The Free Speech Union (FSU) has warned that government plans to end “abusive conversion practices” is a threat to free speech.
The proposed law is intended, supporters say, to end abusive practices supposedly aimed at converting LGBT-identifying people to heterosexuality.
The FSU has joined in with calls from groups like Christian Concern, who have noted that abusive practices are already illegal and that any new law will almost certainly criminalise some forms of speech and religious belief.
The FSU said, “Forcing gay people to attempt to become straight is already illegal — so the obvious question is: what, precisely, is Labour proposing to prohibit that is not already prohibited?”
Christian Concern’s Paul Huxley made similar points and noted that many of the abuses highlighted by campaigners – electroshock therapy, chemical castration and “corrective” rape – are either already illegal or have not been witnessed in Britain for decades. In the case of “corrective” rape, no instance of a therapist recommending this treatment has ever been recorded.
Of more serious concern is what may fall foul of any new law. Praying for or counselling someone struggling with their sexual identity may become criminalised, as could a conversation between a concerned parent and a child who wants to change their gender.
The FSU warned a new law could “prevent medical professionals and parents from having good-faith, exploratory conversations with gender-confused children”.
“The word ‘abusive’ is doing an enormous amount of work in the bill’s title,” it said.
“The difference between a caring, thoughtful clinical conversation and an ‘abusive’ practice will depend entirely on how the legislation is drafted and how it is enforced. We will be scrutinising both with great care.”
Legal experts have warned that any anti-conversion therapy bill will inevitably come into conflict with human rights law. Indeed the last Conservative government, having previously championed such a bill, quietly dropped their support at the last election due to the impossibility of reconciling the intent of the bill with freedom of speech.
