views on the Client or to draft a will that would be "socially acceptable" to the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Equality Act does not extend to the dead, yet.

The critics of the Law Society have in fact got a lot in common with extremist supporters of Sharia. Both want to impose their views on others rather than allowing individuals to make their own choices including choices as to how to dispose of their own property after their death

25 March 2014 at 20:22  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Mr Addison, all well and good what you say, but the point is that wills are routinely challenged. Can we take it then that the challenging of ‘sharia compliant’ wills will be much reduced in scope ?

25 March 2014 at 20:45  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

Any will Sharia Compliant or otherwise can be challenged if it is incompatible with the law, has been obtained as a result of pressure etc. The Law Society guidance deals with how to draft wills that comply with English Law as well as Sharia. if there is a legal argument over a will then it will be decided by the ordinary English Courts applying English Law

25 March 2014 at 20:58  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Mr Addison, make no mistake, this man understands the Law Society’s ‘concern’. Shall we define it as “Don’t trust you will to your holy men or elders – come to a British solicitor and have everything above board”. All for the best interests of your would be Islamic clients of course. The fact that you tap in to the sizeable Islamic market is merely the cherry, is it not ?

So, let’s consider the fate of Fatima. Not considered marriage material by the local muslim youth, she stayed behind to look after her father, the widowed Mr Mohamed. Over the course of years before his death, he promised he would leave her everything. But he did more than that, he told everyone else he met the same. And they are prepared to swear on that. Come his demise, he leaves everything to his sons and nothing to our girl. When she challenges the will, surprise, it’s sharia compliant, because an Inman brought in says no will like that can be valid if sons are extant.

Do you see the problem ?

You people might not have the bread yet, but you certainly want to have the butter ready to put on it when it does arrive...

25 March 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 March 2014 at 22:11  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

even ‘no will that leaves everything to a daughter can be valid if sons are extant’

25 March 2014 at 22:14  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Davod Hussell that is a brilliant analysis.

I'm afraid it will end badly.

25 March 2014 at 22:19  
Blogger Manfarang said...

David Hussell
Members of the Chinese Communist party may have been reading Max Weber's Protestant Ethic although I doubt it.
In recent times a vegetarian society has been set up in mainland China so maybe the authorities have come to recognised the supremacy of that diet.

26 March 2014 at 02:19  
Blogger IanCad said...

David Hussell @ 08:39

What an excellent post.

There is far too much to read on this blog.
To give it full attention, and to peck out the occasional comment, takes, at the minimum, two hours per day.
Not good for working folk.

26 March 2014 at 07:37  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Mr Addison, do you not appreciate that many people feel their culture, history and way of life is under threat by the salami slicing of Leftist Shariahphiles? If not, then you should.

26 March 2014 at 19:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Addison @ 20.58 says, if there is a legal argument over a Will then it will be decided by the ordinary English Courts applying English Law.' So a sharia-compliant Will may not comply with English Law leading potentially to litigation. Yippee! Good to see that the legal profession has retained its skill at converting its customers' capital into fees. And solicitors fees pay school fees and other essentials.

Did any legal eagle stop to ask about the ethics of providing the ethnics with advice that may inevitably lead to litigation?

It seems not.

26 March 2014 at 20:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older