The secretary of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, solicitor Charlie Klendjian, spelled out on Monday what the protest was about:

We know the Law Society practice notes don’t change the law. We know that sharia law hasn’t been “enshrined” into English law. Well not yet, anyway.

… we know and we accept that people can be as nasty, racist, homophobic, sectarian, bigoted and sexist as they want in their wills, as long as they provide for their dependants, because it’s their money and they can do what they want with it. This is what we call in English law “testamentary freedom”. It’s an established and reasonably uncontroversial feature of our legal system. We’re not here today campaigning against testamentary freedom, or to legally force people to give money to people that they don’t like.

So when the Law Society president calls critics of its sharia guidance “ill informed” – in typical sneering lawyerly fashion, I might add – I respond that no, Mr. President, we are not “ill informed”. It is you, Mr. President, that is ill informed: you are ill informed about the harm sharia law manages to do even though it is not part of our formal legal system, and it is you, Mr. President, that is ill informed about the threat sharia law poses to everyone’s fundamental civil liberties.

The Law Society, of which he is a member, should be leading the criticism of encroaching sharia norms, he argued. But failing that

is it really too much to ask that they just keep their mouth shut and not actively give sharia law credibility and respectability? Is that really too much to ask of the representative body for my profession? Is that really too much to ask of a secular Law Society within a secular democracy which has a secular legal system?

I enjoyed his channelling of Ronald Reagan at the end of his speech. That must have been fun to write and to say.

2014-04-30T00:32:06+00:00