UK Government Consultation on Banning Conversion Therapy

The UK government has launched a consultation on its proposals to ban “conversion therapy”. The consultation focuses on:

• targeting physical acts conducted in the name of conversion therapy;
• targeting talking conversion therapy with a new criminal offence; and
• producing a package of holistic measures, such as Conversion Therapy Protection Orders, new support for victims, restricting promotion, removing profit streams, and strengthening the case for disqualification from holding a senior role in a charity. 

Consultation can be accessed here and entries must be submitted by 4th February 2022.

We have provided guidance here to how our community may answer the questions. Note although Strong Support has never taken clients which are under 18, we should still protect the freedom of choice for our children.

Views on banning conversion therapy

Do you agree or disagree that the Government should intervene to end conversion therapy in principle?

Somewhat disagree

Why do you think this?

As the government has already noted, that physical acts of conversion therapy are already covered in existing legislation and “If we were to create overlapping offences, then prosecutors would be faced with an unhelpful choice in how to charge an offence, which could lead to inconsistency in sentences for equivalent crimes.”

As for the issue of talking conversion therapy, all forms of professional counselling ask for informed consent. As the government suggests that talking conversion therapy will be banned for under-18s and also states that “proposed protections are universal” then gay affirmative therapy should also be banned for under-18s.

There is an inherent bias in the government’s research of “conversion therapy” as it focuses on therapies that promote opposite-sex attraction and completely ignores the current therapies that promote same-sex attraction which are affirmatory and non-explorative in nature. Not only that the study itself says “There is no representative data on the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people who have undergone conversion therapy in the UK.”. Hence there is no credible evidence on the prevalence of so called conversion therapy. Our population has been harmed by gay affirmative therapy which isn’t mentioned in the consultation.

On another note, there is no current legislation regarding counselling or therapy in the UK. This means there is no legal regulation over therapy or counselling, focusing on conversion therapy alone and not looking at coercion in therapy or counselling as a whole puts the cart before the horse.

Targeting physical conversion therapy

To what extent do you support, or not support, the Government’s proposal for addressing physical acts of conversion therapy?

Strongly support

Why do you think this?

Violent physical acts that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed if not already covered in existing legislation

Targeting talking conversion therapy

The Government considers that delivering talking therapy with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation or changing them from being transgender or to being transgender either to someone who is under 18, or to someone who is 18 or over and who has not consented or lacks the capacity to do so should be considered a criminal offence. The consultation document describes proposals to introduce new criminal law that will capture this. How far do you agree or disagree with this?

Strongly disagree

How far do you agree or disagree with the penalties being proposed?

Strongly disagree

Do you think that these proposals miss anything?

Yes

The government itself notes “Legitimate talking therapies are important for society, indeed particularly for LGBT people, who have worse than average mental health outcomes”, then isn’t it legitimate then for under-18s who do not identify as opposite-sex attracted to be offered therapy which is in line with their faith goals? Is it not conversion therapy when we are coercing under-18s with gay affirmative therapy or puberty blockers?

The government notes that “they may liken feelings of same-sex attraction or being transgender to a defect, deficiency or addiction and may conduct conversion therapy in an attempt to remedy or control this. The government’s view is that this is wrong and ultimately constitutes conversion therapy.” This statement contradicts freedom of choice, speech and religion. I quote here a statement from the (Otto et al. v. City of Boca Raton et al, 2020) case:

“The First Amendment does not protect the right to speak about banned speech; it protects speech itself, no matter how disagreeable that speech might be to the government. And what good would it do for a therapist whose client sought SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] therapy to tell the client that she thought the therapy could be helpful, but could not offer it? It only matters that some words about sexuality and gender are allowed, and others are not… But speech does not need to be popular in order to be allowed. The First Amendment exists precisely so that speakers with unpopular ideas do not have to lobby the government for permission before they speak,” wrote Judge Grant.

The government further comments “It is the government’s view that those who are under 18 are more at risk of being harmed by such counselling and as such, our proposals will protect young people regardless of whether they have freely entered such counselling. Providing such counselling to under 18s or vulnerable adults will be an offence.”

This viewpoint may be taken from Jowett’s study. Note here that Jowett himself identifies as among the LGBT community and thus poses an inherent bias to the research. He biasedly dismisses Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts, 2000b, Spitzer, 2003 due to ” lack of scientific rigor”. He likens explorative therapy “‘Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy’” to conversion therapy. His report ignores the following studies published in 2021 which show a positive change in sexual attractions after therapy:
-Pela, C. & Sutton, P. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic 49 outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61-86.
-Efficacy and risk of sexual orientation change efforts: a retrospective analysis of 125 exposed men D. Paul Sullins, Christopher H. Rosik, Paul Santero

Older studies dismissed:
-Paul L. Santero, PhD, Neil E. Whitehead, PhD, Dolores Ballesteros, PhD, “Effects of Therapy on Religious Men Who Have Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction,” The Linacre Quarterly, July 23, 2018
-Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, “A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 37:5 (2011); Jowett dismisses this study as “absence of a control or comparison group, and deficiencies in the choice of measures and statistical analysis” when the studies he quotes e.g. Ozanne Foundation or UK survey are similarly deficient
-Elan Y. Karten and Jay C. Wade, “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts in Men: A Client Perspective,” The Journal of Men’s Studies 18:1 (2010): 84-102;
-In a thorough review of the literature in 2009 (in response to the APA Task Force Report earlier that year), the Journal of Human Sexuality (published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH) reported on “600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients— primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals,” published over 125 years, documenting “that professionally-assisted and other attempts at volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality has been successful for many and that such change continues to be possible for those who wish to try.” (James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA
Claims on Homosexuality (A Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality),” Journal of Human Sexuality 1 (2009), http://factsaboutyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/What-research-shows-homosexuality.NARTH_.pdf )

The Journal also reported on five “meta-analyses” (studies of the studies) conducted between 1974 and 2002, all of which showed change was possible. “Success rates” in making some shift toward heterosexuality, in the three meta-analyses that reported such figures in percentage terms, ranged from 33 percent to 40 percent.

Restricting the promotion of conversion therapy

The Government considers that Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code already provides measures against the broadcast and promotion of conversion therapy. How far do you agree or disagree with this?

Strongly Agree

Why do you think this?

Not seen any examples in broadcasting

Do you know of any examples of broadcasting that you consider to be endorsing or promoting conversion therapy?

No

If yes, can you tell us what these examples are?

N/A

The Government considers that the existing codes set out by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice already prohibits the advertisement of conversion therapy. How far do you agree or disagree with this?

Strongly Agree

Do you know of any examples of advertisements that you consider to be endorsing or promoting conversion therapy?

No

If yes, can you tell us what these examples are?

N/A

Protecting people from conversion therapy overseas

The consultation document describes proposals to introduce conversion therapy protection orders to tackle a gap in provision for victims of the practice. To what extent do you agree or disagree that there is a gap in the provision for victims of conversion therapy?

Somewhat disagree

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals for addressing this gap we have identified?

Somewhat disagree

Why do you think this?

While we agree on physical acts of conversion therapy should be prosecuted in UK or overseas, we disagree that under-18s are cut off from therapy or support which they consent to and is in line with their views or beliefs.

Ensuring charities do not support conversion therapy

Charity trustees are the people who are responsible for governing a charity and directing how it is managed and run. The consultation document describes proposals whereby anyone found guilty of carrying out conversion therapy will have the case against them for being disqualified from serving as a trustee at any charity strengthened. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Strongly disagree

What is the case of a charity that provides adults over 18 talking therapies where the client wishes to increase opposite-sex attraction?

Recognition by authorities of conversion therapy as a problem

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following organisations are providing adequate action against people who might already be carrying out conversion therapy?

Police, Crown Prosecution Service, OTHER statutory service

Neither agree or disagree

Why do you think this?

A freedom of information request shows that there have been no reports of talking conversion therapy being reported to authorities as a problem

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following organisations are providing adequate support for victims of conversion therapy?

Police, Crown Prosecution Service, OTHER statutory service

Neither agree or disagree

Why do you think this?

No past cases or reports are known for talking conversion therapy

Do you think that these services can do more to support victims of conversion therapy?

Yes

If yes, what more do you think they could do?

Police or authorities figures will reveal how prevalent conversion therapy is in the UK.

Economic appraisal

Do you have any evidence on the economic or financial costs or benefits of any of the proposals set out in the consultation?

No

Equalities impacts appraisal

There is a duty on public authorities to consider or think about how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Do you have any evidence of the equalities impacts of any proposals set out in the consultation?

Yes

If yes, can you provide us with details of this evidence, including where possible, any references to publications?

Banning access to therapy for consenting under-18s violates ECHR Articles 8, 9, 12 and 14. It favours one sexual orientation over the other as the present talking conversion therapy ban doesn’t cover gay affirmative therapy which is widely practised in the UK.