Joanna Timm is Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute.
One of the most repeated refrains in today’s politics is the promise that controversial policies will only ever be used against other people.
Hate speech laws will only affect extremists. Online censorship will only target harmful content. And conversion therapy bans? Well, they will only ever be used against abusive charlatans.
The Government’s draft Bill to ban so-called conversion practices arrives with familiar assurances. Supporters insist it is aimed solely at criminalising abuse against LGBTQ+ people.
We could all support this premise.
But assault, harassment and child cruelty are already criminal offences. Having spent years trying to come up with a workable Bill, the previous Government ultimately concluded that existing law already provides robust protections against abuse and abandoned its commitment altogether.
The real question has never been whether abuse should be illegal – it is what additional conduct the Government wants to criminalise.
This question becomes particularly important when examining Victoria, Australia’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 – frequently celebrated by campaigners as the model Britain should follow.
Victoria’s conversion therapy law does not merely prohibit abusive practices. It reaches deep into family life, pastoral ministry and personal conversations. Under Victoria’s ban, not only is it illegal not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law tells parents that a supportive response to a child questioning their gender identity involves asking what pronouns they would like them to use. At one point, the guidance said that parents discouraging their child from pursuing puberty blockers could be engaging in unlawful conversion therapy.
Guidance issued to ‘people of faith’ on complying with the law is no less oppressive. It goes so far as to discuss which forms of prayer could risk breaching the legislation – including prayers about sin and repentance.
Earlier this year, religious leaders from Anglican, Roman Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim traditions jointly urged the Victorian Government to roll back its law, warning that it had produced a “chilling effect” on pastoral care. Many church leaders reported feeling unable to offer spiritual guidance to individuals actively seeking it for fear of prosecution.
These are precisely the concerns repeatedly raised by legal experts in Britain.
Independent King’s Counsels have warned that previous legislative proposals risk criminalising ordinary expressions of belief, parental guidance and religious practice. Jason Coppel KC concluded that one proposal could criminalise expressions of personal conviction even where there is no hatred, coercion, abuse of power or improper purpose involved. Sarah Vine KC similarly warned that such laws could fall foul of the Human Rights Act.
These objections go straight to the heart of what it means to live together as humans. The right to disagree. The right to persuade. The right to give advice. The right to pray. The right to parent. Yet the Government appears increasingly willing to place those liberties at risk on the basis of discredited evidence.
One of the principal pieces of evidence repeatedly cited in support of a conversion therapy ban is survey data produced by Stonewall, the leading campaign group calling for a ban. The Government’s briefing document for the King’s Speech relied upon it, and the figures are extraordinary.
Among the survey’s headline claims is that one-in-five 18 to 34-year-olds who identify as LGBTQ+ have experienced sexual assault or ‘corrective rape’ intended to change their sexuality or gender identity, compared with none among those aged over 65.
Andrew Hawkins, professional pollster and barrister, has described these findings as “simply not credible”. He argues that if true, they would suggest that conversion practices have increased dramatically at precisely the same time that public attitudes towards LGBT people have become more liberal and accepting.
Other findings are just as difficult to reconcile with reality. According to Stonewall, ten per cent of LGBTQ+ people in Britain have experienced exorcism intended to change their sexuality or gender identity. Among trans-identifying individuals, this figure rises to a surreal 30 per cent.
As philosopher John Armstrong has observed, if those figures were accurate, church leaders across Britain would effectively be conducting LGBTQ+ exorcisms on an industrial scale – one for every two religious wedding ceremonies they perform.
Yet these are among the suspect claims helping to shape public policy.
Stonewall’s claims also sit awkwardly alongside the Government’s own 2017 National LGBT Survey, which found that only two per cent of respondents reported experiencing conversion therapy – itself a controversial figure given the absence of even a definition of what constituted conversion therapy.
Good law requires good evidence. But in this case, Parliament risks legislating on the basis of activist research that many independent observers regard as deeply questionable.
The timing is revealing too. The draft Bill arrives alongside the announcement that a controversial puberty blocker trial involving children as young as eleven is set to proceed. Together, they point to a worldview that has taken hold in our institutions: that affirmation is the only acceptable response to a child questioning their ‘gender’.
Recent years have demonstrated precisely why caution is necessary. Multiple studies across the West have exposed profound weaknesses in the evidence base underpinning gender medicine for children and warned against approaches driven by ideology rather than evidence.
Victoria’s conversion therapy law shows what awaits the UK. Legislation that purports to outlaw abuse risks criminalising things that should never be made illegal – prayer, parental guidance, pastoral care and ordinary conversations. Parents across the UK should be horrified by the prospect of losing their right to converse openly with their own children, and church leaders and health professionals should be alarmed that they could be prevented from offering a listening ear and care to those seeking it.
If Victoria’s experience teaches us anything, it is that once the State is empowered to police beliefs and conversations, it is not just a matter for ‘other people’ – it is a matter for everyone.
Joanna Timm is Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute.
One of the most repeated refrains in today’s politics is the promise that controversial policies will only ever be used against other people.
Hate speech laws will only affect extremists. Online censorship will only target harmful content. And conversion therapy bans? Well, they will only ever be used against abusive charlatans.
The Government’s draft Bill to ban so-called conversion practices arrives with familiar assurances. Supporters insist it is aimed solely at criminalising abuse against LGBTQ+ people.
We could all support this premise.
But assault, harassment and child cruelty are already criminal offences. Having spent years trying to come up with a workable Bill, the previous Government ultimately concluded that existing law already provides robust protections against abuse and abandoned its commitment altogether.
The real question has never been whether abuse should be illegal – it is what additional conduct the Government wants to criminalise.
This question becomes particularly important when examining Victoria, Australia’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 – frequently celebrated by campaigners as the model Britain should follow.
Victoria’s conversion therapy law does not merely prohibit abusive practices. It reaches deep into family life, pastoral ministry and personal conversations. Under Victoria’s ban, not only is it illegal not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law tells parents that a supportive response to a child questioning their gender identity involves asking what pronouns they would like them to use. At one point, the guidance said that parents discouraging their child from pursuing puberty blockers could be engaging in unlawful conversion therapy.
Guidance issued to ‘people of faith’ on complying with the law is no less oppressive. It goes so far as to discuss which forms of prayer could risk breaching the legislation – including prayers about sin and repentance.
Earlier this year, religious leaders from Anglican, Roman Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim traditions jointly urged the Victorian Government to roll back its law, warning that it had produced a “chilling effect” on pastoral care. Many church leaders reported feeling unable to offer spiritual guidance to individuals actively seeking it for fear of prosecution.
These are precisely the concerns repeatedly raised by legal experts in Britain.
Independent King’s Counsels have warned that previous legislative proposals risk criminalising ordinary expressions of belief, parental guidance and religious practice. Jason Coppel KC concluded that one proposal could criminalise expressions of personal conviction even where there is no hatred, coercion, abuse of power or improper purpose involved. Sarah Vine KC similarly warned that such laws could fall foul of the Human Rights Act.
These objections go straight to the heart of what it means to live together as humans. The right to disagree. The right to persuade. The right to give advice. The right to pray. The right to parent. Yet the Government appears increasingly willing to place those liberties at risk on the basis of discredited evidence.
One of the principal pieces of evidence repeatedly cited in support of a conversion therapy ban is survey data produced by Stonewall, the leading campaign group calling for a ban. The Government’s briefing document for the King’s Speech relied upon it, and the figures are extraordinary.
Among the survey’s headline claims is that one-in-five 18 to 34-year-olds who identify as LGBTQ+ have experienced sexual assault or ‘corrective rape’ intended to change their sexuality or gender identity, compared with none among those aged over 65.
Andrew Hawkins, professional pollster and barrister, has described these findings as “simply not credible”. He argues that if true, they would suggest that conversion practices have increased dramatically at precisely the same time that public attitudes towards LGBT people have become more liberal and accepting.
Other findings are just as difficult to reconcile with reality. According to Stonewall, ten per cent of LGBTQ+ people in Britain have experienced exorcism intended to change their sexuality or gender identity. Among trans-identifying individuals, this figure rises to a surreal 30 per cent.
As philosopher John Armstrong has observed, if those figures were accurate, church leaders across Britain would effectively be conducting LGBTQ+ exorcisms on an industrial scale – one for every two religious wedding ceremonies they perform.
Yet these are among the suspect claims helping to shape public policy.
Stonewall’s claims also sit awkwardly alongside the Government’s own 2017 National LGBT Survey, which found that only two per cent of respondents reported experiencing conversion therapy – itself a controversial figure given the absence of even a definition of what constituted conversion therapy.
Good law requires good evidence. But in this case, Parliament risks legislating on the basis of activist research that many independent observers regard as deeply questionable.
The timing is revealing too. The draft Bill arrives alongside the announcement that a controversial puberty blocker trial involving children as young as eleven is set to proceed. Together, they point to a worldview that has taken hold in our institutions: that affirmation is the only acceptable response to a child questioning their ‘gender’.
Recent years have demonstrated precisely why caution is necessary. Multiple studies across the West have exposed profound weaknesses in the evidence base underpinning gender medicine for children and warned against approaches driven by ideology rather than evidence.
Victoria’s conversion therapy law shows what awaits the UK. Legislation that purports to outlaw abuse risks criminalising things that should never be made illegal – prayer, parental guidance, pastoral care and ordinary conversations. Parents across the UK should be horrified by the prospect of losing their right to converse openly with their own children, and church leaders and health professionals should be alarmed that they could be prevented from offering a listening ear and care to those seeking it.
If Victoria’s experience teaches us anything, it is that once the State is empowered to police beliefs and conversations, it is not just a matter for ‘other people’ – it is a matter for everyone.