Criminalising parents, teachers and priests: what shall we do about conversion practices?
The Labour government has published a draft Conversion Practices Bill that, it claims, ‘will deliver a landmark ban on abusive conversion practices in England and Wales’ and will protect LGBTQ+ people ‘from abhorrent… physical and psychological abuse to change who they are’. But what exactly is being made illegal?
The term ‘conversion therapy’ often suggests some illiberal and cruel practices. As writer Lionel Shriver explained, we ‘picture kidnappings, violent fundamentalist interventions, gruelling electric-shock treatments and Clockwork Orange aversion therapy’. However, such practices are already illegal and incredibly rare in the UK. So why did such a law appear in Labour’s manifesto as a priority?
Perhaps a clue is in a statement from the new chair of Stonewall, Kezia Dugdale, who has said the NGO’s priority is no longer self-ID but banning conversion therapy. Regardless, this trans-inclusive legislation would mean anyone found guilty of conducting abusive conversion practices could face a variety of sanctions, including an unlimited fine, a custodial sentence of up to five years, a new pre-emptive civil Conversion Practice Protection Order or find themselves in family court.
The demand for a ban seems to have made it from the margins to the mainstream without any substantial evidence-base to justify it. In a governmental LGBT survey in 2018, of the 108,000 respondents, just five per cent claimed to have been ‘offered’ such therapy, while only two per cent said they’d undergone it. A much-cited Stonewall survey claimed that one in 10 LGBTQ+ people had been ‘exorcised’. But as the mathematician Professor John Armstrong has pointed out, that would mean religious leaders performing one exorcism for every two weddings.
Critics of the Bill worry that the law is too loosely drafted and open to subjective interpretation. Proponents of a ban have defined conversion practices to include ‘deadnaming’ or even a parent trying to set their child up on opposite-sex dates. The government has stated that it will be up to the courts to decide what constitutes abuse. But leaving key concepts such as ‘conversion practices’ open to broad interpretation, and failing to distinguish between coercion and legitimate support, could risk the creation of a chilling effect on free discussion.
One group who may find themselves criminalised are parents. Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who supports the Bill, has said: ‘Subjecting a family member or partner to harm or coercing them to change who they are is domestic abuse.’ Where does that leave parents who do not believe that immediate affirmation is always the right response when their child is distressed about their sex or identity?
Beyond the family, it’s possible that any adults, such as teachers or youth workers, charged with asking safeguarding questions or encouraging the young to critically reflect on their problems, may be caught out by the law. Another possible target may well be religious leaders whose role is to guide others in line with their beliefs. One of Scotland’s leading KCs, Aidan O’Neill, noted that similar Scottish proposals ‘would have the undoubted effect of criminalising much mainstream pastoral work of churches, mosques and synagogues and temples’. Is this Bill going to undermine religious freedom?
How should we approach this new legislative minefield while ensuring that anyone experiencing real abuse is helped to obtain justice? If the Bill becomes law, will the courts be inundated with subjective, even malicious prosecutions or by children prosecuting their parents for refusing to fund binders, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones? Are such concerns just scaremongering, especially as in the numerous countries in which conversion therapy is banned, prosecution is rare? Is the real threat a powerful chilling effect that will prevents parents, therapists, teachers, social workers and other guardians from speaking frankly?