Dutch conversion therapy Bill is overwhelmingly opposed

Last week, the Dutch House of Representatives debated a Private Member’s Bill to ban so-called conversion therapy. The Bill is a revised version of a 2022 Bill, which failed to stand up to legal scrutiny.

The three-and-a-half-hour debate was suspended shortly after midnight and is to be continued at a later date. However, supporters of the Bill have already conceded that it is very likely to be voted down at the end of its first debate.

In her opening speech, Mrs Mutluer (GroenLinks-PvdA) said: “the outcome of this debate is actually already known”, referencing the fact that the day before, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the New Social Contract (NSC) had indicated to the media their intention to oppose it.

This marks a significant shift for both parties. While they still suggest support for the principle of the Bill, they say it’s so poorly defined and drafted that they cannot support it.

Specifically on the issue of pastoral conversations, CDA spokesman Mr Boswijk referenced legal advice on the Bill from the Council of State, which determined that whilst a single conversation would be okay, “after that there is a real risk that it can become punishable”.

The NSC similarly leaned into the Council’s advice and expressed concern at the “many broad definitions” and “unclear terms” contained in the Bill.

The largest Government party, the Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV), also shifted position. Again this is significant, since the party previously voted in support of a motion calling on the Government to introduce conversion therapy legislation.

PVV spokesman Mr Emiel van Dijk said: “I have a bill in front of me, a private member's bill that has been criticised from all sides…. What I know is that what is currently included is inadequate. It would criminalise matters that now fall under freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of education… [and] would work towards only gender reassignment, sex reassignment.”

He added: “Perhaps the most important conclusion of the whole story is that all the things that are said to be combated with this bill are already punishable. You may not force people to do something. You may not detain people against their will. You may not abuse people, physically or mentally. That is the crux of the matter… Is it really the intention that the government should interfere in every conversation and measure this against the yardstick of hurt feelings?”

The lack of a clear definition of ‘gender identity’ was raised as particularly problematic.

The NSC spokesman Mr Six Dijkstra made the point that the concept is not fixed: “If you really look at the letter of the law, this can cause problems, certainly when it comes to gender, something that can change over time, for example when it comes to gender dysphoria; gender identity is not a fixed concept in that case.”

And BBB spokeswoman Mrs Wijen-Nass warned that a “watchful waiting policy for gender dysphoria” could be criminalised under the Bill.

The problems are not unique to this Bill. Independent legal advice from leading King’s Counsel has identified the same deficiencies in each of the attempts to legislate for a conversion therapy ban in the UK. And the Westminster Government’s own promised draft Bill will be no different.

New legislation in this area is impossible to get right because it invariably criminalises innocent activities like prayer and pastoral conversations. It’s therefore encouraging that a growing number of governments around the world are coming to this realisation and concluding that a law of the kind activists are calling for is unworkable.