boyfriday Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 This is different to a Muslim going to his solicitor and them saying to him "you know if you want you can exclude your gay son from your will in accordance with Sharia" unprompted. But Zamo's point of view is that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to choose how they distribute their assets on their demise in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I would limit their freedom to access legal advice that doesn't relate to English law because English solicitors are not licenced or qualify to practice (provide services and advice) Sharia law. How do you reconcile the fact that the decision by the Law Society will result in solicitors advising clients on how to discriminate according to Sharia law which is in direct contradiction to the stated objective of the Law Society you've requote above? When it come to Islam they don't reconcile it, they simply ignore it. ---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 18:17 ---------- But Zamo's point of view is that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to choose how they distribute their assets on their demise in the first place. That's not the way I interpret Zamo's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 But Zamo's point of view is that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to choose how they distribute their assets on their demise in the first place. Where did he say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 That's not the way I interpret Zamo's posts. Where did he say that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If discrimination creeps into the personal decisions of people making wills then there isn't much we can do about it. But if those views are being influenced by religious beliefs and teaching (e.g. Sharia Law) then the state should be challenging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I disagree, and can kind of see Zamo's point, especially the part that you edited out of your response when you quoted him that I put back in. It doesn't restrict Muslims to receive such advice, a Muslim can say to his solicitor "I want to keep my gay son out of the will in accordance with Sharia" and his solicitor can advise him how to go about that within English law. This is different to a Muslim going to his solicitor and them saying to him "you know if you want you can exclude your gay son from your will in accordance with Sharia" unprompted. The action taken by the Law Society now resolve such situations: Muslim client - "I would like to draw up a will. I would like it to follow Sharia." Solicitor - "Sir, I apologise. I cannot provide this service, as I do not understand what is Sharia." If the solicitor did this, then he would have broken the law himself, and violated the Equality Act. For discriminating him against a service which he is entitled to because of his religion. Remember, there is a difference between a person living freely and practising who and what they are in this country, and asking for services and the government to accept and give the person their due support and help. Compared to, a person who IS discriminatory towards others on a person to person basis. This may make it more clear: Type 1 - Relationship between State to Citizen. Type 2 - Relationship between Businesses to Citizen. Type 3 - Relationship between Citizen to Citizen. Equality Act, as it currently stands, govern type 1 and type 2. Not type 3s. Type 3s are only enforceable, if that Citizen who is being discriminatory, is doing so within the actual job position of the State or the Business. Type 3 is governed by ASBO actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 But Zamo's point of view is that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to choose how they distribute their assets on their demise in the first place. I've denied that accusation a half dozen times on this thread... have the counter arguments worn so thin now that you have make up an argument to defeat? I do not think Muslims (or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to choose how they distribute their assets on their demise. They can be as discriminatory and nasty as they like and it it is none of my business. Plain enough for you? Enough for you to stop misrepresenting my position and argument? What I have said is SOLICITORS should not be allowed to provide advice to clients on how to discriminate acording to Sharia law because they are not qualified or licence to practice (provide services and advice) Sharia law... only English Law. In addition, the Law Society, in providing guidance to solicitors on how to advise clients how to discriminatory according to Sharia law (don't leave assets to homosexuals, give less to women etc), has created a situation that is in direct contradiction of it's stated commitment to promote equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Have any of the 'detractors' using the gay issue as an example bothered to read the original Law Society's guidance, btw? This is a loaded question, I suggest persons (who feel-) concerned read it before replying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 ... That's not the way I interpret Zamo's posts. But you need to, because this is how we are, and what is the reality. You are a citizen. I am a citizen. Zamo is a citizen. That is why what he writes and how he writes represents him as a person. He needs to take responsibility for that. Some of his logic is confusing and is not really coming across as he intend it to be. That is the problem why it can sound more aggravating then it should ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I've denied that accusation a half dozen times on this thread... have the counter arguments worn so thin now that you have make up an argument to defeat? This was an earlier contribution from you, which formed my view on what you believed.. If discrimination creeps into the personal decisions of people making wills then there isn't much we can do about it. But if those views are being influenced by religious beliefs and teaching (e.g. Sharia Law) then the state should be challenging it. I took this to mean you opposed people forming views which affected the distribution of their assets based on religious doctrine and you believe the state should be challenging those views..indeed, it does seem plain enough to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 The action taken by the Law Society now resolve such situations: Muslim client - "I would like to draw up a will. I would like it to follow Sharia." Solicitor - "Sir, I apologise. I cannot provide this service, as I do not understand what is Sharia." If the solicitor did this, then he would have broken the law himself, and violated the Equality Act. For discriminating him against a service which he is entitled to because of his religion. Remember, there is a difference between a person living freely and practising who and what they are in this country, and asking for services and the government to accept and give the person their due support and help. Compared to, a person who IS discriminatory towards others on a person to person basis. This may make it more clear: Type 1 - Relationship between State to Citizen. Type 2 - Relationship between Businesses to Citizen. Type 3 - Relationship between Citizen to Citizen. Equality Act, as it currently stands, govern type 1 and type 2. Not type 3s. Type 3s are only enforceable, if that Citizen who is being discriminatory, is doing so within the actual job position of the State or the Business. Type 3 is governed by ASBO actually. Don't take this the wrong way but have you recently stopped taking medication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts