Daily Archives: August 16, 2021

Avirus is ravaging our country and our world. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that masks and vaccines work to limit sickness and death, there are people who endanger themselves and others, claiming rights under the banner of personal freedom. The U.S. Constitution, does not grant us so much personal freedom that we can disregard the rights and wellbeing of those around us.

Even scripture indicates that it is the Lords will that we look out for one another. In fact, Jesus said that if we would follow him, we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him. Following him means that we learn to becomeservants to one another. Democracy itself cannot endure if those who are part of it will not limit their own freedoms when necessary to safeguard the welfare of others.

We all delight in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed, but as far back as the very early 1900's there were a few who were warning that all we were putting into the air would bring about significant climate change. Well today, we are beginning to suffer the consequences of what we have done, with more dire consequences to come. The lure of wealth, and the greed for more and more comfortable lifestyles have caused many to disregard or deny the warnings for decades.

The people living in the developed and developing countries today have to decide whether we will condemn much of the natural world to death, and create intense trouble and suffering for future generations, or whether we will make the necessary sacrifices to reverse our course. It appears that in our lifetime, we cannot undo all the damage we have already done. The question is whether we will do what we can to begin reversing the damage, or at least limit future damage. God has blessed us with people who have some knowledge of what we will have to do to achieve this.

I do not buy the copout that it is all in God's hands, and if the virus strikes me, it is God's will; or if climate change creates hell on earth, it is God's will. It is not God's will. God has warned us against idolatry. Idolatry is what leads us to put ourselves above others, and to put our needs above the needs of future generations. It reminds me of the time in Revelation when people were suffering the consequences of their actions, as God had warned that they would, and still, they would not repent.

Truly, many of us were unaware of our sin, of the damage we were doing to the world and to others, but that does not excuse us. The consequences are just as real. We are responsible for the harm we do, not God. And God loves us so much that he grieves when we harm ourselves and others. Will we earnestly repent, and call on God to help us choose a better path to the future? Or will everyone's responsibility become no one's responsibility, while we blindly continue down the road to destruction? God has put the choice in our hands.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easythat leads to destruction, and there are many who take it.For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Doug StokesAyden, NC 28513

The rest is here:

Letter to the editor: We have freedom, but also great responsibility Neuse News - Neuse News

An archival exhibition on the freedom struggle in Delhi was inaugurated at the Secretariat as part of programmes to celebrate Indias 75th year of Independence.

Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia inaugurated the exhibition, which has been put together by the General Administration Department in collaboration with the Department of Delhi Archives, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He said: The exhibition is a showcase of the vibrant history Delhi has, and the great fight put up by our freedom fighters for an independent India. The path to peace and non-violence enshrined by Mahatma Gandhi will continue to be a great learning for all of us for years on.

The exhibition showcased events of Indias freedom struggle in Delhi starting from the first war of Independence in 1857 up to 1947. The displays take visitors on a journey from the genesis of the freedom struggle in Delhi and the rising dislike for the East India Companys rule. The exhibition displays the history of Delhi, showcasing the works of freedom fighters, especially Mahatma Gandhis struggle for peace and non-violence.

The visuals showcase the role played by teachers, students and women from Delhi in the freedom struggle and the religious unity during the period. It also showcases how students from St. Stephens College, Hindu College and Indraprastha Girls College were a part of the struggle.

Originally posted here:

Sisodia inaugurates archival exhibition on freedom struggle - The Hindu

Ahead of the imminent fall of the Afghanistan government making way for an interim set up, the Taliban which had set an example of a horrifying reign between 1996 and 2001, on Saturday said they respect women's rights. Women will be allowed to leave homes alone and they will have access to education and work, but they will have to wear the hijab, a Taliban spokesperson told Reuters. Whipping, stoning were common forms of Taliban punishment in the earlier regime, but as Reuters reported, the spokesperson said that policy on punishments will depend on courts. Media will be allowed to criticise anyone, but they should not indulge in character assassination, the spokesperson said.

The return of the Taliban is a nightmare for Afghan women, and as apprehended, the Taliban insurgents in Kandahar have walked into the offices of Azizi Bank and ordered nine women working there to leave, Reuters reported. Male relatives can take their place, the Taliban said.

Former interior minister Ali Ahmad Jalali may head interim Afghan govt: Reports

The insurgent group told Reuters that n Taliban fighter was allowed to conduct celebratory gunfire right now as the negotiation for peaceful power transfer is still going on. Foreigners in the city can leave if they wish, the Taliban said. But if they continue to stay, then they will have to register their presence with Taliban administrators, the spokesperson said.

Watch: Taliban surround Kabul, in talks with Ashraf Ghani govt for power transition

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani is expected to step down within the next few hours, Russian news agency Sputnik reported. With Afghanistan's former interior minister Ali Ahmad Jalali likely to be roped in to head the interim government, the Taliban are expecting the power transfer peacefully in the next few hours.

In just over a week, the Taliban have seized nearly all of Afghanistan raising questions over the monumental failure of the Afghan army. The warlords on whom Ashraf Ghani was banking for remobilising the army surrendered to the Taliban in the last few days apparently leaving no option in front of the Afghan government. The talks in Doha too didn't result in any breakthrough.

(With agency inputs)

Visit link:

Women will have freedom, foreigners can leave: Taliban on possible new regime - Hindustan Times

It was the 1920s. India had been long subjected to colonialism. But the soul of the masses was stirring. Gandhi had arrived from South Africa. He crafted a political vocabulary that had no precedent in history. He put the Congress party on notice. It had to become a mass organisation, with a common touch and vernacular cadence. Even the elites, who privately grumbled about his simplicity and moralism, had to concede to his authority. After all, Gandhi had, as one leader put it, lifted the pall of fear. The intellectual ambitions of Indias new leaders were not modest. It was to create an alternative universality; position India as a vishwaguru on the dint of its values and the power of its example, not on the barrel of the gun. Human rights and development as the West understood them were cloaks for a false universalism. They came with imperialism and exploitation.

This vision was not uncontested. Ambedkar rightly pointed out that a civilisation that had perfected an oppressive social hierarchy was hardly in a position to occupy the high moral ground. But this vision also stood on the ground of values and an ambitious universality: The idea of human dignity at the front and centre of everything. He was cynical about the motives of his colleagues, but never about values, and he crafted the principles of a new social contract capable of being a lodestar for the ages. There were other leaders of other persuasions as well, some more conservative, some more liberal, some revolutionary, but all fully conscious of the monumental task of bringing back a long subjugated country to its freedom, its moral centre and civilisational creativity.

And creativity that generation saw in abundance. What had begun as a sort of renaissance in Bengal became a national creed. Poets and writers created new songs and stories for this new stirring nation in more languages than one can list. Its scholars were rediscovering the deepest recesses of its traditions, even as its scientists were beginning to win Nobel Prizes under difficult circumstances. New universities were created. New art forms flourished. Fierce political debate flourished over the ends of politics and the means appropriate to it. All kinds of futures were being imagined for India, from the industrial to the pastoral. But all committed to freedom. The arguments were sometimes bitter. But they were chastened by a consciousness that Gandhi reminded us of that our besetting sin is not our differences, it is our littleness.

But under the surface of this brilliance and glitter of this golden generation that would lay the foundations of independent India, a poison was brewing. Limited democracy came in the form of the 1935 Act. Petty squabbles over power operated under the shadow of this greatness. But the deeper poison was the poison of communalism, with its same dreary murderous templates. There were fights over conversion and reconversion, sacred cows and prohibited pigs, which pamphlets were offensive to which community, who gets patronage from the state, threats of intermarriage, and the writing of history. There was sheer prejudice as well, those reservoirs of hate that cloak themselves under the garb of a higher purpose.

The social and intellectual partitions between Hindus and Muslims acquired new force. Rioting gained momentum, mutual recrimination became the new flavour. A nation looking at freedom was now contemplating division. In a few years, the energies of an authentic universality, spiritual regeneration, creative excellence, productive political debates were replaced by horrendous violence, a fearful nationalism, community narcissism and the strategic unity of the Subcontinent in ruins. This golden generation were no fools of history; but even they were certainly fooled by it. Once the poison took hold, the best and the brightest were powerless to stop it: A few drops of poison could overpower the sweetest of nectars.

Two new nations were born. India was born amidst the failure of its nationalist project. Nineteen forty-seven was both Partition and freedom; self-determination and slaughter. Pakistan decided to continue with the Partition project; it homogenised its territory, set religious benchmarks for identity. India in an act of creative resetting decided to make a fresh start. We embraced our tryst with destiny, even in this truncated form. We tried to let the legacy of freedom define India more than the obsession with Partition. In that audacious commitment was born a grand experiment: The largest democracy in the world, committed, with various imperfections, to liberal ideals, and a new hope. Our tryst with destiny collided with quotidian realities. We did not lift people out of poverty fast enough. Social democracy was often held hostage by plutocracy, bureaucracy and caste hierarchy. But we still said, to use Aurobindos words, we do not belong to the past dawns, but to the noons of the future.

In the new century, it looked as if Indias economic promise would finally gain momentum. India had much to build on. But then we rolled the clock back. Our battles are like a rerun of the 1930s cow protection, love jihad, new excuses to hate. We will now complete the logic of Partition, we said deepen the divisions, define ourselves by those same violent templates, the sense of victimhood and bigotry that tore apart the soul of India. In the 1930s, it happened to a certain extent despite the leaders; now our leaders are leading the charge. So long as we are completing the project of Partition, we said, we will put up with anything, even authoritarianism. Fundamentalism in Pakistan, open calls for violence in Delhi, all now wearing the garb of some higher national purpose. In a strange alchemy, embracing this death wish seems to make us feel more alive as a nation.

The moral of the 1930s was clear. Once unleashed, communalism always breaks nations. It took the sheen off Indias renaissance in the 1930s; it will again corrode new Indias energies. It has momentum that we can only pretend to control. The logic of Partition and the logic of freedom are fundamentally incompatible. One traps us in compulsory identities, the other lets us define ourselves. One sees fellow citizens as a potential threat, the other as a resource to build something special. One wallows in the past, the other is oriented to the future. One concentrates on the true foundation of national greatness, the other creates an impostor-like substitute. One is premised on fear, the other on hope. One on violence, the other solidarity. Which logic will we embrace freedom or Partition? A question for both India and Pakistan. And alas, the answer is looking depressingly clear.

This column first appeared in the print edition on August 14, 2021 under the title The 1947 we choose. The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express.

Read more:

At 75, will India embrace the logic of freedom or Partition? - The Indian Express

Sure, we are all tired of this masks-on, masks-off; its safe; no, its not safe! Business leaders, who are largely driven by corporate self-interest and profit, are now seeing the best path forward is to make sure their workforces and in some cases, their customers are vaccinated.

Exactly one year ago, as cases in Georgia were spiking, I spoke with Harry Heiman, a professor at Georgia State Universitys School of Public Health. We talked about mask mandates and where the science was going on this new virus.

In August 2021, we now know that people should be vaccinated, he said this week. Mandatory vaccines for employees are a critical tool. (Business leaders) recognize that we have to take responsibility for what we are responsible for.

Moderna COVID-19 vaccines sit on a tray as they are prepared to be administered to health care workers at the DeKalb County COVID-19 BrandsMart USA drive-thru testing site on Jan. 7, 2021, in Doraville. (Curtis Compton / The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

He noted that last year there was debate over what course should take precedence. At the time, public health measures were pitted against taking steps to open up the economy. It was the dilemma Gov. Brian Kemp faced when he moved to open up barber shops and nail salons and then took heat from President Donald Trump who, as it turns out, was just getting warmed up against his Georgia ex-buddy.

Now, says Heiman, the economy and public health are intrinsically tied together. It wasnt either/or, it was both.

He noted theres a segment of the unvaccinated population (more than 47% of Georgians have had at least one shot) who say they wont get it until theyre required to. A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about a quarter of the unvaccinated said theyd do so if forced.

Its kind of like seat belts. Decades ago, everyone knew they were safe but hardly anyone used them. Then cops started handing out tickets and almost everyone now buckles up.

The list of corporations that have told some or all employees that getting vaccinated is a condition of employment grows by the day: Walmart, Tyson Foods, Google, Microsoft, United Airlines, The Walt Disney Co.

In Georgia, Emory Healthcare, Invesco and even Cox Enterprises, which writes my paychecks, are requiring workers coming to the company headquarters to be vaccinated.

I called Jon Chally, a commercial litigator from Atlanta who says he has advised clients how to navigate the pandemic.

The reason for the increasing number of vaccine mandates is simple, he said: Theres a genuine desire with businesses to be safe for their employees and customers. And they also want to get moving. Theres been a certain frustration: What do we need to do to get over this? The science is to the point that the vaccine is what we need to get over this.

I asked if big businesses will be the ones to forge the path for smaller businesses to follow. No, itll be case by case, he said. Big businesses have to make decisions on all sorts of locations with different clientele and mindsets.

Maddie Nichols, 8, sits in the car as her mother Blythe Nichols (not pictured) decorates it with signs before they participate in a drive-by protest against Gov. Brian Kemps decision to reopen some Georgia businesses on April 24, 2020. (Hyosub Shin / Hyosub.Shin@ajc.com)

The simple answer is that more will do it, but science will drive it, Chally said. I suppose there is safety in numbers. But in the business world, its more what is best for our employees and customers and, ultimately, to the business.

Now, thats not to say any of that will be done without pushback. First, the anti-vax crowd is full-throated, often verging on rabid, and is quick to tell politicians or anyone else on social media what is percolating in their noodles. And politicians, by nature, are a reactive lot.

State Sen. Brandon Beach, an aspiring Republican from Alpharetta, announced this week hes filing legislation to prohibit a COVID-19 vaccination from being used as a condition of employment, admittance to a business, or to attend a public school.

It should not be the place of any government or business to institute mandates that their employees or customers receive a COVID-19 vaccine or to provide proof of vaccination in order to receive a service, said Beach, who has always been a big pro-bidness guy. He used to run the North Fulton Chamber of Commerce and now heads the North Fulton Community Improvement District (CID). He also jumped on the Stop The Steal bandwagon in a big way.

Now, businesses absolutely hate to be in the middle of a political fight. They prefer simply to focus on the business of doing business. And with a tight labor market, companies may get squeamish about irking those who remain resolutely unvaccinated. They may quit and need to be replaced.

In Florida, the Legislature and that states ambitious governor, Ron DeSantis, passed legislation vaguely similar to Beachs, prohibiting businesses from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Its a personal choice issue, they say you know, the choice for citizens to catch a deadly disease if they want and then let it mutate.

But a federal judge this week ruled in favor of a cruise line, which wanted its crew and passengers to show proof of vaccination. Cruise lines have forever been known as floating petri dishes, and COVID has decimated that business. This is an attempt to right the ship.

Norwegian Cruise Line argued that DeSantis and Co.s stand was an anomalous, misguided intrusion (that) threatens to spoil (the companys) careful planning and force it to cancel or hobble upcoming cruises, thereby imperiling and impairing passengers experiences and inflicting irreparable harm of vast dimensions.

Republicans have long argued that government should get out of the way of business. In this case, the judge said government cant get in the way of a business trying to keep its people safe.

I know, I know, some people are arguing these vaccination mandates are kind of like civil rights cases and are discriminatory. But my Google Law degree says that unvaccinated, feverish people are not a protected class.

Were sure to see more of these sideshows in front of judges as the nation tries to figure out a path forward.

Go here to see the original:

OPINION: Take the Freedom Vaccine then head to work - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Dear

Thank you for your email.

We have carefully reviewed clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in over 2000 children aged 12 to 15 years of age and have concluded that that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk and that it is effective and acceptably safe in this age group. This data has also been reviewed by the independent Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), its COVID-19 vaccine benefit-risk expert working group, as well as the Paediatric Medicines Expert Advisory Group.

No new side effects were identified and the safety data in children was comparable with that seen in young adults. As in the young adult age group, the majority of adverse events were mild to moderate, relating to reactogenicity (e.g. sore arm and tiredness.)

The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) met on 27 May 2021 to discuss the request to vary the existing authorisation to extend the approval to apply to children aged 12 15 years old.

The CHM considered the results of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials in over 2000 children aged 12 15 years.

The immunogenicity results (showing how well the vaccine works), studied in approximately 200 children, demonstrated similar neutralising antibody levels in adolescents aged 12-15 years compared with the levels in young adults aged 16-25 years.

These results are supported by a very high level of short-term efficacy data in adolescents against symptomatic disease after 2 doses of vaccine 21 days apart.

In participants with no prior evidence of infection there were no cases of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group from 7 days after the second dose compared with 16 cases in the placebo group.

Consistent with what was seen in adults there was evidence that the vaccine provides protection even before the administration of dose 2. There were no cases seen in the vaccine group from 11 days after dose 1 compared to 31 in the placebo group. Prior to day 11 there were 3 cases in the vaccine group and 4 on placebo.

Safety data in children aged 12-15 years is available from one clinical trial. This safety data is supported by the safety data from the clinical trials in individuals aged 16 years and over, together with a large amount of real-world data on the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in individuals aged 16 years and over. This has been closely monitored as the vaccine has been rolled out both in the UK and internationally. This experience has reinforced the conclusion that the benefits of the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine continue to outweigh any possible side effects.

The Public Assessment Report (Regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) will be updated to include the data which the CHM looked at to approve this vaccine, this will be available in due course.

As you may already be aware, other regulatory authorities around the world, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), US FDA and Health Canada, have also approved the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, including its use in 12 15 year olds.

If you have a query about the information provided, please reply to this email

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date you receive this response and addressed to: info@mhra.gov.uk

Due to the ongoing Covid-19 situation, we are not able to accept delivery of any documents or correspondence by post or courier to any of our offices

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you were to remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you would have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please bear in mind that the Information Commissioner will not normally review our handling of your request unless you have first contacted us to conduct an internal review. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioners OfficeWycliffe HouseWater LaneWilmslowCheshireSK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Read more here:

Freedom of Information request on the effects of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on 12-15-year olds (FOI 21-646) - GOV.UK

Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!

Anti-vaxxers should reject COVID-19 care

In response to the 200 demonstrators who view the vaccine-or-test mandate as an infringement on personal freedom (Vaccine-or-test mandates in Hawaii spur protest rally, Star-Advertiser, Aug. 10): I love your rally cry, Its our body, Its our choice, and especially, Live free or die.

So when you contract the COVID-19 delta variant, please do just that. Stay home and gasp for air. Embrace your freedom. Do not go to the hospital, burden our health care system or become a slave to the pharmaceutical industry that could save your life. You want natural immunity? Looks like you prefer natural selection.

Deborah Luckett

Waialae-Kahala

Governors hypocritical on freedom of choice

When anti-vaxxers claim, My body, my choice, how many also would ban birth control and abortions? Those people only expose their hypocrisy.

We see this on the national scale when governors say they wont force vaccinations and masking to preserve freedom of choice, but are willing to ban masking and vaccinations using the same reason. This is insanity.

Cyrus Won

Wilhelmina Rise

Trim weeds near canal along Kalakaua Avenue

With hurricane season here, its sad to see the neglect on cutting the grass and weeds along the canal that runs parallel to Kalakaua Avenue between King and Philip streets.

Years ago that canal overflowed when it rained for more than 30 days, and the grass was low. Today it is the same height as the sidewalk and you cant see the riverbed. Can that be cleared before a disaster arises and floods those living next to it?

Kekoa McGuire

McCully-Moiliili

Crowds at Lanikai Beach driving out the locals

Build another road in and out and a parking lot in Lanikai (Protect access to Hawaiis trails, beaches, Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Aug. 4)?

Already Lanikai Beach is so full of tourist groups that some residents dont even swim there when the water gets too murky.

These reckless suggestions are beyond ridiculous. We need to control access to that beach, not encourage it.

Marcia Del Mar

Kailua

EXPRESS YOURSELF

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.

>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.

>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter

Read the original post:

Letters: Anti-vaxxers should reject COVID-19 care; Governors hypocritical on freedom of choice; Crowds at L... - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

17th June 2021FOI 21/532

Dear

Thank you for your email dated 19 th May 2021, where you asked for the following:

given that 1,143 people have died from the vaccine can this information be put into a table format which shows the ages of the people that have died after receiving the COVID Vaccine within 28 days.

The MHRA intends to publish all suspected reactions reported in association with available COVID-19 vaccines in an interactive format as interactive Drug Analysis Profiles (iDAPs), along with our ADR summary that is published each week. The use of iDAPs will enable users to view the data by categories of their choice such as age, sex and seriousness of reports. Users will also be able to download the data tables in CSV format.

As we plan to publish the data, we consider that your request is covered by Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act (information intended for future publication) and the information you have asked for is therefore exempt from disclosure.

Section 22 is a qualified exemption which means we have considered whether there is a greater public interest in releasing the information requested or withholding it. We recognise there is strong interest in seeing this data and accept it should not be withheld however wish to publish this information alongside appropriate context and assessment.

We will send you a link to the iDAPs once they are published.

I hope the information provided is helpful, but if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of this response; and can be addressed to this email address.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team, Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division

More:

Freedom of Information request on the ages of people who have died within 28 days of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine (FOI 21-532) - GOV.UK

Siblings are not considered heirs when property disposed of by will

The freedom of a person to dispose of their property by will is subject to a restriction concerning the statutory portion to protect family and close relatives. The disposable portion is stated in article 41 of the Wills and Succession Law, Cap.195, and the testator can only dispose a quarter of the net value of their estate when they have a spouse, child, or grandchild, or half of the net value when they have a spouse, father or mother but no child. The testator can dispose of their entire property when they have no spouse, child, father or mother.

If a testator disposes of their property by will in a way that exceeds the disposable portion, the will is valid but the portion will be reduced and abated accordingly. If a testator, only has a spouse, they can leave all property to the spouse. Siblings are not considered heirs.

These issues are analysed in a judgment issued by the supreme court on July 20. The case concerned a brother, who appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance not recognising him as an heir of his deceased brother, who had left a will. The testator died leaving his property to his mother, siblings, nieces and nephews (children of his brother who had predeceased him). The appellant argued that the will was valid as to the disposable portion provided by law, ie half of the net value of the estate, and that he was a lawful heir for the other half, as their mother was alive when the testator passed away. The mother, however, had renounced her inheritance right in favour of the legatees mentioned in the will.

The supreme court held that article 41 of the law establishes two classes of compulsory succession. In the first belong the descendants and in the second the parents who become necessary heirs when there are no descendants, while the spouse is always a necessary heir. Siblings are not included. The disposable portion, as the court stated, is limited to narrow kinship frameworks, with its percentage increasing and conversely limiting the power of disposal, depending on how close the dependency is expected to be. Outside of these narrow frameworks, there is no disposable portion, since, if the testator does not leave a spouse, descendants or parents, they can freely dispose of all his estate.

The deceased, according to the judgment of the court, disposed the whole of his estate while there was a restriction in favour of the mother under article 41. Violation of such a restriction does not invalidate the will, but the disposal in excess is reduced and abated accordingly. The court raised the question of whether the statutory portion of the mother, a right which she did not exercise, is extinguished due to her renunciation, or is retained and can be exercised by the siblings, who together with the mother belong to the second class of the intestate succession. It is a matter of interpretation and the law first recognises the power of free disposal of property as a right and choice of the testator. This freedom is limited to the extent necessary to protect and support the family in the strict sense, to which the siblings do not belong. This is the general spirit.

The court concluded that if the mother had died before her son, he could dispose his estate without any restrictions and therefore the statutory portion concerned only the mother. Since the mother renounced this protection from the law, the statutory portion lost its meaning and purpose. The fact that the brother could be an intestate heir does not make him a necessary heir and the supreme court dismissed his appeal.

George Coucounis is a lawyer practicing in Larnaca and founder of George Coucounis LLC, Advocates & Legal Consultants, email: [emailprotected] `

Visit link:

Freedom to dispose of property by will - Cyprus Mail

It was the time when Hindus and Muslims joined hands to fight for Indias freedom, and Darul Uloom at Deoband in Uttar Pradesh and scholars of the Islamic seminary played a vital role.

So much so that those who opposed the strong anti-partition stand of celebrated freedom fighter Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani, who taught hadith (tradition of Prophet Muhammad) at the institution, termed it anti-Muslim, and even sought a rescinding of a grant to the seminary from the State of Hyderabad.

Documents preserved at the Telangana State Archives and Research Institute reveal that on August 22, 1938, one G.H. Siddiqui from Bijnore had complained to Prime Minister of Hyderabad, Sir Akbar Hydari, saying that Maulana Madani had unfurled a Tricolour atop his allotted quarters. He then proceeded to describe the seminary as an institution which has now become a political centre of anti-Muslim religious propaganda and is now, no more an institution to give pure Islamic education. He then sought to know whether it would be possible to briefly stop the annual grant to teach a lesson to the staff.

Sir Hydaris handwritten note, polite in tone and tenor, found its way to the Vice Chancellor of the seminary, Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, another celebrated Islamic scholar, to know whether this was true, even as he requested him to investigate the matter.

In his response, Maulana Usmani said that not only was the incident true, but the small flag that was once atop the quarters was replaced by a much larger one. The maulana, whose political leanings were diametrically opposed to those of Maulana Madani, supported the creation of Pakistan and eventually moved there. He had pointed out that the incident had happened in his absence. While Maulana Madanis office had responded to inquiries, he himself had not.

The letter shows that there was not much that Maulana Usmani could do. In the letter he writes, Esteemed sir, you may remember that as I have previously informed you that 10 or 11 years ago, when my predecessors appointed the maulana as principal of the institution, they had accepted all his conditions, that his political activities and leanings would not be restricted.

Academic and author Shamsul Islam, in his book Muslims Against the Partition of India, writes that Maulana Madani, who was fiercely against partition, was famous for saying in 1937, nearly a year before the incident as mentioned in the letter to Sir Hydari, that nations are based on homelands, not religion.

Speaking to The Hindu, noted cleric and president of Jamiat-e-Ulama Hind (Arshad Madani group) Maulana Arshad Madani, who is the freedom fighters son, opined that the staunch opposition to partition was a result of foresight, and conviction in peaceful coexistence of communities.

He was of the strong opinion that partition would not auger well for Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan. He believed that for 1,300 years, both communities lived next to each other without problems. We saw what happened after partition. He was imprisoned for a total of nine years, including in Sabarmati jail, and in Matla, he said.

See more here:

A Muslim freedom fighter who was dead against partition - The Hindu