Brunei - Limb-Severing, Flogging, and Stoning to Death

[andysays]

Wow, with those insights and googling skills you should become an investigative journalist.

Clearly the absence of any other coverage demonstrates that the anti-gay Islamist takeover Johnny warns us of has gone way beyond Urban and now extends to almost all of the world's media

 

[xenon]

I can't believe Johnny hasn't come back to explain. It's almost as if it's just you know a thing. The bastard. How Better he is than us. he knows how to use Google and everything. Show us the way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott: Polo Lounge Nearly Deserted (Except for One Actor)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beverly-hills-hotel-boycott-polo-702362

 

[J Ed]

Western proxy extremist governments acting like proxy extremist governments

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There's an interesting hierarchy of acceptable topics here: gay rights is usually acceptable; but in a clash between not saying anything negative about sharia, and protecting gay rights, abstaining from saying anything negative about sharia will win out.

If I was gay person, that would make me none too happy.

Don't forget the apartheid state of Israel while you're banging on about U75's alleged pro-sharia tendencies.

Do you think we're condemning Israel enough or are we being overly shy about that too?

Or are there special rules for Israel in your mind?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

Do you think we're condemning Israel enough or are we being overly shy about that too?

Who is 'we'?

 

[purves grundy]

Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott: Polo Lounge Nearly Deserted (Except for One Actor)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beverly-hills-hotel-boycott-polo-702362

Lovely comments following that article.

 

[Cid]

Who is 'we'?

Roughly translates to 'here'.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Isn't Sharia law to be adopted into the legal system in the UK?
How's that going to work?
Who's going to judge?
Could people be stoned as punishment for crimes against Sharia law?
How will the legal system in the UK live day to day with a parallel system that will discriminate between muslims and non muslims?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...c-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

What's going on in Brunei is also going on in many other parts of the world where people are horrifically punished for non crimes. It is frightening to any person who believes in human rights.

 

[DotCommunist]

yes, we are going to have shariah supercede UK CJS and start stoning people. Thats actually going to happen.

 

[paninaro]

yes, we are going to have shariah supercede UK CJS and start stoning people. Thats actually going to happen.

 

[andysays]

yes, we are going to have shariah supercede UK CJS and start stoning people. Thats actually going to happen.

It starts with Halal meat in Asda, and this is where it ends...

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

yes, we are going to have shariah supercede UK CJS and start stoning people. Thats actually going to happen.

.....

"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."
“This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...c-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Worth reading ...

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...aw-in-UK-calls-for-Parliamentary-inquiry.html


From this it's clear that women's rights are legally going to be two tiered in the UK.
So how long will it be before gay rights come under the same parallelism?

 

[DotCommunist]

pretty sure we already have shariah and beth din courts here as family/arbitration stuff- which is voluntary but decisions are binding to both parties iirc

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

pretty sure we already have shariah and beth din courts here as family/arbitration stuff- which is voluntary but decisions are binding to both parties iirc

They are mediated by sharia....

Not the Law Society.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

pretty sure we already have shariah and beth din courts here as family/arbitration stuff- which is voluntary but decisions are binding to both parties iirc

Beth Din courts are recognised in law. Shariah courts currently are not.

 

[Cid]

The sharia 'courts' are a form of ADR, they're tribunals that can mediate disputes between two parties. They don't affect rights under national law. Equally with wills you're pretty much free to put whatever the hell you want in them; I'm pretty sure commie would be free to exclude any catholic heirs to his estate for example. That's not to say religious tribunals don't have problems of course, clearly plenty of room for bias.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Would a racist will be legal?

 

[purves grundy]

.....

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."

Can't I write a will including / excluding whoever the fuck I want anyway, whether I'm an Islam or a Pringle Pipe worshipper?

 

[Cid]

Would a racist will be legal?

afaik, yes it would.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

afaik, yes it would.

I have my doubts. You don't just have a free hand when making a will. If someone excludes one of their children, for instance, without giving any reasons, that person may be able to successfully challenge the will in court. I would strongly suspect that if someone could show they were excluded for racist reasons, they could also successfully challenge that.

 

[andysays]

Can't I write a will including / excluding whoever the fuck I want anyway, whether I'm an Islam or a Pringle Pipe worshipper?

You certainly can when it comes to named individuals. As an example my mum had a specific clause in her's stating that one of my brothers was not to benefit (which my other brother and I as the executors and beneficiaries chose to effectively ignore).

I'm not quite sure how you would legally draw up a will, Islamic/Sharia or not, which stated that "men" rather than specific named men were to benefit to the exclusion of "women" as opposed to specific named women, or that "believers" were to benefit to the exclusion of "non-believers".

 

[purves grundy]

I have my doubts. You don't just have a free hand when making a will. If someone excludes one of their children, for instance, without giving any reasons, that person may be able to successfully challenge the will in court. I would strongly suspect that if someone could show they were excluded for racist reasons, they could also successfully challenge that.

That doesn't make the will 'illegal' though, just means that its validity can be contested? Probably if your kids need your money e.g. if they're not adults, have particular needs etc that'd be good grounds for challenge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You certainly can when it comes to named individuals. As an example my mum had a specific clause in her's stating that one of my brothers was not to benefit (which my other brother and I as the executors and beneficiaries chose to effectively ignore).

I'm not quite sure how you would legally draw up a will, Islamic/Sharia or not, which stated that "men" rather than specific named men were to benefit to the exclusion of "women" as opposed to specific named women, or that "believers" were to benefit to the exclusion of "non-believers".

It's not just a question of drawing up a will. It is a question of whether or not that will will then stand up in court. A will that specified, for instance, that future male children were to be given a trust fund, but female ones were not, I very strongly suspect could be challenged in court. I'd certainly challenge such a provision.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That doesn't make the will 'illegal' though, just means that its validity can be contested? Probably if your kids need your money e.g. if they're not adults, have particular needs etc that'd be good grounds for challenge.

Yes, it is exactly that. If you have a young child and exclude them from your will for no apparent good reason, the will can be challenged and provision made for that dependant.

But it is far from simply a question of you being able to write what you like in your will and that being enforceable by law when you die. It's far more complex than that.

 

[andysays]

It's not just a question of drawing up a will. It is a question of whether or not that will will then stand up in court. A will that specified, for instance, that future male children were to be given a trust fund, but female ones were not, I very strongly suspect could be challenged in court. I'd certainly challenge such a provision.

But excluding or disproportionally favouring one member of a family is surely part of the point of writing a will, ie specifically setting out who is to inherit what rather than what would happen in the absence of a will, which is that the proceeds would be divided equally among the surviving children (assuming no surviving spouse).

I don't know if my mum had advice about a legally binding way to exclude my brother*, or whether he could have successfully mounted a challenge. It wasn't an issue with us, because my other brother and I decided to go for a three way split rather than a two way one.

Is it actually possible to set up a trust fund for as-yet unborn children?

*There are presumably some ways of doing it which would be less likely to be challengable than others.

 

[purves grundy]

But it is far from simply a question of you being able to write what you like in your will and that being enforceable by law when you die. It's far more complex than that.

So I guess the impact of this Sharia element is through certain things e.g. being an unbeliever, no longer being able to be challenged in court (or at least, unlikely to be successfully challenged)?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But excluding or disproportionally favouring one member of a family is surely part of the point of writing a will, ie specifically setting out who is to inherit what rather than what would happen in the absence of a will, which is that the proceeds would be divided equally among the surviving children (assuming no surviving spouse).

I don't know if my mum had advice about a legally binding way to exclude my brother*, or whether he could have successfully mounted a challenge. It wasn't an issue with us, because my other brother and I decided to go for a three way split rather than a two way one.

Is it actually possible to set up a trust fund for as-yet unborn children?

*There are presumably some ways of doing it which would be less likely to be challengable than others.

This website has a fairly comprehensive list of faqs that covers some of this. Yes, you can exclude people, but if you don't give any reasons or if the person is a dependant, then it can be challenged.

As for your question, yes, you can set up trust funds for unborn children. If you did so and specified that they would only get it if they were male, I'd certainly want such a thing challenged in court. The law isn't a fixed thing - when new things come up to be tested, new precedents can be set.

 

[andysays]

This website has a fairly comprehensive list of faqs that covers some of this. Yes, you can exclude people, but if you don't give any reasons or if the person is a dependant, then it can be challenged.

As for your question, yes, you can set up trust funds for unborn children. If you did so and specified that they would only get it if they were male, I'd certainly want such a thing challenged in court. The law isn't a fixed thing - when new things come up to be tested, new precedents can be set.

I too would want to see it challenged, and I suspect that even under the sort of provision we're talking about, English law with its various assumptions and precedents would take precedence over either shariah or beth din courts, in other words this provision is not going to fundamentally change the legal position - you can make a will including all sorts of provisions, but these are potentially challengable once it comes to executing them.