Criminalising prayer protects no one

COMMENT

Laws against so-called conversion therapy are threatening the freedom of belief

The Government has restated its commitment to ban so-called “conversion therapy”.

In order to evade a badly-drafted backbench amendment to the Online Safety Bill — which threatened to put into law an online ban containing such legally dubious language as “the practice of so-called conversion practices” and the deliberately indefinable “LGBTQ+” acronym — the Culture Secretary has confirmed what most people expected: a “conversion therapy” Bill is to be put before Parliament.

A draft Bill will be introduced first, to allow for pre-legislative scrutiny. A Joint Committee of MPs and Peers will be established this Parliamentary term. Aided — hopefully — by evidence from stakeholders, they will consider the wording prior to it being tabled as a formal Bill. It is an important opportunity to consider concerns about potential adverse impacts of a new law.

The Government says it wants to tackle abuse against gay and trans people. There is no doubt that stories in the press about people decades ago being victims of electro-shock experiments are harrowing.

But there is no evidence that LGBT people are subjected to electro-shock treatment in the UK today. If there was, we can be certain there would be high-profile arrests and prosecutions. There is a plethora of laws against abuse and coercion which could be called upon.

In 2022 the UK Government admitted that the evidence base for a ban was not strong. The reality is that we have no clear idea of what “conversion therapy” is, let alone whether it is taking place in the UK today.

So what is the point of a new law? Well, I’m afraid the pro-ban activists have tipped their hand: they simply don’t like how some people pray.

Jayne Ozanne, chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy campaign, explicitly says a ban must include “gentle, non-coercive prayer”. Apparently prayers that don’t fit her particular LGBTQ+ narrative must be outlawed. Church pastoral care is also in the firing line. Ozanne particularly objects when churches teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong (something they’ve done for 2000 years), describing abstinence as “damaging” and “psychologically harmful”. The misappropriation of the language of safeguarding to attack traditional teaching is the calling card of this movement.

Ozanne’s Ban Conversion Therapy Campaign, which includes discredited groups like Stonewall and Mermaids, says even “casual conversations” must be within the scope of a ban. So parents talking with their gender-confused kids could be prosecuted for not sticking to the Stonewall script.

This is how far the debate has moved from outlawing abusive “therapies”. A law as broad and ideological as this could see ordinary, innocent people criminalised.

This is how far the debate has moved

What’s happening right now in Scotland shows us the direction of travel. The Government there formed an “Expert Advisory Group” to make recommendations on how a ban should work. With depressing predictability, the Scottish Government made sure the group consisted solely of activists on one side of the issue. (We know because we asked for a seat at the table and our invitation never arrived.) This led to the group publishing a series of ill-informed and extreme recommendations. Ignoring all the current laws which protect gay people, it claimed that a ban is needed to protect people from “torture”. It specifically said that teaching “the importance of marriage” is part of conversion therapy and ought to be within the scope of a ban. That means a criminal ban affecting one of the central ethical teachings of the Christian church. The “experts” also called for children to be removed from their parents if the parents say the “wrong” things about LGBT issues. And they demanded that non-compliant church ministers be de-frocked. You can’t say they aren’t bold.

These outrageous recommendations led to a top KC declaring the plans “fundamentally illiberal in intent”. Aidan O’Neill KC previously represented The Christian Institute when we got the Scottish Government’s hated named person legislation struck down in the UK Supreme Court. His written advice says that if the Scottish Government follows its advisors’ recommendations they will be acting outside the powers devolved to Scotland. His argument is similar to the UK Government’s case against the Scottish Parliament’s gender self-ID law. O’Neill says the recommendations would infringe rights guaranteed by the European Convention too, something previously addressed by Jason Coppel KC.

The Scottish Government’s plans have caused alarm across the political and philosophical spectrum, with pro-Indy bloggers joining gender critical feminists and Scotland’s Roman Catholic Bishops in condemning the plans.

The Christian Institute has made clear that we will bring a judicial review of any new legislation on conversion therapy in any part of the UK if it unjustly restricts the legitimate exercise of free speech or freedom of belief. We first instructed our solicitors to write to Westminster’s Equalities Minister in May 2021, and have since done the same with the administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Lawmakers in London cannot ignore mainstream Christian voices as Scotland has attempted to do. Listening only to LGBT ideologues and not considering the unintended consequences for the innocent would be a grave error. You can protect gay and trans people without destroying the freedoms of innocent people.

This article was first published by The Critic and is reproduced with permission.