Free speech concerns surround proposed conversion therapy ban

The Free Speech Union (FSU) has warned that government plans to finish “abusive conversion practices” is a threat to free speech.

The proposed law is meant, supporters say, to finish abusive practices supposedly geared toward converting LGBT-identifying people to heterosexuality.

The FSU has joined in with calls from groups like Christian Concern, who’ve noted that abusive practices are already illegal and that any recent law will almost definitely criminalise some types of speech and spiritual belief.

The FSU said, “Forcing gay people to try and change into straight is already illegal — so the plain query is: what, precisely, is Labour proposing to ban that just isn’t already prohibited?”

Christian Concern’s Paul Huxley made similar points and noted that lots of the abuses highlighted by campaigners – electroshock therapy, chemical castration and “corrective” rape – are either already illegal or haven’t been witnessed in Britain for many years. In the case of “corrective” rape, no instance of a therapist recommending this treatment has ever been recorded.

Of more serious concern is what may fall foul of any recent law. Praying for or counselling someone combating their sexual identity may change into criminalised, as could a conversation between a concerned parent and a toddler who wants to alter their gender.

The FSU warned a recent law could “prevent medical professionals and fogeys from having good-faith, exploratory conversations with gender-confused children”.

“The word ‘abusive’ is doing an unlimited amount of labor within the bill’s title,” it said.

“The difference between a caring, thoughtful clinical conversation and an ‘abusive’ practice will depend entirely on how the laws is drafted and the way it’s enforced. We will probably be scrutinising each with great care.”

Legal experts have warned that any anti-conversion therapy bill will inevitably come into conflict with human rights law. Indeed the last Conservative government, having previously championed such a bill, quietly dropped their support on the last election on account of the impossibility of reconciling the intent of the bill with freedom of speech.