Following the Law Society’s publication in March of a “Practice note on sharia succession rules”, a protest was held in Chancery Lane yesterday evening, organised by One Law for All, Southall Black Sisters, the Centre for Secular Space and LSE students’ Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society.
The problem with the practice note, in the view of the protesters, was that by publishing it the Law Society (which is publicly committed to equality and diversity) has not only got involved in religious matters that should not be its concern, but has lent its name to the argument that sharia should somehow be “recognised” in our legal system, and has legitimised an extreme and discriminatory approach to inheritance. The practice note says:
Certain principles of Sharia are different to English succession laws. For example … illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs.
The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised …
This means you should amend or delete some standard will clauses.
About 70 people gathered outside the Law Society to protest, and heard speeches from Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters, Maryam Namazie of One Law for All, Charlie Klendjian of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, Peter Tatchell and others. I’ll be posting one or two of those speeches later. In the meantime, here’s the sound of the protest before the speeches began. You can hear Chris Moos, then Pragna Patel, leading the chants. This sort of thing can’t happen very often in Chancery Lane.
Carl Gardner2014-04-29T16:32:51+00:00
I still don’t see how this practice note, allowing observant Muslims to have a will drawn up in accordance with their religious beliefs and bequeathing their property to the people of their choice, is any different to other provisions for religious minorities.
Eg. allowing the Church of England to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages. That’s antithetical to modern notions to equality, it certainly is to mine.
But we allow that because in a society that prides itself on equality, minority groups have to be allowed to live according to their beliefs, at least to the extent that they don’t harm others.
[…] Head of Legal (Carl Gardner), “Yesterday’s ‘One Law For All’ protest at the Law Society”, 29 April […]
People continue to be able to draft wills leaving their money to whomever they please. If they want their daughters to get less than their sons, they can instruct their solicitors accordingly.
The issue here is that the Law Society should not be spending time and money producing guidance that caters to misogyny.
I was slighlty troubled by this protest, for reasons that I can’t quite put my finger on, but that have to do with the lawyer’s ethical duty towards the client.
Secular liberals take note, the publication of this practice note appears to be market-driven. Lawyers are being instructed to draft these wills but do not know how to do so and want some guidance.
Lawyers often have to do things which are distasteful by any normal moral standard, such as devising ways to hide money in offshore trusts, and calling rape complainants liars in cross-examination. It is not just that they are permitted to do these things. They actually have an ethical duty to do them if they are so instructed and if it is in the interests of the client. I am not sure that this is any different.
The obvious solution is to change the law to outlaw discrimination in the drafting of wills. Much of our family and probate law derives from mediaeval Christian law and so it is not surprising that it is compatible with Sharia. Rather than expecting solicitors to give their clients inaccurate advice in the name of equality, let us instead bring the law into the secular 21st century.