Dr Carys Moseley comments on the BBC’s coverage of ‘conversion therapy’.
The BBC continues to peddle vicious disinformation about ‘conversion therapy’ for same-sex attraction. This is despite the fact that even those pushing hardest for ‘conversion therapy’ bans have backtracked on this claim when we challenged them. The BBC should follow suit.
‘Group prayer’ equated with ‘corrective rape’
This Tuesday the BBC News website’s Family & Education section published a story about a man who is demanding an apology from Birmingham University for giving him electric shock treatment for homosexuality over fifty years ago. As a piece of historical interest this is not a problem. The problem is that the reporter, Ben Hunte, the BBC News LGBT Correspondent, saw fit to add a whole section linking this to the government’s plan to ban ‘conversion therapy’. Never mind that the term was not used by psychiatrist administering electric shock treatments, nor that they themselves were dismissive of talking therapy and often irreligious.
The section on ‘conversion therapy’ says this:
“While some violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences, many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’’”, are not.”
The false and mendacious equation of ‘corrective rape’ (homophobic rape of lesbians) with talking therapy and pastoral care has been exposed on previous occasions. This time however the BBC has put the term ‘group prayer’ in quotation marks, which is a new tactic. This looks like an attempt at hitting back at our practice of putting the term ‘conversion therapy’ in quotation marks by mimicking it. We do this to highlight the essentially false and deceitful nature of the term. By appearing to mimic our usage, the BBC seems to want to imply that praying in groups (a real thing) is either illusory or morally illegitimate. Churches and Christian fellowships should beware of this as it could signal an emerging threat to them.
Is the BBC trying to get people to denounce churches?
The overall tactic is to smear prayer groups as somehow on a continuum with both rape and electroshock treatment which was used in the past. This is important because at the end of the article readers who have experienced electroshock treatment are encouraged to come forward to speak to Ben Hunte.
I believe this functions as a code for calling activists to come forward to denounce churches for praying for people who want to be rid of unwanted same-sex attraction. This is obvious because the article has not been designed as merely being of historical interest. It includes a link to an interview Ben Hunte did in July with a man who said he ‘underwent conversion therapy’ at church. He said they had ‘tortured’ him. This was reported uncritically and without verifying the account. This sort of reporting is dangerous as it fosters a climate where people are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
Challenging lies and disinformation
On several occasions, Christian Concern has pushed back against this dishonest equation of rape with pastoral care. We have managed to get the Government Equalities Office to backtrack twice, and also managed to get the United Nations Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to do so on one occasion.
The Government Equalities Office backtracked on ‘corrective rape’
The Government Equalities Office, led by Penny Mordaunt when she was Minister for Equalities, started peddling the claim that ‘corrective rape’ is an extreme form of ‘conversion therapy’. Both myself and our Communications Manager Paul Huxley made Freedom of Information Requests asking for the evidence to back up this claim. In both instances, the GEO civil servants had to backtrack and deny that they had made the association.
The UN LGBT expert backtracked on ‘corrective rape’
In July this year I attended the launch of a report on ‘conversion therapy’ by the UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. It was hosted by Harvard Law School in a Zoom meeting, but was also broadcast live on Facebook. Participants were allowed to ask questions beforehand by email, in the Zoom chat and in the Facebook comments section. I made sure to ask a question about the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ on Facebook given that the settings were public, so anybody in the world could see the discussion. This is the question I asked:
“Given that the term ‘conversion therapy’ was never used by any psychotherapists working through the medium of English with clients who voluntarily sought them out to deal with same-sex attraction that they themselves did not desire, and that no psychotherapists ever came together to brand themselves as ‘conversion therapists’, why do you use the terms ‘conversion therapy’ in your report to the UN Human Rights Council?”
You can hear it asked at 57: 24 onwards by the meeting moderator. I also wrote the following question in the Facebook comments section to underline the point:
“Please provide the evidence for any qualified psychotherapists in any country recommending clients for ‘corrective rape’ via ‘conversion therapy.”
The UN Expert responded to the first question, covering the point about rape hinted at. As is evident from the video he backtracked somewhat on the claim. Responding on the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ he says after 1:02:19 that things like rape and starvation are ‘clearly’ criminal acts and as such do not count as therapy.
Is the BBC campaigning for a ‘conversion therapy’ ban?
Both the Government Equalities Office and the UN Expert have been campaigning for a ban. The fact that they were caught lying when challenged should serve as a lesson to the BBC. Indeed, journalists should really have the decency to report on such backtracking given that it is in the public interest. Instead, the BBC has perpetuated the very same propaganda.
Sections 4.1. and 4.3.17-18 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines make it clear that the BBC should remain independent from ‘government initiatives’ and ‘campaigners’. It is therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that the BBC is campaigning for a ban on ‘conversion therapy’. It is not remotely impartial.
Does the BBC News article count as journalism or not?
There is a further problem here, which is whether this article properly counts as journalism at all. In 2010 the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment which referred approvingly to a legal definition of journalism given by the Information Tribunal. Here is what the Court of Appeal judgment says about how the Information Tribunal defines ‘functional journalism’:
“In relation to functional journalism we find that it covers collecting or gathering, writing, editing and presenting material for publication, and reviewing that material. In order to further understand functional journalism the Tribunal considers the following three elements constitute functional journalism
The first is the collecting or gathering, writing and verifying of materials for publication.
The second is editorial. This involves the exercise of judgement on issues such as:
the selection, prioritisation and timing of matters for broadcast or publication,
the analysis of and review of individual programmes,
the provision of context and background to such programmes.
The third element is the maintenance and enhancement of the standards and quality of journalism (particularly with respect to accuracy, balance and completeness). This may involve the training and development of individual journalists, the mentoring of less experienced journalists by more experienced colleague, professional supervision and guidance, and reviews of the standards and quality of particular areas of programme making.” [Sugar v BBC, Section 31, emphasis mine]
Neither accuracy, balance nor completeness are to be found in this latest BBC news article on ‘conversion therapy’. It is reasonable to question whether it properly counts as journalism.
BBC News as mouthpiece for Stonewall
John Humphrys was prescient in his recent criticism of Hunte’s hope of being “a mouthpiece for the LGBT community.” The only person interviewed on the topic of the current plan to outlaw ‘conversion therapy’ was the CEO of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley. She was given the last word. Why? The first clue is that the BBC News article embeds a video it first published last August, of a man named ‘Gareth’ who made the unverifiable and indeed doubtful claim that he had gone for help to Core Issues Trust. There is no objective reason for embedding this video of ‘Gareth’ except that it furthers the cause of calling for a ban on ‘conversion therapy’. It is totally unrelated to any historical claims of electroshock treatment by psychiatrists, let alone claims of ‘corrective rape’.
The second clue is that, as mentioned above, the article also linked to a previous article including an interview from July. That article actually started off reporting on Instagram and Facebook’s decision to block content ‘promoting conversion therapy’. However that July article omitted to mention that Instagram and Facebook only decided on this after a campaign of harassment against Core Issues Trust on social media. LGBT activists encouraged each other to report Core Issues Trust’s accounts to Instagram and Facebook. By contrast CNN reported on this worldwide. Like Stonewall, the BBC was now suppressing all mention of Core Issues Trust.
Is the BBC campaigning against Core Issues Trust?
Clearly the BBC is very one-sided in its handling of news about Core Issues Trust. Stonewall was evidently rather displeased with the publicity surrounding Core Issues Trusts’ legal case against Transport For London for banning its ex-gay adverts in 2013. They countered its own adverts. Whilst the newspapers attempted to show some balance in reporting this case, the BBC was slightly more favourable to Stonewall. For example, in March 2013 BBC London ran the headline ‘“Ex-gay” London bus advert “like a slap in the face”’, prioritising Stonewall’s reaction.
Although the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled against Core Issues Trust’s complaint, the public attention given to Stonewall in the case clearly did not reflect well on the latter. It was clear that Stonewall did not want adverts countering its own message to be allowed on London buses or indeed anywhere else. Index On Censorship had expressed concern at the effect on freedom of speech of banning the bus adverts. Since then, Stonewall has never publicly named Core Issues Trust, clearly believing that to do so would be to invite criticism and adverse publicity. The BBC has chosen a more manipulative path, but as of Tuesday appears to have adopted Stonewall’s tactic wholesale. It is time to ask whether the BBC is covertly campaigning for a ‘conversion therapy’ ban and against Core Issues Trust.
