It is being reported that Sharia Law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system. If true is this desirable? We are not a Muslim state and have only a small resident Muslim population.
I have grown up strongly believing in the adage “when in Rome do as the Romans do”. Meaning that when you travel to, stay or reside in another country you adopt their way of life. I don’t see much evidence of Muslim acquiescence to Western customs in Arab countries.
We have seen spineless politicians of all shades participating in the erosion of British traditions, values and behaviour for more than a decade and I wonder how far the process will have gone when I finally turn my toes up a few years hence!
By: trumper - 23rd March 2014 at 19:59
You call it ‘legal discrimination’, I call it freedom of choice.
Moggy
How on earth can deciding to cut out someone in a will because of their gender or belief and it be legal be freedom of choice.They belong in a 3rd world country and we are moving towards that.
If you are happily married and the wife has contributed in everyway from the looking after the children to the upkeep of the home and then to be excluded from a will because of this gender issue.
Sorry but WHY should the law change in this country to allow for beliefs from a foreign land and culture.
By: charliehunt - 23rd March 2014 at 15:36
I’m sorry but this thread is to do with a silly ‘scare story’ in the Telegraph and it is just wills.
Moggy
No that’s what you have decided it is. I started the thread and based on a newspaper story it addresses a much broader matter of principle.
By: Moggy C - 23rd March 2014 at 15:05
You call it ‘legal discrimination’, I call it freedom of choice.
Moggy
By: trumper - 23rd March 2014 at 13:59
I’m sorry but this thread is to do with a silly ‘scare story’ in the Telegraph and it is just wills.
Moggy
This story is but next year it will be something else,then something else.They have only just started prosecuting female genital mutilation after all these years.
Chipping away ,little by little.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/23/islamic-legal-principles-to-be-integrated-into-uk-law-for-first-time-4673875/
We are legally slowly accepting legal discrimination – as said earlier when in Rome-we shouldn’t be moving laws around interlopers.
By: Moggy C - 23rd March 2014 at 13:48
I’m sorry but this thread is to do with a silly ‘scare story’ in the Telegraph and it is just wills.
Moggy
By: trumper - 23rd March 2014 at 12:38
It’s not just wills though is it.
Most popular name in Peterborough — i’ll let you guess.Slowly but surely and it doesn’t matter how much thou doth protest non p/c IT IS HAPPENING.
By: John Green - 23rd March 2014 at 11:11
The content of a Will used to be sacrosanct. It is less so to-day. there are frequent occurences of Wills being challenged usually because someone feels they’ve been unjustly excluded or equally commonly because of lack of provision.
If properly completed and witnessed Wills were preserved from challenge, then the situation described would not perhaps, arise.
The writing of a Will is usually the last act of a capable person before departing these shores. On occasion, that capacity is diminshed, hence the requirement in such cases for a properly supervised Will complete with witnesses.
Charlie’s encompassing quote is correct for most aspects of life: “When in Rome…..”
By: Moggy C - 23rd March 2014 at 09:34
Once legal precedent has been accepted it can then be argued in subsequent cases.
So are you agreeing that the law should be allowed to dictate who we pass our wealth on to once we die?
I’d resist that meddling very strongly myself.
Moggy
By: Lincoln 7 - 23rd March 2014 at 09:25
I wonder what would happen if we asked a Muslim/Arab Country if we could build a C of E Church in THEIR Country?.
And do over there, the same as we do in the U.K.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 23rd March 2014 at 09:25
I am neither outraged nor extremely angry, as you were in your earlier thread.
I simply disagree with our laws being adapted to suit those whose own laws differ from ours, for the reasons already stated.
Once legal precedent has been accepted it can then be argued in subsequent cases.
By: Moggy C - 23rd March 2014 at 09:04
What wedge?
Quite the opposite I feel.
If you refer to my earlier post about politicians feeling they know better than us what to do with our money, I think that NOT allowing somebody whose religious beliefs forbid them settling THEIR money on non-believers, or who wants to pass 100% of their wealth onto their son, safe in the knowledge that he will look after the mother, is governmental meddling in things that it should keep clear of.
Permitting solicitors to write such a will knowing it will stand up is totally the right thing to do.
If that had been the full text of the ‘story’ nobody would be getting their knickers in a twist about it. But the dear old Telegraph has to bristle with righteous indignation and put the word ‘Sharia’ nice and huge in their headline to pander to their readers’ desire to be outraged.
Moggy
By: charliehunt - 23rd March 2014 at 08:57
Thin end of the wedge…..? My original point still stands. Any culture’s modes of behaviour and habits and customs are fine – they are a matter for them but I do not believe that another culture’s laws should be adapted to the immigrant’s laws particular where the street is one-way.
By: Moggy C - 23rd March 2014 at 08:28
You refer to the Telegraph’s story
advice by the Law Society will permit solicitors to write wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether
Hardly earth shattering stuff is it? If somebody from a different culture wishes to dispose of their worldly goods in a particular way who are we to cavail? The problem is only the use of the word ‘Sharia’ which gets the Mail / Telegraph all of a dither.
Moggy
Sign In
March 23, 2014 at 7:19 am