Legal question - how does swearing 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' fit with 'misgendering as aggravated hate crime' in Court?

[IvyTwines]

This is in relation to what Starmer was apparently telling a Pink News audience last night. How does compelling someone to say a man is a woman square with the pledge you make in a court of law to tell the truth? Is the truth now something infinitely flexible and subjective, not grounded in reality but merely floating words that can now be changed by a parliamentary fiat or a court of law?

Yes I'd also like to know how forcing people to lie fits in with the oath...

It's something I hope I never have to grapple with, but I would need to have a definition of 'woman' and 'man' provided by the court to be able to speak truthfully.

I believe the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which advises on such things, has had a recent revision - can't remember how this was affected.
www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/july-2022-interim-revision-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book-issued/

There were some great threads on it somewhere. I'll see if I can find them.

Link to a piece on it in the OP here and discussion thread
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4291072-Policy-Exchange-Why-the-Equal-Treatment-Bench-Books-needs-urgent-revision

I'll link to the publication separately - it's a while since i read it!
policyexchange.org.uk/publication/prejudging-the-transgender-controversy/

That post was just a link to the Policy Exchange publication. Nothing dodgy - it's linked in the OP of the thread.

I'm a lawyer and have made this point before. I think it's problematic.

Oh no - has Starmer being weighing in again with his "men are women when they say they are and women wanting single sex anything are bigots?
I'd hoped that the Mermaids paedophile scandal, the numerous safeguarding failures, the damning Cass review, the detransitioners and the rest might have persuaded him and his cervix knitting colleagues that this issue was a bit more complex than their trans extremist mates are making out?

And (sticking to the question) forcing people to lie under oath to fulfil the demands of a particular group is a problem. Especially when you look at the sexual offending nature of so many of the recent court cases.

@LaughingPriest thank you for the links. I wish someone would put this directly to Starmer - ideally someone like Labour peer Professor Sir Robert Winston.

Them: do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...?

Also them: no, not that truth, you bigot

Quite. 'Tell the truth but you are compelled under threat of punishment to tell my truth and not yours'.

FUBAR.

It's all FUBAR.

We already know, that a judge refused to give compensation to a woman who was attacked by a man because she wouldn't say he was a woman.

I'll probably get my sentence doubled for contempt of court, as I'll be denouncing the judge to his face for his malpractice in attempting to make a witness affirm something that everyone in the room knows is not true.

This must never be forgotten-the judiciary have been captured. The ETBB is a joke that panders to gender identity rather than biological sex. The fact that a male born person who identifies as a woman, was involved in the writing of it should concern everyone.

I would ask the judge to clarify that he was asking me to lie under oath. Probably be in contempt of court but at least it's more sunlight.

I hope that I would never be in that position but I would not lie even if it meant I was in “ contempt of court“ If the law thinks it can treat us with contempt then we can turn the tables on them.

Judge. If you misgender the defendant I shall find you in contempt of court.

Me. Better make that utter contempt.

Adjustments are made in court for people who are religious or not religious, so that both groups can swear an oath. There needs to be a similar adjustment for people who are unable to to lie about reality, for whatever reason. This is where we are now.

Quite.

Do you swear to tell the truth?

What truth? Who's truth? The objective truth? The defendant's preferred truth?

This is a religious position; the only way to manage this is religious tolerance. Live how you like; believe what you like; it's a free country; you just cannot demand and require that others perform and engage in your beliefs for your benefit or discriminate on grounds of heresy.

A court that demands a witness lie under oath (or affirmation) or face accusation of contempt of court is worthy of contempt.

Yes, I remember reading about Maria Maclachlan (age 60) being assaulted in broad daylight by a bunch of young TRAs in Hyde Park. That was the moment I did a tyre-melting U-turn from thinking males calling themselves women were harmless.

The judge ordered her to refer to her male attackers as women. Total penalty for them? Just one assailant got fined, £430 including costs. A bargain price for an afternoon’s woman-hating fun. (The one who was fined had posted online “I want to f*ck up some TERFs”) before the attack.) Maria had her injuries, her camera smashed and no compensation.

Meant to say, I have often wondered how being ordered to lie under oath could be considered to affect the rest of a person’s testimony.

In Orwell’s most famous book it says that if the party says 2+2=5 then 2+2=5

if Mr Starmer and his goons say a man is a woman that must be ‘the truth’!

As a lawyer, if a client asked you to clarify what she should do and say, what would you advise her?

Also if, for example, it's a contract issue and the person was Mr. Smith when the contract was signed and is now going by Ms. Smith, do you just refer to the person as 'the plaintiff' or something'? Is that an option?

Not thinking of Maria’s case! Her testimony was proved true by videos made of the assault. But in general. Has any witness ever had the guts to say they refuse to lie under oath? That would prejudice some judges against you, so it could harm your case.
Difficult one.