Is this consultation or is it policy capture?

[arranbubonicplague]

via Kathleen Stock, RadFem Layer and others.

New cpsuk guidance released this July sets out that:

“Prosecutors should address Trans victims, witnesses and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name, using that gender and related pronouns in all documentation and in the courtroom.”

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1149267238563844097

Take a wild guess as to the number of women's groups consulted as community stakeholders on this matter:

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1149317085811695617

This follows from the case in which a judge demanded that Maria McLachlan use female pronouns when referring to her attacker. But since then the Supreme Court has ruled against compelled speech in Lee v Ashers. Compelled pronouns = compelled speech.

Would be nice if the CPS could give some consideration to this point before they go issuing guidance saying we’ve all got to go along with whatever people say about themselves.

Would be nice also if government departments weren’t intent on pre-empting the outcome of the consultation on self ID

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1149270678211833857

All Sing:

Is this consultation or is it policy capture?

The latter.

Looking at this news about the CPS recommending compelled speech in contradiction to Lee v Asher, I can't get this excellent thread about the confidential information and reports from UK ambassadors to Nazi Germany in the run-up to WWII out of my head:

twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1149070611932680194

The entire thread is worth reading - and this stands out:

[Ambassador] Neville asked the government to censor the press to end all negative coverage of the Third Reich, arguing war may be a consequence of a free press.

The dire and widespread consequences of partial information (in both senses) being enacted to the point where it seems wholly sensible to withdraw fundamental principles of freedom.

What is the CPS thinking? What will the judiciary do?