WUNRN
UK - Women’s Rights Campaigners Welcome Withdrawal of the Law Society’s
Sharia Wills Practice Note
By MaryamNamazie
24
November 2014 - One Law for All, Southall Black Sisters, the Centre for Secular
Space, Nari Diganta and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
have welcomed the Law Society’s withdrawal of their sharia wills
practice note.
The
practice note advised solicitors on how to draw up ‘Sharia-compliant’ wills,
stating that
“… illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs … The male
heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir … Non-Muslims
may not inherit at all … a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir…”
The ensuing campaign
organised by women’s rights advocates Pragna Patel, Maryam
Namazie, Gita Sahgal, Yasmin Rehman, Dianna Nammi, Rumana Hashem and Chris Moos
has seen an open letter to Asma Jahangir, the former United Nations
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief; and an open letter to the Law Societyincluded signatories such
as scientist Richard Dawkins, writer Taslima Nasrin and founder of Secularism
is a Woman’s Issue Marieme Helie Lucas, amongst others.
On April 28, a
well-attended protest at the offices of the Law Society featured
speakers such as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Muslim Institute Fellow Yasmin Rehman, Rumana
Hashem from Nari Diganta – Women in Movement for Social
Justice, Secularism and Equal Rights, and Diana Nammi, Chief Executive of the Iranian and Kurdish
Women’s Rights Organisation.
The organisers of the
campaign also obtained legal advice from Karon Monaghan QC of Matrix Chambers,
which stated that the Practice Note was unlawful as it provided guidance to
solicitors that promotes an interpretation of Sharia that is discriminatory on
the grounds of gender, religion and ethnicity and thus gave rise to the
possibility of direct discrimination by solicitors. This came after the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority had already
withdrawn its endorsement of the Law Society’s Practice Note on July 10,
following the threat of legal action from Southall Black Sisters.
In addition, the
campaigners also found that the Law Society had used the works of an extremist cleric, who has advocated flogging and
stoning for “fornicators”, for their Practice Note. The campaign received extensive presscoverage and political support, including from
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, who warned that the Law Society’s Practice
Note risks undermining the rule of law.
Pragna
Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters, said:
“SBS
welcomes the Law Society’s decision to withdraw the discriminatory guidance. We
also acknowledge that it has publicly apologised for having produced the
ill-advised guidance in the first place. Let this episode serve as a warning to
other public bodies that may be contemplating instituting ‘Sharia compliant’ measures
that flout equality and human rights law and values, which must be regarded as
universal and non-negotiable. We now look forward to working with the Law
Society to address the devastating impact of the legal aid cuts which also
prevent many abused and marginalised women from minority backgrounds from
accessing justice.”
Maryam
Namazie, founder of One Law for All, commented:
“The
Law Society has finally succumbed to our pressure and withdrawn its guidance a
week before women’s rights groups were to meet with them to step up our
pressure against the discriminatory nature of their Sharia-compliant guidance.
This is another huge victory for equality, one law for all and civil rights and
yet another loss for the religious far-right. We congratulate all those who
took part in this campaign. One law for all is not an empty slogan but must
mean something particularly when it comes to the law.”
Gita
Sahgal, Director of the Centre for Secular Space, said:
“We
are delighted that the Law Society has finally seen sense and made clear that
they do not wish to condone discrimination, have withdrawn the note entirely
and will not seek to replace it. Their apology is very welcome. This is a
victory against the institutionalisation of religious law. Secular values
protect the rule of law far better than the regulators do. There are many
battles ahead to protect human rights and access to justice. We have a common
interest in these struggles.”
Chris
Moos, one of the organisers of the campaign, concluded:
“The
Law Society has done the only sensible thing – withdraw the guidance for good
and apologise for promoting the use of discriminatory practices in the first
place. Hopefully, those who have defended the practice note will now realise
that the only way public bodies and representative organisations can be sure to
meet their equality duties is by adhering to the principle of secular
neutrality in matters of belief.”