This Friday a non-public member’s bill for banning conversion therapy across the UK may have its second reading within the House of Lords. Baroness Burt of Solihull tabled it before Christmas. She is a Liberal Democrat peer and is vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. The wording of this bill raises serious questions as to what politicians think they’ll get away with on this topic.
The wording of the bill
This is how the core of the bill is worded:
“(1) An individual commits an offence in the event that they practise, or offer to practise, conversion therapy.
(2) In this Act, “conversion therapy” is any practice geared toward an individual or group
of individuals which demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or
gender identity is inherently preferable to a different, and which has the intended
purpose of attempting to—
(a) change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or
(b) suppress an individual’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity.
(3) An individual guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary 10
conviction to a fantastic not exceeding level 5 on the usual scale.”
Anybody could possibly be criminalised
The wording of the bill makes clear that any person – not only any therapist – could possibly be criminalised as a consequence of being deemed to have tried to alter an individual or group’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or suppress their expression thereof. As ‘conversion therapy’ is glossed as a ‘practice’ this shouldn’t be doubtful.
The potential for criminalising dress codes
Clearly this might cover examples comparable to schools insisting upon different school uniforms for girls and boys, indeed all sex-based dress codes in organisations or events. The continued use of the term ‘therapy’ is extremely misleading.
By the identical token it captures parents enforcing dress codes for their very own children. There is not any age limit included within the wording of the bill.
Dress codes for pastors would even be affected.
Given the universal reach of the bill, dress codes in every kind of settings including even independent studios producing web videos could possibly be affected.
Police assessment of therapists sneaked in through the back door
The House of Lords Library briefing on this bill reproduces a text that Baroness Burt provided on to its researchers. In it she says this:
“Of course, it is vital to distinguish between psychological practice or religious advice and conversion therapy. A therapist, for instance, who’s exploring gender dysphoria with a youngster in good faith—with no predetermined goal to alter how that young person should be—should not be penalised. That’s why my bill would require the police to display each motion and motivation when attempting to prosecute in relation to this offence.”
So whilst claiming to permit therapists freedom to work with clients – including presumably teenage clients – on problems with gender dysphoria, Baroness Burt also says the police can be involved in proving a therapist’s motion and motivation. The problem here is that this police involvement is nowhere mentioned on the face of the bill.
Who and what’s covered by the bill?
Baroness Burt finished her message to the House of Lords Library by referring to protecting all ‘identities’ covered under the acronym ‘LGBT+’, which again shouldn’t be on the face of the bill.
“These are complex, often uncomfortable conversations about where the road needs to be drawn. But I think to be effective, the ban must be comprehensive, clear and inclusive of all LGBT+ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other identities] people.”
The text of the bill talks about ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’, which is different.
This signifies that should the bill or a similarly worded one progress and be supported by the federal government, an ever-increasing list of ‘identities’, i.e. obsessions, fantasies and fetishes, can be added and the police can be required to criminalise therapists and others who don’t play together with them.
This bill should not be allowed to go quietly
The single example of dress codes for all ages goes to point out how totalitarian the effect of this bill could be. We shouldn’t allow this to pass quietly through Parliament, excusing it as merely a non-public member’s bill. Parliamentarians shouldn’t be allowed to get away with mouthing support for it within the chamber only later to pretend they didn’t understand its true implications. By the time a government bill is tabled, it would be too late within the day to influence politicians to oppose it, as they may have persuaded one another of its inherent righteousness.
The government is clearly going round in circles on its promise to ban conversion therapy. A 12 months ago, it promised a bill, but that has not been tabled. It still has not published the response to its own consultation for England and Wales. Maybe the federal government doesn’t actually need to do anything, but to pass the baton onto the likely next Labour government. Keir Starmer has promised a full ban which could be ‘trans inclusive’. In this 12 months that could be a run-up to a general election, we want to send a transparent and regular message to Parliamentarians that such totalitarian ambitions are unacceptable and don’t have any place within the UK.
