For the umpteenth time, in the UK another significant move has been made to effectively usher in sharia law. The Telegraph
has the goods:
"Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.
The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.
Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.
“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law. It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance. It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.
The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts."
This is the
ARSEHOLE tripping over his own feet to please his future muslim overlords:
Meet Nicholas Fluckface, current President of The Law Society.
Speaking of Baroness Cox's Suffragettes turning in their graves, I'd like you to meet somebody else, who, albeit she was a woman, definitely had way more balls than the slimy, spineless bastard who made it Grand Mufti of The Sharia Law Society. That somebody else is
Emily Davison:
Emily Wilding Davison (11 October 1872 – 8 June 1913) was a militant activist who fought for women's suffrage in Britain. Jailed on nine occasions and force-fed 49 times in the course of her battle for women's rights, she finally paid the ultimate price when she stepped in front of King George V's horse Anmer at the Epsom Derby on 4 June 1913:
To this day it is unclear whether she deliberately sought death to draw people's attention to the Suffragette's cause or whether she merely wanted to disturb the race. Personally, I consider this distinction irrelevant. First off, it must have taken incredible guts to venture out on the race track like she did. Secondly, she died as a result of the act, and
as such she gave her life for a noble cause - it doesn't matter whether this was done on purpose or not.
How horrible then, that a mere century later the likes of Nicholas Fluck, who really ought to omit the 'l' in his surname, have no qualms at all setting the clock back and in the process spit on Emily Davison's grave.
There are two possibilities.
First, either Fluck
IS aware of what it took the Women of Britain to conquer their rightful place near men. And, being in the law business, he
SHOULD know that some 800 years ago there was this thing called the
Magna Carta - briefly, true, but nevertheless. Forced upon King John in 1215 by his barons, the document intented to limit royal powers, and was
the first real step towards the establishment of constitutional law in England and beyond.
You might look at what's under
Paragraph 7:
"7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her."
If Fluck knows all this, and prefers it be 1214 instead of 2014, he should
RESIGN. Right Now.
The second possibility is that he knows neither about the Suffragettes, nor about the Magna Carta.
And in that case too, he should
RESIGN TOO. Right Now.
MFBB.
