Govt still can’t say why ‘conversion practices’ law is needed

COMMENT

In Wednesday’s Westminster Hall debate on conversion therapy, junior Equalities Minister Stuart Andrew admitted that “physically violent acts done in the name of conversion practice are, rightly, already illegal”.

We have been saying this for years so it’s good to hear it being admitted. His boss, Kemi Badenoch, went further, telling the House of Commons that “Attempts at so-called conversion therapy are abhorrent and are largely already illegal”.

But Mr Andrew went on to say that “there remains a gap” in the law, “particularly surrounding non-physical and speech-based acts, such as specific instances of verbal degradation”. He says this is “not covered by existing legislation”.

We have been waiting a long time for anyone in Government to identify a gap in the law to justify the need for a conversion therapy Bill. After five years of Government deliberation, Mr Andrew’s answer is disappointing. What are the “specific instances” he is referring to? If they are specific, then why did he not tell us what they are?

And what is “verbal degradation”? It is not a concept recognised by existing criminal law. It sounds like a major expansion of the law into the realm of pure speech.

It is increasingly clear that we are talking about a new speech crime. And a highly subjective one at that.

What gap?

As Christians, we believe we should speak in ways that recognise people’s God-given dignity. But we know that describing certain behaviours as ‘sinful’ is often mischaracterised as ‘degrading’ by those seeking to silence the expression of orthodox beliefs on sex and sexuality.

Mr Andrew’s admission confirms that banning conversion therapy is not about protecting people from grotesque physical abuses such as ‘corrective rape’, which is what we were all led to believe when discussions about a ban first began. Instead, it is increasingly clear that we are talking about a new speech crime. And a highly subjective one at that.

There are plenty of existing laws to combat abusive speech. Section 5 of the Public Order Act, for example, makes it a criminal offence to use “threatening or abusive words” that are likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. It covers every location other than a private dwelling.

Does the Minister think there is a “gap” in this law? Does he want to criminalise words that are not threatening nor abusive but merely felt to be ‘degrading’? Each of us has probably experienced “verbal degradation”. Think of a mother, at the end of her tether with her teenager’s failure to tidy his room, who calls him ‘useless’ or ‘lazy’ (and is perhaps later consumed with guilt for losing her temper). Is this the kind of “verbal degradation” the Government wants to outlaw? Should such minor mistakes over our choice of words really be a matter for the police and the criminal courts?

Free speech

Of course, the Government will say that the words have to relate to a person’s sexuality or ‘gender identity’ to be caught by its plans. But if ‘degrading speech’ is going to be outlawed, why should only gay and trans people be protected? People experience verbal degradation on the grounds of religion, disability, sex, age, race and more besides. Are they not as important?

free speech comprises “not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence”

“Verbal degradation” may be unpleasant. But it is much too low a threshold for the heavy hand of the criminal law. It’s only ten years ago that The Christian Institute helped to persuade Parliament to repeal a law against ‘insulting’ words – a move that was widely-welcomed as victory for free speech. Criminalising ‘degrading’ words would take us backwards.

And it’s worth remembering that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to free speech includes things that “offend, shock or disturb”.

And UK case law has confirmed that free speech comprises “not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence”.

Again, as Christians we believe in measuring our words. But the law on free speech is framed in this way because it recognises that people can react badly to hearing views they do not like. They can characterise them as ‘offensive’ – or ‘degrading’ – no matter how politely they are expressed.

It appears the Government has admitted that it wants a new speech crime that cuts across the fundamental right to say things that people don’t like.