Four weeks ago we sent a letter to Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions. With it, we included an article by William Collins.
Our FoI request was very simple:
What is the legal basis, if any, on which non-therapeutic MGM may be carried out in the UK?
If there is no legal basis, MGM must be a criminal offence – grievous bodily harm, at least – so why does the criminal justice system not prosecute those who carry out the crime?
We’ve just received the CPS’s response. The key text:
You also asked about the circumcision of infant boys. There is no legislation criminalising the practice, however where the police refer a surgical procedure resulting in injury or death to the CPS for consideration, it is for the prosecutor to carefully consider any evidence of failings by an individual carrying out the procedure, to determine whether or not they should be prosecuted. Specific offences would depend on the circumstances of a case and we would consider these on an individual basis.
As we anticipated, the CPS has evaded the key question. They have failed to admit there is no legal basis for MGM, by pointing to the lack of legislation criminalising it. Legal experts agree that existing legislation on causing bodily harm effectively makes MGM illegal, it’s just that the criminal justice system won’t bring prosecutions.
What if a family came to reside in the UK, and they adhered to a religion which required the removal of the tips of baby boy’s little fingers eight days after birth? Would the CPS prosecute anyone who carried out the procedure? You would hope so. Yet it would lead to far less physical and mental harm than commonly results from MGM. The double standard is outrageous.
Needless to say, we shall be seeking an internal review of the CPS’s inadequate response.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Pleased to hear that the response by the CPS shall be challenged.
Windows Nokia Phone ________________________________
LikeLike
” . . . where the police refer a surgical procedure resulting in injury or death to the CPS for consideration”. The ritual amputation of perfectly healthy, functioning body parts by definition causes an ‘injury’. That is the point, so why aren’t CPS prosecuting?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Well done. So MGM on infants is not lawful and the test is injury. It is a lack of will. Of course it will need case law and the Police and CPS to bring prosecutions. Of course in doing so it would have a direct challenge to powerful religious/ethnic interests. FGM by contrast is easily legislated against because prosecutions were almost certainly unlikely because the “procedure” is done in Africa. Indeed the only prosecution, resulting in acquittal of the Obstetrician who stitched a woman following a difficult birth, was prompted by Guardianista outcry because there had been no prosecutions. The FGM having happened nearly 20 years earlier in Africa in fact. The mother herself had not wanted the prosecution. So with FGM we have a law for appearing to address something but actually with no risk. Any serious work on the issue really requires leaving Islington and working with communities in East Africa. Curiously the Fawcett society and others appear to think more female FTSE board members would really help. Odd that.
LikeLike
It’s such a simple question to ask, so simple I’d never even considered it myself, yet they couldn’t answer!
Of course if you did prove MGM was illegal, then there’d be a very rapid response from the misandrist establishment to pass legislation to legalise it immediately and even organisation supposedly against human rights violations will be a the forefront of promoting them. For example, I’ve noticed in America that the ACLU is now regularly caught out opposing the most basic of human rights for men and boys, not just in the area of MGM but also in areas such as shared parenting.
LikeLike
Good stuff. The double standard on this is baffling.
LikeLike