http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm

Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that married Italian women who commit adultery are entitled to lie about it to protect their honour.

The court gave its landmark ruling after hearing the case of a 48-year-old woman, convicted of giving false testimony to police by denying she had lent her mobile phone to her lover.

The appeal court did not agree that she had broken the law.

It said bending the truth was justified to conceal extra-marital relationships.

...

The woman who brought the appeal was from Porto Ercole on the Tuscany coast, and named only as Carla.

She had lent her telephone to her secret lover, Giovanni, who then used it to call Carla's estranged husband, Vincenzo, and insult him.

Giovanni, the lover, was convicted of abusive behaviour in a local court, and Carla convicted as an accessory.

But the Court of Cassation found that having a lover was a circumstance that damaged the honour of the person among family and friends.

Lying about it, therefore, was permitted, even in a judicial investigation.

It is not yet clear whether the ruling might also apply to men who have secret mistresses.

The Court of Cassation, which is largely staffed by elderly male appeal judges, has in the past issued a number of controversial judgements.

It once gave a ruling, later rescinded after protests from women's groups, that a woman could not be raped by definition if she was wearing tight jeans, since the jeans could only be removed with her consent.


Any comments? This seems to be a rather curious ruling, to say the least.

Curious. Yes. I have to say, the Italians have always seemed a little nutty to me, I'm just not sure who gets the award here.

Nothing against Italians, really, but:

1.) Is it illegal to insult someone in Italy, or is it just over the phone? Are we missing something here?

2.) How does 'protecting one's honor' justify lying to the police? Forget the part where she's cheating on her husband, just any situation in general.

3.) Ok, now remember the part where she's cheating on her husband. How much honor can the person have if they're cheating on their spouses and lying about it to police?

4.)It is not yet clear whether the ruling might also apply to men who have secret mistresses.
It had better. If not, the Italains really need to take a closer look at their values and who they allow to be judges.

5.)Unless there's something really screwy going on here, can we reasonably say she knew the boyfriend was going to use the phone to insult her husband? I mean, was she standing there with him and he said "Hey, can I use your phone, I wanna smash your husband a little?" or something? If she didn't know, and couldn't reasonably suspect, is she an accessary at all? If not, why the issue?

As far as 1) is concerned, I think many countries have laws against verbal abuse. They are not often invoked, but I believe that at least in my country you can be fined for insults. However, it's possible that it only counts when it's in public, in which case it would be libel of some sort. In any case, though, I believe htat giving someone a tongue-lashing might get you to the courts if they are determined enough - and I'd say getting the lip from your ex's current bedmate can be a great motivation.

2) is the big one imo. I mean, 3) I can more or less live with - it involves some pretty subjective stuff. Not everyone wants all the people around them to know their dirty underwear - like what did you smoke in college, who your previous boyfriends/girlfriends were, etc. That I can understand, although in this case it is being carried quite far. But if you can safely lie to police and courts, then just what is the point of the entire process?

A lawyer friend once told me that the only things you should ever say to a police officer are your name and address. Other than that plead the fifth amendment (at least here in the U.S.) and say nothing until you have legal counsel there.

The closer you live to Italy, the more you realize that the entire country is one big, decadent joke, so this sort of thing is not that surprising. The entire Italy is practically owned and brainwashed by Berlusconi who gets to dictate the laws and has them rewritten in his favour whenever there's a chance that he'll get within a few miles of court. As far as politics, legal system and media go (and a few other things), Italy is Berlusconi's playground, and this ruling is likely a consequence of one of the laws he had changed so that he couldn't be held accountable for his crimes. Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes, Berlusconi is the Italy of the recent past, present and foreseeable future.

Pretty sure in MOST countries, you can be tried for verbal abuse just like any other crime, although this probably constitutes to threats and the like.

I didn't think you could get arrested for something as pathetic as verbal abuse but even here in Aus I've seen it happen countless times.. And not just in crowded public places..

A lawyer friend once told me that the only things you should ever say to a police officer are your name and address. Other than that plead the fifth amendment (at least here in the U.S.) and say nothing until you have legal counsel there.


Works pretty much the same here, although I'm not sure if you are entitled any sort of silence here without a lawyer (I've only been arrested twice, and for pathetic charged mind you). But usually as long as you don't say anything, the outcome is usually good lol.

As for the Tuscany incident, I have to admit it DOES seem rather weird how the whole situation was handled, and I AM Italian.. When I stayed in Rome it seemed a lot different how threats were handled (as my friends and I saw a random walking down the street getting abused and authorities just asked him to move on) so I'm guessing it was just the ideals of the Judge(s) or perhaps just how things work there?

A lawyer friend once told me that the only things you should ever say to a police officer are your name and address. Other than that plead the fifth amendment (at least here in the U.S.) and say nothing until you have legal counsel there.

It is the same in Denmark - you must give your name and address when asked. I think the authorities can also ask your CPR number (ID number; corresponds to SSN number in the U.S.).

Of course if you're called as a witness in court you have to tell the truth and you are not entitled to legal counsel. However, you are not expected to incriminate yourself or your next-of-kin. I don't know whether I am allowed to lie, or "only" to avoid telling the truth, if for example I knew something that would incriminate my closest relatives. But I would not be allowed to lie in order to hide an embarrassing fact about myself or my family.

That's crazy. If you are under oath you should be forced to either answer all questions truthfully or take the 5th (or whatever it is in your country). I can understand not wanting to tell people about it but in a criminal case the truth is paramount.

It says something about how ridiculous these judges are if they seriously believe a woman in tight pants cannot be raped because she'd have to cooperate to get them off. That's among the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Hilarious how own unrightful conduct should create rights... As a rule you're entitled to shut up about whatever could cause you to be liable - you or close family, potentially including your lover. In some jurisdictions, they will also hold you entitled to lie in such cases.

I could construe a couple of arguments in the woman's defence regarding this offence, but except for avoidance of own or her lover's criminal responsibility, none would include a claim that the law wasn't broken. Rather that the law was broken but she wasn't criminally responsible.

Generally people shouldn't be forced to confess their crimes to the general public, but the police need to know the facts, oaths are not to be taken lightly either, and, well, certain categories of people should be entitled to certain truths. For example everyone is entitled to know if his or her current or potential lover has any sexually communicable illnesses, a history of sex crimes or domestic violence or even certain disorders. Future spouses of divorced people should be able to know about adultery or at least there should be no way of legally obstructing this information. As for current ones, I'm not entirely sure. They should probably be entitled to know about going affairs, while in case of past transgressions discretion could perhaps be the better way.

Back to the verdict, I don't like it. To build up a bit on what I said before, they could play with compulsion, duress, internal conflict, whatever, but to claim it was the right thing to do is a bit much. Honour is not exactly protected by lying about one's failure to keep it spotless. After all, having a lover is an elective circumstance. The stigma is a natural consequence attached to the act. While I can see why one wouldn't like to share it, I can't see why he should have an actual right to do so - rather than merely going unpunished because of the compelling power of his predicament.

I find the verdict absolutely reasonable. I will be accused of being cynical here, but alas.

The probable reasons for her lying lie in the peculiarities of Italian divorce laws. If the woman is 'guilty' of adultery, in divorce she'll be considered the party guilty of wrecking the marriage, and get nothing or very little in alimonies. People have to live. As a result of that, every side in a divorce has an interest to accuse the other of adultery. Talk is cheap, so the other side needs to prove their claims, which easily degrades the procedure into a mudslinging contest as soon as procedures have been opened.
Any woman, or any adulterer (male or female), in (his or) her right mind must approach this like an accused in a criminal trial, she has no reason to incriminate herself - so (he or) she is essentially entitled to lie, at the risk of looking very bad when exposed. We allow that right to every criminal, but refuse that to a divorcing wife? The moralists will probably point out that she could 'plead the fifth' and just shut up, but it is unrealistic to expect such cool morality that in face of an emotionally charged procedure such as a divorce. 'Honour' as part of the argument is just a nice way of stating that it is too much to ask from a woman (or an adulterer) to not only point a gun to (his or) her head but to, please, pull the trigger, too. And also, the rule cuts both ways, it's not a woman's privilege, men are lying and entitled to lie in court just as much, at their own risk. That is just a sober assessment, not an endorsement.

To avoid that Germany has adopted a different approach to divorce: After one year of separate lives the marriage is considered irreparably broken (that fiction can be disproved if the couple want to start over again, after all it's their marriage), alimonies are paid according to the rules in law, and the goods are divided. While this is unfair to those who have been cheated on it is easier to handle for the courts, to an extent. The mudslinging here begins with the allocation of goods and chattels .... "We open today's proceedings with item #146 of 2356 of the contested inventory - three pots with flowers, worth € 0,50 ...."

PS: Also, let's keep in mind that in a Western court marriage is a civil contract, in which the mutual obligations under the contract cannot be enforced with a verdict (just think of the 'marital duties'). In the West adultery is not, or no longer, a criminal offence, for good reason. Sex among adults is a part of the private life. It's nobody else's business. So there is little point in civil courts engaging in the business that criminal courts are no longer allowed to - issuing 'guilty verdicts' on adulterers. That's no longer considered to be an issue courts ought to involve themselves in, and I think that is a good idea.

Wow. I agree with Ragusa.

I believe the end of the world is officially at hand. :D

This is a bit off-topic but it is something I have been wondering about for quite some time. What is the deal with alimony? Why should you get paid after you have divorced someone? I am fairly sure that here in Sweden when you get divorced you are once again your own, you split the assets acquired during the marriage and go your separate ways. The parent taking main responsibility for any children is entitled to child support which is a set amount and the same for everyone. No part is supposed to pay the other part after they are divorced, what is the reasoning behind this? I remember a few years back there was this woman divorcing a very wealthy brewer and she must have been watching too many American movies because she started demanding alimony and dragged it to court where it got thrown out. She was an adult person well able to take care of herself there is no legal obligation for someone else to pay her to do nothing.

Can any of you legal people explain to my the reasoning behind the concept of alimony? To me it seems to belittle mostly women thinking they cant take care of themselves and screw over men just because they happen to be financially succesful (the roles can of course be reversed and often are nowadays).

Joa,
it's about traditional housewives, who traditionally have no professional education but have focused on raising the kids and keeping the house and who have no chance of getting a qualified job that would support themselves, much less so once they are beyond 40.

I wasn't correct when I said alimonies after the law, alimonies in Germany are mostly a result of judicial practice in interpreting the law rather than detailed regulations in the law itself. That is intentional because it allows to address individual cases individually. In a relevant decision one consideration among German judges was that after a divorce housewives should not go down the social ladder, and that the work they did as a housewife ought to be taken into account for fairness. In a case where the woman has a job that does support them they get less in alimonies. A short duration of the marriage reduces alimonies, too. However, the rules stress self responsibility, so both sides are obliged to seek a job. It's not about support for life. It's temporarily.

Example would be along the lines of: Man earns € 2.500, woman that has been a housewife before takes a job that pays € 750. The base for the calculations would be € 3.250, because her later earnings are considered a surrogate of the work she did when married (raising kids and so forth). According to that she would have a claim for the difference between the half of € 3.250 and her earnings, which is € 875. You get the idea. Kids complicate the calculations and I will spare you that.

Now consider the woman finds or always held a job that gives € 2.500, and do the math yourself ;)

I don't think that's entirely reasonable. A woman who had a well-paying job before her marriage and is reasonably capable of achieving a similarly paying job afterward should not recieve alimony, regardless of how much money her husband made. Instead, alimony should be assessed based on the impact to the woman's earning power. Women that quite highschool, college, or graduate school in order to get married and start a family, for example, didn't earn the very vauable degrees that they otherwise would have. Similarly, a woman who has been out of the job market for 15 years raising kids is not going to be able to jump back into her profession at the same pay grade she left, but if she chose to stop working just because she was married and didn't need to (no kids involved) or she maintained a resume-relevant job durring the marriage, her career potential was at all times in her own hands, and she should not recieve alimony.

Italy is a fantastic country. Beautiful, friendly people, sexy women and great food, it's such a relaxed place. Had I money to live somewhre else and not have to work, I'd live in a coastal area of Italy, I really enjoyed Sorrento. I'll forgive them their little thing like this, no-one is perfect.

We allow that right to every criminal

Cough. Cough. Do we? :p It's debatable, actually. :p

Few scholars debate impunity, but the "right" to lie is just a majority opinion. :p

'Honour' as part of the argument is just a nice way of stating that it is too much to ask from a woman (or an adulterer) to not only point a gun to (his or) her head but to, please, pull the trigger, too.

Respectfully, I think they actually meant what they said and that means they think lying to protect your reputation is a right, at least in some extreme situations.

Sex among adults is a part of the private life. It's nobody else's business.

Actually, it's pretty much the spouse's business and when it harms one marriage, it harms the community, not to mention the children of the couple. Less damaging things than that are a crime. Adultery should also be a pretty sure-win tort case even in the current legal system, except I'm not sure anyone ever does that.

Chev,
it is their marriage. When they break it, it is their problem. I find it sensible to leave the morals and the moral judgement to them instead of imposing it on them to protect the morality of the community. Of course that is a political statement a society has to make, and the majority of Western societies have decided to stay out of that. Germany abolished the offences of adultery and homosexual intercourse in the same year, 1969. And I repeat, it is a sensible idea. We don't need a religious or morality police like they have in Saudi Arabia.

I concede that the Italians may be serious when they talk about the 'honour of the woman' bit, but mind this isn't a divorce procedure but that she was accused of a criminal offence, lying to the police. Even when adultery isn't criminal in Italy any more it would still be self-incrimination.
Generally, when you lie to authorities, you face the risk of adverse consequences when you're exposed. One day in court should teach one that people do lie, do persistently lie and do stupidly lie, and that that's generally a nuisance. But unless they're under oath that is it, and what I meant with impunity is that they aren't punished for that. They lose credibility, which has adverse consequences in itself that can be considered a sanction. And of course, there is fraud, which is a real criminal offence.

Fidelity in marriage cannot be enforced by power of a verdict. What will you do with an adulteress? Stone her as the Saudis do? Or send her to jail? Or leave her without support by her divorced hubby and take her children away? So that it will that teach the other adulterers? What if her hubby beat her, or was an a**hole without beating her, and she committed adultery to find some comfort with someone else? Life is a complex thing.

You're smarter than that. Please mind to separate the Sacrament of Marriage from the civil contract.

Wow. I agree with Ragusa.

I believe the end of the world is officially at hand. :D

I'll go check the Hell weather forecast, okay? Stay put. Then again, I've agreed with TGS a few times and it hasn't snowed yet, but you can always hope yours will be the first time.

Nah, don't worry. According to Yahoo, they're only having light drizzle.

Anyway, the idea that someone might be authorized to lie to the police/in court does not sit well with me. I can understand giving written statements or in any other way being provided with a way to make your statements confidential, but to simply be allowed to say whatever you want in court or to the police sounds contrary to what I think the courts and the police exist for in the first place.

You misunderstand what I said when I meant 'entitled'.

They aren't authorised to lie and I didn't say that. I said that they aren't punished for lying. There is little way to sanction lying short of putting people under oath, or putting them under special obligations (like obliging a head of a company to report risk of bankruptcy, or being truthful to the tax office).

I see little point in criminalising people's weaselling about their extramarital affairs, that aren't even criminal acts, because they violated procedural rules when covering them up. And truth telling in investigations of crimes primarily serves procedural purposes. Same thing with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. My view is that it is nobody else's business what Bill did with his interns as long as they consented. To put him under oath to force him to tell a thing that the questioners had no right to know, and to them impeach him for lying appears preposterous to me. If somebody asks me a question he has no right to ask I am entitled to lie. Period. That is why woman are entitled to lie to their employers or prospective employers when they ask impertinent questions like whether they want to get pregnant, like to hump around like merry bunnies or if they like anal sex. Now one can start discussing whether this reasoning applies to a Grand Jury. I do think so. Frankly, consenting marital or extramarital conduct is no crime, and thus no business for Grand Juries or the police. Even though in the US it is iirc a criminal offence to lie to federal officers. But even with that the prohibition of forced self-incrimination still stands.

And in Italy self-incrimination is to be understood broadly. Insofar, the 'honour of a woman' argument, if taken serious, in a sense sheds an amusing light on Italian society - adultery is ok as long as you are discreet about it, and that includes not telling anybody and not having to tell anybody. Maybe that's as good as it realistically can get. The verdict in question reinforces that view. It probably reflects Italian mentality. It also sounds realistic and sober.

Chev,
it is their marriage. When they break it, it is their problem.

Pacta sunt servanda, Rags. Marriage is a valid legal oath. It's not just a matter of arranging who one sleeps with.

I find it sensible to leave the morals and the moral judgement to them instead of imposing it on them to protect the morality of the community.

Vide supra. ;)

We don't need a religious or morality police like they have in Saudi Arabia.

We don't quite need policemen dealing with evidence of adultery, if you catch what I mean, nor do we need provocations and the like. And in fact life could be a bit more beautiful without private detectives dabbling with it, too. Except adultery is still adultery and not, "a fact you need to accept." Up to this day we have mores in civil law and that's sensible. Blurring the distinction between what's good and what's bad is never a good idea.

I concede that the Italians may be serious when they talk about the 'honour of the woman' bit, but mind this isn't a divorce procedure but that she was accused of a criminal offence, lying to the police. Even when adultery isn't criminal in Italy any more it would still be self-incrimination.

Perhaps, but what they meant by honour was, I think, closer to reputation or good name.

Fidelity in marriage cannot be enforced by power of a verdict. What will you do with an adulteress? Stone her as the Saudis do? Or send her to jail? Or leave her without support by her divorced hubby and take her children away? So that it will that teach the other adulterers? What if her hubby beat her, or was an a**hole without beating her, and she committed adultery to find some comfort with someone else? Life is a complex thing.

"Complex" is no excuse for "bad". The fact a life situation is complex is not a free hand to commit criminal acts or otherwise wrong people. It reduces culpability for sure, but it's no green light.

What if hubby beat her, you ask? That's battery. Hello, Mr Jail-Warden. Or, more likely, a fine or a suspended sentence, but still. Separate subject.

As for what penalty, I'd honestly rather see her forgiven by her husband and allowed a second chance. However, perhaps having adultery on the list of offences could help reduce it?

Perhaps not.

But it feels right to have the law attach some sanctions to it. Not like I'm a fan of divorce, mind you.

You're smarter than that. Please mind to separate the Sacrament of Marriage from the civil contract.

Rags... :rolleyes:

They aren't authorised to lie and I didn't say that. I said that they aren't punished for lying.

Okay. The difference may be seen as semantics by some, but it actually exists. It's one thing when we don't punish and another when we say it was an okay thing to do. But since the point is moot...

And truth telling in investigations of crimes primarily serves procedural purposes.

Not really... The primary purpose of investigation belongs to substantive law. That's finding out what happened and meting out justice - that's what substantive criminal law is about. The fact we get there through evidence and rules of evidence is another thing. ;)

Same thing with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. My view is that it is nobody else's business what Bill did with his interns as long as they consented.

Who's to verify the consent? Abusing in any way a position of authority when obtaining sexual gratification is a crime in most jurisdictions.

If somebody asks me a question he has no right to ask I am entitled to lie. Period.

Nope, Rags, sorry. You're entitled to tell them to get off it and in fact you may be entitled under natural law to stay silent when they ask you pursuant to positive law. This is as far as you'll get from me. On the other hand, lying is a whole different thing.


That is why woman are entitled to lie to their employers or prospective employers when they ask impertinent questions like whether they want to get pregnant,

Nope, sorry, they aren't. This doesn't mean the employer has the right to ask this kind of questions. Cases of that go up to the ECJ.

like to hump around like merry bunnies or if they like anal sex.

That actually verges on criminal offence for the employer. There are provisions in criminal law, civil law and labour law to deal with such behaviour. Still doesn't mean there's any right to lie. "I believe you're being a bit too forward," is a fair answer.

Frankly, consenting marital or extramarital conduct is no crime,

Rags, there's a fundamental difference between the marital and the extra-marital, so let's not blur things here. ;)

And in Italy self-incrimination is to be understood broadly. Insofar, the 'honour of a woman' argument, if taken serious, in a sense sheds an amusing light on Italian society - adultery is ok as long as you are discreet about it, and that includes not telling anybody and not having to tell anybody.

Yup. It sounds seriously wrong - as if your honour is affected not when you do something but rather when it comes to daylight.

I realize this all started with a bit of adultery, but I don't see how the legal issue has been so confused with the legal issue of adultery. She wasn't charged with adultery. As far as I know, she isn't getting divorced (though that is still up in the air) and she certainly wasn't brought into court because she was. She was charged with lying to the police in the course of a criminal investigation (her hubby's abusive phone calls), about the equivalent of impeding a police investigation or withholding evidence I guess.

The point is, is lying to the police to protect your own reputation acceptable, regardless of what you are protecting your reputation from? Mind you, we aren't talking about self-incrimination here.

Not really... The primary purpose of investigation belongs to substantive law. That's finding out what happened and meting out justice - that's what substantive criminal law is about. The fact we get there through evidence and rules of evidence is another thing. ;)This was an investigation not of her mating habits but of an insult against her husband, a misdemeanour. Her being truthful would have only sped up the investigation. As for the question of the insult to her hubby, her affair was a side issue, illuminating side issue for sure, but nevertheless a side issue.Who's to verify the consent? Abusing in any way a position of authority when obtaining sexual gratification is a crime in most jurisdictions.It is not as if Monica complained. Had she we would have been talking about Bill's sexual harassment and not about his infidelity.If somebody asks me a question he has no right to ask I am entitled to lie. Period.Nope, Rags, sorry. You're entitled to tell them to get off it and in fact you may be entitled under natural law to stay silent when they ask you pursuant to positive law. This is as far as you'll get from me. On the other hand, lying is a whole different thing.Oh yes I am. I am strictly speaking about this in a context of employer-employee relations by the way.That is why woman are entitled to lie to their employers or prospective employers when they ask impertinent questions like whether they want to get pregnant,Nope, sorry, they aren't. This doesn't mean the employer has the right to ask this kind of questions. Cases of that go up to the ECJ.You think too short here. The obvious reaction will be for them not to hire the applicant who refuses to answer their unwarranted question. Your legal view will reward the crooks, the folks who ask impertinent and indecent questions. That is exactly the consideration why courts have decided in favour of the liars in such cases.That actually verges on criminal offence for the employer. There are provisions in criminal law, civil law and labour law to deal with such behaviour. Still doesn't mean there's any right to lie. "I believe you're being a bit too forward," is a fair answer.To be precise: When you lie to an employer about your record to get the job that's fraud. But when an employer breaks the law by asking such questions, then the lying is justified by self defence. It is not a prospective employee's burden to accuse his crooked prospective employer of that crime if it occurs, and to maintain a high ethical standard in the working world. For his heroism he or she will in all likelihood be rewarded by unemployment, and worse, perhaps even a bad reputation for being a litigious employee. Get real. Employers have economical leverage, and asking such questions they abuse it. People need to live, and people need a job. And primarily this is about getting a job, and the de-facto right in response is a very effective deterrent, and far more effective than the long way through courts. And the courts have stressed just that in those cases. Rags, there's a fundamental difference between the marital and the extra-marital, so let's not blur things here. ;)In the catechism, yes. Legally there isn't. In my country adultery is not a criminal act since 1969. Yup. It sounds seriously wrong - as if your honour is affected not when you do something but rather when it comes to daylight.But that's the way it is.

This was an investigation not of her mating habits but of an insult against her husband, a misdemeanour. Her being truthful would have only sped up the investigation. As for the question of the insult to her hubby, her affair was a side issue, illuminating side issue for sure, but nevertheless a side issue.

Nope, sorry, the circumstances of a crime are a part of the facts of the matter. Thus they belong to the substantive sphere, not merely the procedure.


You think too short here. The obvious reaction will be for them not to hire the applicant who refuses to answer their unwarranted question.

Yes. I wouldn't prosecute the woman for lying and if they came seeking legal action against her for lying, I'd set them up for all the violations they thus committed, but this doesn't give the woman the right to lie.

Your legal view will reward the crooks, the folks who ask impertinent and indecent questions.

By far not. You're looping there. First, if she gives them any substantive answer (i.e. not a "not your business"), she enters into conversation with them and submits to the inquiry. From that point, it will only get worse. I will agree that lying in such matters is nothing to prosecute one for, but on the other hand, what you're trying to build there stands on sand.

The only correct answer to indicent questions is, "not your business." And that's the only answer which actually protects anyone from anything.

That is exactly the consideration why courts have decided in favour of the liars in such cases.To be precise: When you lie to an employer about your record to get the job that's fraud.

When you hide your pregnancy to land a job and go on maternity leave for months or years from the new job which you got a couple of weeks ago, that's also fraud. To some extent employers are entitled to ask certain questions with that regard.

But when an employer breaks the law by asking such questions, then the lying is justified by self defence.

It's not really justified. It's just hardly deserving of punishment, much less prosecution. The one to be prosecuted is the idiot asking such questions. Doesn't make lying the right option, though, in any way. Lying is nearly always wrong and nearly always goes wrong in the end.

It is not a prospective employee's burden to accuse his crooked prospective employer of that crime if it occurs, and to maintain a high ethical standard in the working world.

It's the prosecutor's job to prosecute and the employee's job may be to demand that prosecution or not, file a report or not, whatever applies (including private prosecution in some jurisdictions, sure, I guess, why not). At any rate, what you say doesn't in any way make lie look good.

For his heroism he or she will in all likelihood be rewarded by unemployment, and worse, perhaps even a bad reputation for being a litigious employee. Get real.

Get real yourself, Rags. You're thinking about employers asking about anal sex during interviews. :rolleyes:

Employers have economical leverage, and asking such questions they abuse it. People need to live, and people need a job. And primarily this is about getting a job, and the de-facto right in response is a very effective deterrent, and far more effective than the long way through courts. And the courts have stressed just that in those cases.

Show me.

In the catechism, yes. Legally there isn't. In my country adultery is not a criminal act since 1969.

That says the code, that is why it should be like that, and because it should be like that, then it's right that it is like that, so yeah... That's right.... loooop! :p You can only go from premises to conclusions or the other way round, but not a there-and-back route. That'd be a bit too much cake to bite. :p

But that's the way it is.

Really?

Nope, sorry, the circumstances of a crime are a part of the facts of the matter. Thus they belong to the substantive sphere, not merely the procedure.Fact finding is procedure. I concede that in this respect the question what is a legitimate question is determined by the facts of the matter. The case was about who insulted her husband if I remember rightly. And asking someone during fact finding an illegitimate question, and then pouncing on the legitimate lie is called a set-up (that is in a nutshell my verdict on Clinton's indictment). Yes. I wouldn't prosecute the woman for lying and if they came seeking legal action against her for lying, I'd set them up for all the violations they thus committed, but this doesn't give the woman the right to lie....Your legal view will reward the crooks, the folks who ask impertinent and indecent questions.By far not. You're looping there. First, if she gives them any substantive answer (i.e. not a "not your business"), she enters into conversation with them and submits to the inquiry. From that point, it will only get worse. I will agree that lying in such matters is nothing to prosecute one for, but on the other hand, what you're trying to build there stands on sand. .... The only correct answer to indicent [sic] questions is, "not your business." And that's the only answer which actually protects anyone from anything.The only business a woman has in such a situation is to protect herself and her interests. However laudable that would be, business ethics in general, ethics, morals, law abidance in society are not her business - it's not as if every citizen is a part time cop and moral guardian. For her diligence she would be rewarded with no job - and the obligation to testify in court and be faced with the prosecutor's problem of proving her accusations. Such questions are typically transmitted in speech and are not documented. It will be a 'he-said, she-said' affair, and that will be about where the prosecutor's case falls apart. Your solution is not only time consuming but ineffective. To allow lying in justified cases and to expose crooked employers to the risk of financial loss in case of misconduct is an extremely fast and effective way to sanction such behaviour.When you hide your pregnancy to land a job and go on maternity leave for months or years from the new job which you got a couple of weeks ago, that's also fraud. 'Chain-pregnancy-frauds' are much less frequent than you suggest, in particular when you consider Western birth rates. In those cases there are even ways for employers to get out.To some extent employers are entitled to ask certain questions with that regard .... It's not really justified...... not, or not really? Do you know for sure or do you only feel uncomfortable? ... It's just hardly deserving of punishment, much less prosecution. The one to be prosecuted is the idiot asking such questions. Doesn't make lying the right option, though, in any way. Lying is nearly always wrong and nearly always goes wrong in the end.When somebody beats you, and you beat back, it's self-defence. When someone asks you an illegitimate question, and you lie, it's self-defence.It's the prosecutor's job to prosecute and the employee's job ...Oh no. In particular it is not her job :p (yet; pun intended) and to me it appears peculiar in the extreme to expect that from a job applicant.... may be to demand that prosecution or not, file a report or not, whatever applies (including private prosecution in some jurisdictions, sure, I guess, why not).At any rate, what you say doesn't in any way make lie look good.
...
Get real yourself, Rags. You're thinking about employers asking about anal sex during interviews. :rolleyes:The question is fully justified considering the employer's completely legitimate interest in knowing this to be able to assess the risk of his employee being sick due to cystitis :borg: If one only wants, one can dream up a justification for any question. The obvious point aside that I was trying to cook up a particularly crass illegitimate question, you didn't answer the question of whether an employer has a right for a truthful answer on such a question.
You need to get out more. As an illustration for how creepy illegitimate questions can be: My last employer habitually did ask illegitimate questions. That was because his personal view on employer-employee relationships was in irreconcilable conflict with legal reality. In particular he told at least two female employees in introductory meetings to can their uterus for the duration of their employment, pointing at a glass on his desk, to then remark that they better make sure they're on the pill. All that with a toothy smile. Nice fella, my ex boss. What I want to say is that these things happen, and more often than you might think. With such bosses the obvious and inevitable consequence of being righteous is ending up righteous and jobless.Show me.You could have a look at the respective decisions by the EuGH (ECJ).That says the code, that is why it should be like that, and because it should be like that, then it's right that it is like that, so yeah... That's right.... loooop! :p You can only go from premises to conclusions or the other way round, but not a there-and-back route. That'd be a bit too much cake to bite. :pMy feeling about your response is that you mix up what is, and what in your personal opinion ought to be. Again, there is a difference between the Catechism and our worldly legal systems that solve worldly problems in a worldly and pragmatic albeit necessarily imperfect and morally impure way.Really?Oh yes.

Chev,
as a (late) clarification: The question about how the law ought to be is entirely legitimate, but only if it is clearly understood that it is a political question rather than a legal one, just like the question about what constitutes ethical behaviour is a perfectly legitimate philosophical question. But each has to be clearly separated from the other.