Conversion therapy bill is 'badly drafted'

The Westminster Government first pledged to criminalise so-called "conversion therapy" in 2018 under Theresa May.

It was a knee-jerk response to activists making unverified claims of grim abuses they alleged were taking place in churches. But the Conservatives came to realise that the evidence base didn’t stack up. They also couldn’t legally define the bogeyman conjured up by activists.

It became clear that existing law was perfectly adequate to protect people from real verbal and physical abuse. And lawyers advised them repeatedly that giving campaigners what they wanted would mean trampling all over free speech and religious liberty.

Now, two years after coming into office, the Labour Government has ignored these warnings and, yesterday, published its own draft conversion therapy bill.

Stonewall have led the campaign for a ban and are even quoted in the Government press release announcing the bill... Interestingly, Stonewall regard the conversion therapy law in Victoria, Australia as "best practice". The Victorian state has issued guidance to church leaders telling them how to pray. Apparently, you must reassure people they are "perfect as they are". Presumably they have not asked themselves why Christ died for sin if none of us are sinners.

They also told parents that refusing to allow their children to take puberty blockers was unlawful conversion therapy, and that they should consult their children on which pronouns they want them to use.

Stonewall apparently think this is great. Yet the Government is working hand in glove with them on the bill.

'Badly drafted'

The criminal law that ministers are proposing has been strongly attacked by Christian groups, gender critical campaigners and LGB (note the absence of the T) activists. It is vague and dangerous. Its definition of "abuse" includes "emotional pressure". It’s not hard to see how a trans activist would use this term to describe their parents’ failed past attempts to dissuade them from embracing gender ideology.

Another part of the legal test is whether it causes "serious distress". Again, we are all too used to activists claiming that other people’s opinions harm their mental health. It’s the go-to way of trying to shut down debate.

For the Government to try to hand such activists a new criminal law – complete with a five-year jail term and an unlimited fine – is grossly irresponsible.

Thankfully, these proposals are not law yet. The Government has had the sense to invite pre-legislative scrutiny from a committee of MPs and Peers. They will produce a report to help the Government decide whether to progress the bill.

I am optimistic that it is so badly drafted that its manifold flaws will make it impossible to move forward. We must certainly pray that is the case.

The Christian Institute will be helping people on its mailing list to respond to the bill over the coming months. Sign up at the.ci/signup