Government should ditch controversial, complex and unnecessary conversion therapy ban plan

The Labour Government should ditch its plan to introduce a controversial and complex conversion therapy ban because it could criminalise medical professionals, parents and church leaders, says a leading Christian group.

Instead, The Christian Institute believes the Government should focus on enforcing existing legislation and supporting victims of genuine abuse to “access justice under the existing legal framework”.

It is making the call in a major new report on how proposed conversion therapy legislation has run into difficulties in countries that have considered a ban.

The report, “Proving Tricky”: Stories of jurisdictions that have tried and failed to introduce legislation against so-called conversion therapy, sets out how attempts in Scotland, Ireland, Western Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland have foundered.

The report highlights that a conversion therapy law first appeared on the Scottish political agenda in 2020 and was included a year later in the Bute House Agreement, the governing programme between the SNP and Greens. Despite the two parties commanding a majority in the Scottish Parliament, a draft bill was not published until January 2024. The plans produced a major backlash, as they threatened to criminalise parents if they tried to stop their children accessing powerful hormones to stop puberty or accessing irreversible surgery.

“Even from within the governing SNP there was pushback, with nearly a quarter of SNP MSPs said to be prepared to oppose their own party”, the report says.

“First Minister John Swinney acknowledged the Scottish Government would need ‘to listen to clinical opinion very carefully’.

“When the Scottish Programme for Government for 2024-25 was published in September, conversion therapy was absent from the Bills the Government pledged to introduce. Instead, the Programme for Government hands responsibility for a Bill to Westminster, with the proviso that it will ‘prepare legislation for introduction to the Scottish Parliament should a UK-wide approach not be achievable’.”

In another example, The Christian Institute shows how a proposed law in Sweden was savaged by an official Government assessment. The 372-page review, written by one of Sweden’s top judges, Maria Hölcke, concluded that the Government should not introduce a new criminal law on conversion therapy. It warned against introducing conversion therapy as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and said that a law should not be introduced merely to “send a signal”. It said existing Swedish laws already prevent “unlawful coercion, assault, unlawful deprivation of liberty, unlawful threats, forced marriage or molestation… acts that constitute slander, insult or incitement against a group of people… [and even] repeated unwelcome attempts to verbally influence someone…”.

The “Proving Tricky” report concludes: “Around the world, legislators have been finding that creating a ‘conversion therapy’ law is not as easy as people think. At the heart of the struggle has been the question of definition. Activists demand that any law covers prayer, pastoral conversations and parenting. Reconciling their demands with human rights law and identifying any gap in the law have proved elusive.

“Westminster has faced all the same problems. After over half a decade attempting to craft a law, even former Equalities Minister Stuart Andrew had to admit this is ‘a very challenging issue to get right’. Two attempts by backbench Parliamentarians to draft Bills also failed.

“The fact that a handful of jurisdictions have pushed through activist-style bans does not take away the fundamental problems. It is clear from legal advice by Jason Coppel KC and Sarah Vine KC amongst others that such laws applied here would not be compatible with human rights. And to take the approach of Norway, which pushed ahead despite significant warnings from its Director of Public Prosecutions, merely risks an embarrassing legal challenge in the future.”

“The UK Government now faces a choice: continue with a project that even many ‘progressive’ governments are beginning to see is a dead end, or consider seriously how individuals reporting genuine abuse can be better protected under existing law.”

Simon Calvert, Deputy Director at The Christian Institute, commented: “Many ordinary people will wonder why this law is needed. There is already a plethora of existing protections for those who experience physical or verbal abuse. Indeed, the previous Government’s own internal assessment stated that the evidence base for a new law is ‘weak’ and that ‘there is already legislation to address acts which inflict physical harm’. So, why does the Government persist? Why does it want to try to bring forward a controversial and complex law that will do little to help genuine victims of abuse, but will criminalise innocent medical professionals, parents and church leaders? Legislation should be about more than virtue signalling to your supporters.”

ENDS