Amidst growing controversy, the Labour government’s proposed bill to outlaw ‘conversion therapy’ is drawing sharp criticism over its ambiguous language and potential implications.
The bill’s definition of ‘conversion therapy’ is so broad that it could encompass a range of activities, potentially categorizing common actions as illegal practices.
Actions like encouraging someone to remain loyal to their spouse, advising against pornography, or questioning a teenager’s self-identified gender could all be interpreted as ‘conversion therapy’ under the draft law.
Conversely, the proposed legislation would allow NHS professionals to continue administering irreversible medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, to minors exploring their gender identity, categorizing these actions as routine healthcare.
Critics argue that the bill’s vague language opens the door to extensive interpretations, potentially criminalizing benign interactions.
The scope of the draft covers any action intended to change another person’s orientation or identity, or to confirm a perceived change. This means challenging someone’s gender identity or suggesting changes to their behavior could be classified as ‘conversion practices.’
For example, advising a married man to cease watching gay pornography to foster marital fidelity could be seen as ‘conversion-practising.’
Moreover, the bill includes a secondary assessment to determine if the practice is abusive, acknowledging that not all ‘conversion practices’ are harmful, which conflicts with previous political rhetoric on the issue.
The bill outlines criteria for what constitutes abuse, yet remains uncertain on specifics. Queries arise, such as whether suggesting to quit pornography involves coercion or emotional pressure, or how many criteria must be met for an act to be deemed abusive.
The final test under the draft bill examines whether the accused action has caused significant harm to an individual’s health or daily life activities, though proving this causal connection poses a challenge.
Current narratives in media depict scenarios where individuals later attribute mental distress to past church-based interventions, raising questions about accountability and causality.
Scientific research has not conclusively shown that non-coercive interventions like prayer or counselling cause harm.
Existing laws already address cases of physical and psychological abuse. These include provisions for psychiatric injury as grievous bodily harm and statutes against harassment and coercive control.
Concerns persist about how a jury could convict someone of an ‘abusive conversion practice’ under the new bill when existing laws are adequate, a point illustrated by Northern Ireland’s exclusion of jury trials for similar legislation.
The bill’s detractors challenge its necessity, questioning how it criminalizes actions not already covered by current laws.
There is apprehension that the bill could be used to target those with traditional views on gender and sexuality, using protection orders even if no crime is committed.
This is illustrated by the case of Rev Dr Bernard Randall, a chaplain who lost his position after a sermon defending students’ rights to their beliefs, highlighting potential misuse of such laws.
International precedents, such as Matthew Grech’s acquittal in Malta and legal challenges in the U.S., suggest that similar laws may not effectively prevent harm, fueling arguments that they serve to enforce ideological conformity.
Andrea Williams is chief executive of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre.
This article was originally written by www.christiantoday.com
