The Law Society is not going to withdraw its practice note on what it takes to be the correct interpretation of “Sharia succession rules.” The Lawyers’ Secular Society has a response.
The LSS had written a detailed open letter to the Law Society on 24 April 2014 with very specific questions (here). Two weeks later, on 8 May 2014, the Law Society eventually responded to that letter (here) but it failed to answer almost all of the LSS’s questions, with no explanation for this refusal.
The LSS also took part in a large public protest outside the Law Society’s offices in Chancery Lane, London on 28 April 2014, alongside human rights campaigners and women’s rights campaigners, but this appears to have had no effect on the Law Society. (You can listen to LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian’s speech here and you can read it here.)
Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has now intervened in the debate and told the Law Society it must not “undermine” British legal principles with its guidance.
Commenting, LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian said:
“Naturally we are very disappointed – and actually shocked – at the Law Society’s decision to keep its disturbing sharia practice note despite huge public criticism.
“It is not the Law Society’s business to offer guidance on Islamic theology, even if there is “demand” for it, because this gives sharia law the respectability and credibility of a legal discipline within our jurisdiction. And it is not the business of any organisation which claims, as the Law Society does, to have a “strong record” on equalities, and which says it aims “to help the profession to promote equalities, inclusion and diversity”, to give guidance to its members which explicitly discriminates against women, non-Muslims, “illegitimate children” and adopted children. The reality is that sharia law is anything but equality, inclusion and diversity.”
Well it is diversity. It’s diverse from things like equality and inclusion.
This abomination has occurred in the country that invented the common law. The real threat to our liberties isn’t terrorists, but the gradual accommodation to Islamisation,
Presumably ‘Sharia compliant’ wills could be a nice little earner for members of the Law Society, or has the organisation been infiltrated?
Nothing directly to do with this, but Chris Grayling is a dangerous fool who has set himself against the legal profession and placed justice often beyond the reach of anyone but the vastly wealthy. His intervention here is nothing more than a stunt – had the Law Society offered some guidance on legally-compliant Christian practices, you can be sure that the government would have been cheering it on.
@RJW
Members of the Law Society are already drawing up Sharia-compliant wills, and have been for years. Why do people assume that there aren’t already Muslim lawyers and lawyers serving the Muslim community?
@2
How can a will, drawn under the provisions of a liberal democratic legal system be “Sharia-compliant”, except in those clauses that did not violate the law? Wouldn’t wills that are, in fact, Sharia-compliant, be illegal?
Sharia isn’t a system of law in the Western tradition.
Thanks for the info about C Grayling, Bernard. I know nothing about him and was wondering (and meant to follow the link but forgot).
One thing though –
I don’t think “serving the Muslim community” is the right way to describe it. If they’re drawing up sharia-compliant wills then they’re not necessarily serving the community, are they – because half the community is female, and “sharia-compliant” includes the bit about how women and girls get less.
@RJW
The practice note does not necessarily provide legal advise, but does note that:
In essence, there is no conflict with the law of England and Wales – the law does not provide that there should be equal treatment of heirs in a will. Anyone is allowed to discriminate against their female heirs. The clash is therefore not with the law, but with the sensibilities of modern society, but can actually only really be resolved by changing the law.
@Ophelia
Yes, I suppose I quite literally meant servicing the community, such as it is, where women are already second class. Like any service professionals, there are mixture of those who take laissez faire attitude to the effects of their clients instructions, and those who operate with a more principled social conscience (in whatever direction).
On Chris Grayling – he has steadily undermined the legal aid system (to the point where every complex fraud trial currently due to be heard is now in danger of collapse), has consistently voted to remove and restrict benefits, and as Shadow Home Secretary said that people should be free to turn gay people away from their B&B. He also really dislikes the European Court of Human Rights when it makes a ruling that he doesn’t agree with.
@5 Bernard Bumner,
Yes, I understand that the common law system in most countries allows discrimination between heirs, however, in my opinion, the term ‘Sharia-compliant’ is misleading, a will is informed by Sharia beliefs, it cannot be ‘Sharia compliant’.
The test would be if the relevant English law were altered to comply with European standards, which could happen, eventually.
Personally, I have argued that the Law Society is something of a misidentified target in this debate. The current state of English and Welsh law is that it provides insufficient equality in this area.
Of course, any change in the law would necessarily be reflected by Law Society guidance. I suspect that the standard for Sharia-compliance would also quietly evolve so that those who desire it could still claim their cultural sensibilities are satisfied.