Monthly Archives: August 2021

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

18th June 2021FOI 21/554

Dear

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 20th May 2021, where you requested the following:

You write in the paragraph Thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets that

Fifteen cases have been reported after a second dose, out of 9.0 million second doses.

Could you please specify a bit further on these fifteen cases: ages, gender, and fatality? Since the UK real world data are closely followed, a better understanding of risks of the second dose is of great importance for countries like The Netherlands.

We can confirm that we do hold this information however as we intend 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.

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

Follow this link:

Freedom of Information request on cases of thromboembolic events with concurrent low platelets (FOI 21-554) - GOV.UK