'Conversion therapy' law shows true colours on first day

As countries across Europe struggle to meet LGBT activists’ demands for new ‘conversion therapy’ laws, over in New South Wales, Australia (the State containing Sydney), a new law has just come into effect.

New South Wales’ law has sometimes been considered a ‘softer approach’ to legislating in this controversial area. But it’s only the first week of the new ‘Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024’ being in force and already it’s turned into an attack on those who hold traditional religious beliefs.

A new video published by the Government body responsible for overseeing the Act’s implementation is largely copied from neighbouring State Victoria – you’ll likely have heard us mention its extraordinary law before.

‘There’s nothing wrong with LGBTQA people’ the video proudly declares in contrast with traditional religious beliefs, readily ignoring the fact that Christians teach that every single person is sinful. In other words, the State is actively declaring the Gospel to be wrong, at least when it comes to certain people.

But this day-one video was also accompanied by new guidance from the New South Wales Government agency. An FAQ section asks: “What about prayer and the teaching of abstinence and celibacy?”

A stark response is given: “telling an LGBTQA person that they should remain celibate and never marry or have a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, could be regarded as suppressing a person’s sexuality and may be unlawful, depending on the circumstances”.

You could say those last four words are doing the heavy lifting. But the reality is that the guidance makes no effort to provide comfort to churches who uphold standard Christian sexual ethics. On the contrary, it is clear the State is seeking to scare Christians into silence on these matters. And, though it’s yet to be tested in the courts, a summary reading of the new law suggests Christians would be right to worry.

What happened in New South Wales?

When the campaign for a new law got entangled with the election in New South Wales, churches there fought hard for protection from a Victoria-style law.

At first the politicians agreed not to go down that route. But they eventually caved under pressure from activists. The State adopted one of the most dangerous conversion therapy laws ever seen, with features including a sprawling civil scheme, vague definitions and completely inadequate ‘safeguards’.

Under that law, Christians who refuse to endorse the identity of someone claiming to be LGBT (including their own child), could find themselves at the mercy of the courts. Civil complaints with serious repercussions can be pursued by activist groups, even if no one has suffered harm and no criminal law broken.

No need to have caused harm

Under the law, anyone accused of “suppressing” another person’s gender identity or sexual orientation could be fined $100,000 as part of a civil complaints scheme, regardless of whether any harm has been caused.

New South Wales’ civil complaints scheme is designed in such a way that an LGBT lobby group could bring a complaint on behalf of those it claims to represent. This can be done merely “because of the way conduct of that nature adversely affects, or has the potential to adversely affect… the interests of the body”.

As in Victoria, activist groups consider ‘suppression’ to include parents urging their children not to transition socially or medically – changing their name, wearing clothes of the opposite gender, or taking dangerous cross-sex hormones, for example. Religious teaching and pastoral care regarding sexual ethics are likewise accused of suppressing people’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

This opens wide the door for lobby groups to bring legal complaints against parents, gender-critical groups and Christians who oppose radical gender ideology. The civil scheme will have the ability to place orders on those it finds in contravention of the new law, requiring them to pay huge amounts in compensation and “to perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant”.

Vague definitions

The Act describes a “conversion practice” as: “a practice, treatment or sustained effort that is – a) directed to an individual on the basis of the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and b) directed to changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity”.

The Act gives further clarification of these disputed terms in a ‘dictionary’:

“[G]ender identity means the gender-related identity of an individual, which may or may not correspond with the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

What exactly this means is a mystery to all. To define ‘gender identity’ as ‘gender-related identity’ could hardly be more meaningless. With some groups claiming there are hundreds of ‘genders’, must the law be read as covering them all, however unsavoury they may be? This is not merely about protecting people who have ‘transitioned’ from one gender to another, but about protecting disputed gender ideology in its entirety.

“Sexual orientation” is defined in an initially unsurprising way as “an individual’s sexual orientation towards— (i) individuals of the same sex, or (ii) individuals of a different sex, or (iii) individuals of the same sex and individuals of a different sex”. Again, this is fully circular: ‘sexual orientation means sexual orientation’.

Particularly surprising is its final comment – that “sexual orientation…includes having a lack of sexual attraction to any individual of any sex”. This opens up a whole new area of alternative sexual ‘identities’ to the law, in the form of what groups like Stonewall call ‘asexuality’. Many of these groups in the UK want identities like this to be included in a ‘conversion practices’ law, but few in wider society would recognise what these are.

“Very limited safeguards”

Some very limited safeguards have been introduced into the proposed legislation.

For a practice to be deemed a criminal offence, it must be demonstrated that “substantial” mental or physical harm has occurred. In such a case, a penalty of up to five years in prison would apply. But, as above, this vital threshold does not apply to the civil complaints scheme, which would also not require the rigour of a criminal trial.

The Act also clarifies that certain behaviours do not count as ‘conversion therapy’, but this counts for very little indeed.

For example, the Act states that “an expression, including in prayer, of a belief or principle” does not count as ‘conversion therapy’ if it is not part of a practice that would be defined as conversion therapy. If that is tricky to read, it’s because it is entirely circular. So, there is no safeguard whatsoever for freedom of belief (which would include gender-critical beliefs as well as religious beliefs).

It gives some further examples of what does not count as ‘conversion therapy’:

“stating what relevant religious teachings are or what a religion says about a specific topic”– which would not protect anyone who encouraged or supported someone in adhering to a religious belief.

“general rules in educational institutions”– this would protect schools who want to set sensible boundaries around toilets or uniforms, for example, but would not protect parents whose children attend schools with ‘trans-affirming’ policies.

“parents discussing matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children”– this is an extremely meagre protection for parents. Parents do not merely ‘discuss matters’ with their children. All responsible parents who care for their children try to, instruct and guide them when they are younger. Often, they want to protect them from harm by urging them to do the sensible thing. A responsible parent will go far beyond mere discussion and will find no reassurance here if, for example, they choose not to go along with social or medical transition for their gender-confused child.

These supposed protections are woefully inadequate. Their inclusion suggests that any behaviour that goes beyond these descriptions could be caught by the new law. Can churches go beyond stating what relevant teachings are? Can they encourage people to follow them? Can parents go beyond discussion? Can they give direction to their children?

Not a ‘soft option’

Politicians in the UK have been looking for a model ‘conversion therapy’ law to follow. The law in New South Wales has sometimes been presented as a ‘soft option’ – largely due to the fact that it attempts to create carve-outs for certain religious activities and parents on the face of the Act.

But, as we’ve shown, on closer scrutiny these ‘protections’ amount to very little.

In fact, this approach has already been tried in the United Kingdom. A similar ‘exemption’ to allow “private religious prayer… provided that it is not directed to an individual as part of a conversion practice” has been proposed on numerous occasions by conversion therapy law supporter Alicia Kearns MP.

However, it quickly became apparent to senior lawyers that this ‘protection’ did not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, in a legal opinion for The Christian Institute, Jason Coppel KC explains that the reference to prayer actually "confirms that the intention of the Amendment is to criminalise private religious prayer in certain circumstances".

What New South Wales shows is that even with the best will in the world, there is no way to legislate for an activist-approved conversion therapy law whilst protecting religious and parental freedoms.