Guidelines on drawing up Islamic wills issued

[Quintium]

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

You know the Law Society isn't a government institution, let alone one that can change what the law says? And why would any true Briton complain about a document such as a will, the authority of said document enshrined in law since 1066? You know everyone in Britain has always been able to write into their will that their daughters get no inheritance, and this document simply is a set of guidelines on how to do that, right?

If you're referring to the mandate of the European Court of Human Rights: it holds governments responsible for acts of discrimination if those governments failed to act properly against them.

[Gravlen]

I have serious problems with a society saying it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sex because of such an arbitrary notion as property rights; at the same time, I have no idea how this situation could be prevented without completely outlawing inheritance in general.

If you think property rights is an arbitrary thing, why wouldn't you want to outlaw such an arbitrary thing as inheritance?

[Quintium]

You're surprised that people who support equal treatment for all people don't want to treat Muslims differently from everyone else in an effort to drive them out of Europe?

This is not about my motives - it's about the motives of the people who would attack a Catholic but not a Muslim over intolerance.
And they exist aplenty, on this forum and elsewhere.

Fancy that, we treat businesses, contracts, and governments differently from wills. Because those are different things.

You should ask yourself why. If it's the motives (racism, sexism, other forms of 'bigotry') that make these decisions wrong in businesses and contracts, why do we allow those same motives to pass in wills?

[Salandriagado]

...

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

I'd ignore the OP and check the facts yourself. The OP horribly misrepresents them. This is a private organisation giving advice to its members on how to write wills. There's no legal discrimination anywhere in any way.

[Murbleflip]

You know the Law Society isn't a government institution, let alone one that can change what the law says? And why would any true Briton complain about a document such as a will, the authority of said document enshrined in law since 1066? You know everyone in Britain has always been able to write into their will that their daughters get no inheritance, and this document simply is a set of guidelines on how to do that, right?

If you're referring to the mandate of the European Court of Human Rights: it holds governments responsible for acts of discrimination if those governments failed to act properly against them.

As far as I'm aware, the common law regarding wills is unaffected by the European Court; you're allowed to give your money and land to anyone you want to in your will, be it your first-born son/daughter or the Battersea Dogs' Home.

Also... what made you think I was referring to that?

[Quintium]

As far as I'm aware, the common law regarding wills is unaffected by the European Court; you're allowed to give your money and land to anyone you want to in your will, be it your first-born son/daughter or the Battersea Dogs' Home.

For now; all it would take is one commentary from them saying the British government has allowed an overtly sexist decision to stand, and they can change it.
That's the problem with supranational organisations. They don't always need your permission to do these things, and you can't say you'll keep your own rules if they want to change them.

Also... what made you think I was referring to that?

The very first bit of that post.
"You know the Law Society isn't a government institution."
It's a widely-held misassumption that the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe, is only allowed to hear cases of a government's direct action or neglect.

[Gravlen]

Or perhaps... 2083?

Anders Behring Breivik is a naive narcissistic fool. And comparing me to him, rather than pointing out what you think is wrong, is a very weak move on your part.

Low hanging fruit and all that jazz.

Be a man,

PATRIARCHY! PATRIARCHY!! THE MUSLIMS HAVE TAKEN OVER!!!

point out what you think is wrong with what I'm saying and explain why you think I'm wrong. Be productive, not destructive.

Europe isn't being overrun, "native populations" (?) in Europe aren't plummeting, immigrants are integrating and being assimilated as well as doing neither (it's not an either/or proposition), immigrants are becoming economically independent while others aren't, values are being shared across cultural lines, Sweden is doing relatively well, no shit there might be unrest if economically hard times strikes again; that's what happens during times of economic troubles. Large-scale unrest? Depends on the economy and the steps taken - something which is completely divorced from immigration except for the fact that immigrants make handy scapegoats.

So you really are claiming that informing muslims about their rights under existing laws will lead to the violent downfall of Europe. Oy vey...

We're not on /pol/ here, so hold your horses. You're attempting to make a caricature of what I'm saying here, but I think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying this is a symptom. This is the runny nose, but not the cold. This is the fever, not the flu. This is one tiny facet of a system of values and normative rules brought to Europe by Muslims.

Again, low hanging fruit.

But it is kind of worrying that you see people being informed about their rights under the law and taking advantage of their rights under the law, utilizing their rights just like any other person is able to, as a symptom for the disease which you apparently think judaism islam is. It is worrying that you think that jews muslims are incompatible with Europe, and that jews muslims living normal lives in accordance with domestic law will lead to the downfall of Europe.

As an Arabist here once remarked: just when we're done fighting the Catholic Church for equal rights and religious tolerance, along comes something which is ten times worse.

As a self-proclaimed counter-jihadist once remarked: Islam is the most dangerous thing ever to threaten European women. We must fight Islam to ensure the survival of the white race in Europe. [...] The only way to ensure that women are completely dedicated to this most important task, to produce offspring, is to - at least temporarily - remove them from the employment pool. An extra upside to this is that we can remove the extreme emotionality which has infected our workplaces and made us weak in the process.


I guess what I'm saying is, people say the darndest things, and you shouldn't listen to lunatics. It's not worth the time or effort.

[Murbleflip]

As far as I'm aware, the common law regarding wills is unaffected by the European Court; you're allowed to give your money and land to anyone you want to in your will, be it your first-born son/daughter or the Battersea Dogs' Home.

For now; all it would take is one commentary from them saying the British government has allowed an overtly sexist decision to stand, and they can change it.
That's the problem with supranational organisations. They don't always need your permission to do these things, and you can't say you'll keep your own rules if they want to change them.

Also... what made you think I was referring to that?

The very first bit of that post.
"You know the Law Society isn't a government institution."
It's a widely-held misassumption that the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe, is only allowed to hear cases of a government's direct action or neglect.

It may be supranational, but I don't believe our government will ever change a really big law to something contrary to the original purpose of the law at the behest of the EU. We probably will never agree on that, though, so let's just agree to disagree.

And for the second part, I do not hold this misassumption, and hadn't really given the ECHR much thought until you brought it up.

[Quintium]

Europe isn't being overrun, "native populations" (?) in Europe aren't plummeting, immigrants are integrating and being assimilated as well as doing neither (it's not an either/or proposition)

http://sargasso.nl/wp-content/uploads/2 ... esters.png
Try this one. The first and second generation of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands, not even counting the third or fourth, constituted less than two percent of the population of the Netherlands forty years ago, less than six percent twenty years ago, and almost twelve percent now. The times, they are a-changing. There's so much change here, we have to make sure our next load of immigrants won't be the bums chased out of South Park.

immigrants are becoming economically independent while others aren't

http://daskapital.nl/images/fotos/bijst ... rkomst.png
And here are welfare recipients in the Netherlands.
Non-western immigrants now constitute approximately half of all welfare recipients, despite being less than twelve percent of the population.
Again, not a success story.

no shit there might be unrest if economically hard times strikes again; that's what happens during times of economic troubles.

The only moment during those riots that Swedish people actually took action (and were attacked by the police) was when they formed neighbourhood watches because the police wouldn't stop immigrants from setting fire to their cars and throwing bricks through their windows. Good old Sweden.

[Quintium]

It may be supranational, but I don't believe our government will ever change a really big law to something contrary to the original purpose of the law at the behest of the EU. We probably will never agree on that, though, so let's just agree to disagree.

Two things - it's not about the European Union, because the European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe. And while the European Union is a signatory party to the Council of Europe, the two are quite independent of each other. Yes, thank tens of thousands of bureaucrats and jurists who work day and night to make our lives more complicated for that.
Oh, and if the European Union decides on 'legitimate' grounds that Britain needs to change a law, then the British government has to change that law.

[Gravlen]

Fancy that, we treat businesses, contracts, and governments differently from wills. Because those are different things.

You should ask yourself why. If it's the motives (racism, sexism, other forms of 'bigotry') that make these decisions wrong in businesses and contracts, why do we allow those same motives to pass in wills?

You're asking why there is a difference between the private disposition of property, and the participation in public business taking place between two or more parties? Or are you asking why making a will is different from entering into a contract?

[Quintium]

You should ask yourself why. If it's the motives (racism, sexism, other forms of 'bigotry') that make these decisions wrong in businesses and contracts, why do we allow those same motives to pass in wills?

You're asking why there is a difference between the private disposition of property, and the participation in public business taking place between two or more parties? Or are you asking why making a will is different from entering into a contract?

While a will is a unilateral action from a legal perspective (that is, an action taken by one party without the need for approval from the other party), I don't think that explains why that suddenly makes discrimination acceptable. In any case, it's about a situation between two private parties in which one party has the ability to decide whether to grant the other party certain rights or privileges related to his own property. In both cases, both parties are private and not public and the property in question is privately-owned, so what's the difference?

[Murbleflip]

It may be supranational, but I don't believe our government will ever change a really big law to something contrary to the original purpose of the law at the behest of the EU. We probably will never agree on that, though, so let's just agree to disagree.

Two things - it's not about the European Union, because the European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe. And while the European Union is a signatory party to the Council of Europe, the two are quite independent of each other. Yes, thank tens of thousands of bureaucrats and jurists who work day and night to make our lives more complicated for that.
Oh, and if the European Union decides on 'legitimate' grounds that Britain needs to change a law, then the British government has to change that law.

Dammit, I'm no Eurosceptic, but sometimes it does seem like at least one of the annoying European bodies should be abolished just for clarity.
And I feel certain that the government will argue about what "legitimate grounds" are.

[Gravlen]

Europe isn't being overrun, "native populations" (?) in Europe aren't plummeting, immigrants are integrating and being assimilated as well as doing neither (it's not an either/or proposition)

http://sargasso.nl/wp-content/uploads/2 ... esters.png
Try this one. The first and second generation of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands, not even counting the third or fourth, constituted less than two percent of the population of the Netherlands forty years ago, less than six percent twenty years ago, and almost twelve percent now. The times, they are a-changing. There's so much change here, we have to make sure our next load of immigrants won't be the bums chased out of South Park.

Nice graph. Which, by the way, doesn't show the Netherlands - let alone Europe - being overrun, not does it show that "native populations" in the Nethwerlands - let alone Europe - are plummeting.

immigrants are becoming economically independent while others aren't

http://daskapital.nl/images/fotos/bijst ... rkomst.png
And here are welfare recipients in the Netherlands.
Non-western immigrants now constitute approximately half of all welfare recipients, despite being less than twelve percent of the population.
Again, not a success story.

And? This doesn't contradict what I was saying. In fact, it only corroborates my point.

no shit there might be unrest if economically hard times strikes again; that's what happens during times of economic troubles.

The only moment during those riots that Swedish people actually took action (and were attacked by the police) was when they formed neighbourhood watches because the police wouldn't stop immigrants from setting fire to their cars and throwing bricks through their windows. Good old Sweden.

Well that's a lie, but do you mean when the Swedes together with the immigrants who were living in the neighbourhood formed neighbourhood watches because the police couldn't stop the rowdy group of about 50 - 100 Swedes and immigrant youth rioting?

[Quintium]

Dammit, I'm no Eurosceptic, but sometimes it does seem like at least one of the annoying European bodies should be abolished just for clarity.
And I feel certain that the government will argue about what "legitimate grounds" are.

Unfortunately for the British government, there isn't much room to argue about that. The European Union is granted either the additional or the exclusive right to legislate on all issues in a certain field. And if the European Union makes legislation - like the legislation it has on the internal market - then no government that is part of the European Union can do anything that goes against the rules the European Union has made. So all this talk of refusing European immigrants in Britain is nonsense - they can't. All citizens of European Union member states have, at least initially, the right to move to another member state to 'look for work', and only after several months and with a good reason is that member state allowed to expel them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

[Quintium]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

Wait, isn't Gravlen a Norwegian?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

Wait, isn't Gravlen a Norwegian?

He's studying law or has studied it. Hence my question. If he doesn't know, I'm sure he will say so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which wealthy Western nations have been able to do this?

All wealthy western nations that have not caught the bug of normative multiculturalism after 1968 - that is, those that are Asian or those that were behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1960s. Former Soviet states can count themselves lucky - their governments may have been corrupt, bloated, violent and inefficient, but at least they didn't invite half of the third world over for tea. If you include nations with a westernised way of life and a western standard of living, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are some very important examples that come to mind.

Wealth does not immediately make immigration unavoidable. As I said, the only reason we're now overrun with non-western immigrants is because our politicians lacked the will or courage to do something about it. Practically, we could have held out forever even if we lived in golden houses with chocolate fountains and cookies growing from trees while the rest of the world was starving.

So in other words, nations that aren't wealthy and nations that aren't Western are what you used as examples. Gotcha.

You seem quite certain regarding the details of this. Tell me, from where did you get your crystal ball?

From years and years of thought, reflection, study of history, observations in modern-day society and - most importantly - statistics. What we'll see in the coming decades is that the native populations in Europe will plummet, especially the productive segments of the native populations, and non-western immigrants will become a politically important but economically dependent group with interests and values that differ dramatically from those of the native population. These people exist in societies within our societies, in their own enclaves, and as the welfare state dries up across Western Europe and resources become more difficult to obtain, there will be large-scale unrest. That's when it'll come to fighting, and by my best estimate that'll start between 2030 and 2050.

Translation: You pulled it out of your ass, based on a superficial reading of history filtered through a bigoted and xenophobic worldview that naturally tends to think that them furriners just can't be trusted.

[L Ron Cupboard]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

You can leave your money to whoever you like in the UK as far as I know. Children excluded from the will could contest it but they have no automatic entitlement to anything.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

You can leave your money to whoever you like in the UK as far as I know. Children excluded from the will could contest it but they have no automatic entitlement to anything.

Ok, I was wondering about it.

[L Ron Cupboard]

You can leave your money to whoever you like in the UK as far as I know. Children excluded from the will could contest it but they have no automatic entitlement to anything.

Ok, I was wondering about it.

This whole thread is rubbish, based on a bad OP using an appalling piece of journalism as a source.

[Volantyz]

"You know the Law Society isn't a government institution."

Except it sorta is. Law Society is a Professional association: it's sorta like a Trade Union for Lawyers except they are rich and evil; it's sorta like a Government Institution.

When a Lawyer is accused of corruption, Law Society conducts an investigation. That Lawyer is tried before a jury of Lawyers. It is very rare for a Lawyer to be tried before a Secular jury of Citizens. That is one of the many legal privileges of the professional associations.


AFAIK: Common Law: a man dies intestate - his N children legitimate, adopted, bastard etc each get (X divide N) %, his wife gets (100-X) %. If he writes a will, then people get whatever percentage he writes. Maybe there might be rules that he gotta give his dependents Y % - but he can surely give (100 -Y) % however he likes

AFAIK from reading the Independent: Sharia makes wills obsolete. Your man has N islamic, legitimate, biological boys and M islamic, legitimate, biological girls. They and only they get percentages as decreed.

In theory, it would be legal to write a will that gives his children the Sharia percentages. But that is no reason to make it so easy and legal.

There was mention of islamic Priests refusing burial certificates to corpses who didn't write Sharia wills. Is that a real thing

Muslim Brit writes a Sharia Will; he dies and is buried.
Muslim Brit dies intestate, so under Brit Law, all his childern inherit, BUT because he didn't write a Sharia Will, priests forbid a burial certificate and his corpse is left to rot in the street. Is that a real thing

[Gravlen]

@Gravlen: I have a question. In the OP, it is stated that these guidelines would (provided this is true, that is) allow people to draft wills in which women could be excluded from inheriting. The UK has certain protections when it comes to that, right? As in, people can't be completely drafted out from inheritances on account of gender?

I know that in the US a son or a daughter is still entitled to a percentage of the inheritance, even if they're not the main recipient. 5-10%, iirc. Is there something similar in UK inheritance guidelines? Did I ask this clearly? :/

As you know, I'm not Nadkor, so I'm no legal authority when it comes to the UK. With that in mind, I'll simply quote a random UK lawyer:

A person may make a will to leave immovable and movable property located in UK to any chosen beneficiaries. There is no “forced heirship” or “reserved portion; however, if a testator domiciled in the United Kingdom dies, leaving dependents who are not adequately provided for under the terms of the will, the dependents may apply to the court to claim reasonable provision for maintenance from the estate. Maintenance may be in the form of income payments for life, or alternatively a lump sum payable from the estate.

So the short answer as far as I understand it is yes, a person can be completely excluded from inhereting through a will. There's no limitations based on motivation, i.e. he or she can be excluded for any reason, even unsavory ones. However, children who are excluded or don't recieve sufficient means may petition the court to grant them (more) money. That seems to be the only safety valve there is if a valid will exists.

[Quintium]

So in other words, nations that aren't wealthy and nations that aren't Western are what you used as examples. Gotcha.

Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are exceedingly western in their way of life - though not in their approach to immigration, because they weren't part of the group of countries caught by the Revolution of 1968. But if you want an example that's smack-bang in the middle of Europe, try the Czech Republic. Behind the Iron Curtain during the 'crucial years' of 1968-1989, now with a Human Development Index similar to Britain's, but with hardly any Muslims and seemingly no change in that situation. So, it's not unavoidable at all. As I said, it's a matter of political will.

Translation: You pulled it out of your ass, based on a superficial reading of history filtered through a bigoted and xenophobic worldview that naturally tends to think that them furriners just can't be trusted.

Well, you're allowed to think that, and while you're not allowed to insult me like that (it's called flaming) I'll pretend I didn't see that.
I know I'm right, unfortunately, and you'll see that I'm right if you make it to that time.