Criminalising Conversations

The Let Us Pray campaign has repeatedly warned that a broad conversion therapy ban could criminalise conversations about sexuality and identity.

A few weekends ago, Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, was reported as giving her assurance that the Westminster Government’s conversion therapy ban would not criminalise “exploratory or even challenging conversations”.

Whilst the Minister’s promise is welcome, we all know that the devil is in the detail.

A ban on conversations?

LGBT activists want to make it a crime for parents to question their gender-confused child or for a pastor to support a same-sex attracted congregant to remain celibate.

Two top human rights lawyers have confirmed that conversations would be criminalised under the kind of conversion therapy ban LGBT activists are pushing for.

They want anyone arrested who doesn’t automatically affirm someone in their sexuality or gender identity, making the ordinary work of churches a prime target.

Matthew Hyndman, co-founder of the Ban Conversion Therapy campaign, says: “‘Spiritual guidance’ is really just religious speak for conversion therapy.”

LGBT charity The Trevor Project explains: “conversion therapy often involves teachings pulled from religious texts, prayer, spiritual discipline…”

And Jayne Ozanne, Chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy campaign, stated: “I would strongly refute that ‘gentle non-coercive prayer’ should be allowed. All prayer that seeks to change or suppress someone’s innate sexuality or gender identity is deeply damaging and causes immeasurable harm.”

So those at the forefront of the calls for a ban want to outlaw any discussions involving certain Bible passages, as well as any prayers that do not affirm an individual, even if it’s “gentle and non-coercive”.

What would this look like in practice?

Leading human rights KC, Jason Coppel, was presented with a number of potential scenarios and asked if they would be caught under the type of ban activists want. In every case he said ‘yes’.

The scenarios included ordinary parental and pastoral conversations. And he was clear that even conversations between friends could become criminal offences.

For example, a Christian shares her faith with a friend and during the conversation mentions that all people must repent of sin, including sexual sins. The friend reveals she’s in a same-sex relationship and is offended by the notion of having to repent, and reports the Christian to the police. Under a broad conversion therapy ban, the Christian would have broken the law for simply sharing her Christian faith.

Coppel was clear that the definitions of conversion therapy put forward by campaigners “would prohibit actions in a range of commonplace situations, which do not involve improper pressure or coercion, or abuse of power, or incitement to hatred”.

As such, “any prohibition of CT [conversion therapy] going beyond the existing criminal law raises serious issues of compatibility with Convention rights”.

New law to face scrutiny

Westminster’s draft Bill, which is expected imminently, must be analysed with a fine-tooth comb. The proposed wording will receive ‘pre-legislative scrutiny’, which will give the public the opportunity to submit evidence to a committee of MPs and Peers.

This is crucial because of the immense pressure from LGBT activists to outlaw everyday conversations in churches and homes. Christians must take the opportunity to explain to lawmakers that what we believe and teach is not coercive and must not be outlawed.

Barbaric practices from the past, such as electroshock therapy, are thankfully already illegal. But those pushing for a ban wrongly equate such abuses with casual conversations and private prayer. We must be clear there is no similarity between the ordinary work of churches and the cruel practices of the past.

Scotland

The Scottish Government is planning its own ‘conversion therapy’ ban, separate from Westminster. It set up an ‘Expert Advisory Group’ to help it draft the Bill, but appointed members without any formal process and only included activists. The group put forward a series of recommendations to the Scottish Government last October.

Aidan O’Neill KC analysed the Report. You can find a summary of his independent legal opinion here.

Outlining the risks to parents and pastors he explains: “One effect (and the apparent intent) of the Expert Group’s recommendations would be to criminalise, among other things, the open expression of such orthodox traditional religious beliefs that sexual activity is only properly permissible within the bounds of an opposite sex marriage if said with a view to encouraging another to refrain from same-sex sexual behaviour.”