The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on ‘Ending Conversion Practices in Scotland’. This is an important consultation for people to respond to as if the proposals become law they will affect the climate throughout the UK. You do not have to live in Scotland to respond to the consultation.
The government proposes to bring in a new law banning so-called ‘conversion practices’ which will make it a criminal offence to engage in certain types of consensual conversations. Indeed, the government has specifically said that consent should not be a defence. It would even be a criminal offence to advise someone struggling with their sexual temptations to stay celibate.
You can read our thoughts on the Scottish government’s proposals here.
The consultation closes on 2 April 2024.
You can respond to the consultation online here:
https://consult.gov.scot/equality-and-human-rights/ending-conversion-practices/
Defining conversion practices
(1) Do you support our approach to defining conversion practices which focuses on behaviour motivated by the intention to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
We suggest answering: “No”.
(2) Please give the reason for your answer to Question 1.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- The proposed definition will result in criminalising certain types of consensual conversations.
- Someone who desperately wants to have a conversation about exploring changing their sexual orientation or gender identity should be allowed to do so.
- Someone who offers to have a conversation with a person who desperately wants to have such a conversation ought not to risk being convicted of a criminal offence for the conversation.
- The definition assumes that sexual orientation or gender identity never change. In fact, there are thousands of people who testify that their sexual orientation or gender identity has changed. You can read some of these stories on these websites:
- The identification of being ‘ex-gay’ has been recognised in law as a protected characteristic, but the proposed definition of conversion practices discriminates against such people by denying that they even exist.
- Criminalising consensual conversations will be a breach of human rights – the right to freedom of expression.
- The consultation document asserts that “We believe that any effort to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is harmful.” No evidence is provided for this assertion. This assertion is not supported by the evidence. The best academic research shows that talking therapies for people wishing to change their sexual orientation are not harmful. There is no good evidence for the claim of harm. This removes the government’s justification for a ban. For more about the false claims of harm from conversion practices see here:
https://www.freetotalk.org/talking-doesnt-harm
- The proposed definition even includes intention to “supress another individual’s sexual orientation’. This could include advising someone to remain celibate outside of heterosexual marriage. It may even criminalise advising a paedophile not to act on his sexual desires. Criminalising advising abstinence from sexual activity is perverse and a breach of human rights.
Suppression
(3) Do you think that legislation should cover acts or courses of behaviour intended to ‘suppress’ another person’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
We suggest answering: “It should not be covered.”
(4) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 3.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- This would criminalise “therapy or counselling that requires a person not to act on their same-sex attraction, including through celibacy.” Christians believe that all people should remain celibate outside of heterosexual marriage. This criminal offence would violate the human rights of Christians to express their religious beliefs.
- No evidence is cited that it is ever harmful to someone to be advised to remain celibate. There are many known benefits of celibacy such as: avoiding any risk of pregnancy or of STIs, waiting for public commitment in the relationship before engaging in sexual activity, lack of guilt for sexual immorality, enabling increased focus on other life activities, enabling healing from past harmful relationships. The government should not criminalise advising sexual abstinence without any evidence to support the harm of abstinence.
- Outlawing suppression would criminalise advising a paedophile not to act on his sexual desires. The same could apply to other sexual predators or abusers. Criminalising advising people not to abuse others is absurd. It could even criminalise advising some people not to engage in criminal activity.
Overview of the Proposals
(5) Do you support or not support an approach which uses a package of both criminal and civil measures to address conversion practices in legislation?
We suggest answering: “Do not support”.
(6) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 5.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- Consensual conversations should never be criminalised. To do so is a clear breach of the human right to freedom of expression.
- There is no evidence that conversations are so harmful that they need to be criminalised. In fact, the evidence shows that such conversations are not harmful and therefore there is no justification for criminalisation.
https://www.freetotalk.org/talking-doesnt-harm
- The proposed legislation fails to recognise the rights of people identifying as ‘ex-gay’ or as having detransitioned. Ex-gay has been recognised in law as a protected characteristic. The proposed legislation would clearly discriminate against people who have experienced change in their sexual orientation or gender identity. Telling their stories could be deemed a criminal offence. Advising others to also identify in this way would be a criminal offence.
- There is no evidence for the need for Civil Protection Orders for conversion practices.
Offence of engaging in conversion practices: the provision of a service
(7) What are your views on the proposal that the offence will address the provision of a service?
We suggest answering: “Do not support.”
(8) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 7.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- The consultation document asserts that there is “a clear medical consensus that it is not possible to bring about such a change.” No evidence is provided to support this assertion which contradicts the testimonies of thousands of ex-gay people or those who have detransitioned. Ex-gay is recognised as a protected characteristic in law, but this document denies that anyone can ever have changed their sexual orientation thus denying the very existence of ex-gay people.
- People who are desperately seeking someone to talk to about their sexual orientation or gender identity should not be prevented from finding such help.
- People who offer conversations, even free of charge, to those who desperately want them should not be criminalised for offering such a service. To do so would be a breach of the human right of freedom of expression.
- People who offer prayer ministry, even at no charge, to those who desperately want prayer ministry for their sexual or gender identity issues should not be criminalised. To do so would be a breach of the human right to freedom of religion.
Offence of engaging in conversion practices: coercive course of behaviour
(9) What are your views on the proposal that the offence will address a coercive course of behaviour?
We suggest answering: “Do not support.”
(10) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 9.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- There is already a criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. No evidence is provided that any new legislation is needed for coercive courses of behaviour.
- The consultation document provides no examples of what would be an offence under the new legislation that is not already an offence in law.
- A parent who objects to a child’s plans to socially transition may be committing a criminal offence if she prevents the child from wearing clothes of the opposite gender. This is absurd. There is no age limit mentioned so this could apply to children under five years old.
- A parent who encourages a child to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and refuses to allow their partner to sleep over with them could be convicted of coercive behaviour. This would breach their human rights to religious belief.
- A parent who repeatedly tells a child that it is not really possible to change your biological sex could be found guilty of coercive behaviour.
- A support group that regularly prays for a member who requested prayer for his sexual temptations could be found guilty of coercive behaviour.
Offence of engaging in conversion practices: harm
(11) What are your views on the requirement that the conduct of the perpetrator must have caused the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm (Including fear, alarm or distress)?
We suggest answering: “Do not agree”.
(12) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 11.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- Any action that causes physical harm is already a criminal offence so no new laws are required.
- Any action that causes psychological harm is already a criminal offence, so no new laws are required.
- Psychological harm is not easy to define and may be somewhat subjective. There is a danger that someone may claim psychological harm out of spite in order to get someone convicted when at the time there was no evidence of actual harm.
Offence of engaging in conversion practices: defence of reasonableness
(13) Do you agree with the inclusion of a defence of reasonableness?
We suggest answering: “Agree”.
(14) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 13.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- It would be absurd for it to be a criminal offence to counsel someone at risk of committing suicide because they are distressed about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Parents should be at no risk of committing a criminal offence for preventing their children from socially transitioning or from taking puberty-blocking medication. This should come under the defence of reasonableness.
- A person who offers to have a conversation with someone who desperately wants to talk about their gender identity or sexual orientation ought to be able to claim a defence of reasonableness since they were only seeking to help.
- Of course, it should be deemed ‘reasonable’ for anyone to counsel someone not to engage in illegal or dangerous behaviour.
- It should be deemed ‘reasonable’ to help someone who is suffering depression because of concerns about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Offence of engaging in conversion practices: proposed penalty
(15) Do you agree with the proposed penalties for the offence of engaging in conversion practices?
We suggest answering: “Do not agree”.
(16) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 15.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- It should not be a criminal offence to engage in consensual conversations.
- It is not clear why any new offence is needed. Harmful practices are already illegal.
- The need for a new offence rests on false claims of harm from consensual conversations. https://www.freetotalk.org/talking-doesnt-harm
Criminal offences – additional considerations
(17) Do you agree that there should be no defence of consent for conversion practices?
We suggest answering: “Do not agree”.
(18) Please give reasons for your answer to Question 17.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- Consensual conversations should not be criminalised.
- If someone desperately wants to have a conversation about their sexual orientation or gender identity they ought to be able to have it.
- It should not be a criminal offence to help someone who desperately wants to be helped.
- The consultation document asserts “the fact that change is not, in fact possible.” This flies in the face of all the evidence. There are thousands of people who identity as ‘ex-gay’ or as having ‘detransitioned’. Ex-gay is a protected characteristic in law.
(19) Do you have any other comments regarding the criminal offence? These are set out in parts 7 and 8 of our full consultation document.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
-
- It is interesting to see that healthcare professionals will be exempt from being accused of conversion practices if they provide a “medical treatment intended to align a persons’ physical characteristics with their gender identity.” These medical interventions are irreversible and harmful. The simple fact is that biological sex cannot be changed. These interventions are the real conversion practices that are actually harmful and should be criminalised. It is absurd that the Scottish government wants to allow objectively harmful and irreversible medical practices while it wants to criminalise consensual conversations that are objectively not harmful.
- It should not be an offence to advertise conversion practices. In Malta, Matthew Grech who identifies as ex-gay, is facing a criminal prosecution for sharing his story about how he left his former gay lifestyle in a radio interview. No one should be at risk of committing a criminal offence for sharing their story of how their sexual orientation or gender identity was changed. Ex-gay is a protected characteristic in law and this offence will clearly discriminate against those who identify as ex-gay.
Removing a person from Scotland for conversion practices
(20) What are your views on it being a criminal offence to take a person out of Scotland for the purpose of subjecting them to conversion practices?
We suggest answering: “Do not support”.
(21) Please give your reasons for your answer to Question 20.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- People who wish to engage in consensual conversations without risk of prosecution should be allowed to leave Scotland in order to do so.
- I note that the consultation document states that “It would not matter whether the conversion practice was carried out.” This would make some people guilty for the mere intention of having a consensual conversation, even though the conversation itself did not actually take place!
- Would it actually be an offence to drive to England in order to have a consensual conversation? How would this be policed?
(22) What are your views on the proposed penalties for taking a person outside of Scotland for the purposes of conversion practices?
We suggest answering: “Do not support”.
(23) Please explain your answer to Question 22.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- I do not support penalties for leaving Scotland to engage in a consensual conversation.
- The police should not be checking whether people who drive to England may be intending to have a consensual conversation. The same applies to those flying or catching a train to England.
(24) What are your views on the proposal that conversion practices should be an aggravating factor for existing offences?
We suggest answering: “Do not support”.
(25) Please explain your answer to Question 24.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- Offences may already be aggravated by prejudice on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. No new aggravating factor is needed.
- The consultation document recognises that those engaging in ‘conversion practices’ in many cases will “not bear malice or ill-will towards the specific victim, but is motivated by helping them.” Yet the Scottish government still proposes that even with a motivation of helping someone conversion practices should still be an aggravating factor in a criminal offence.
Consideration of Convention Rights
(26) Do you have any views on the steps we have taken to ensure the proposals are compatible with rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights?
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- Criminalisation of consensual conversations would clearly breach of Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.
- Criminalisation of consensual private conversations would breach Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life.
- Ex-gay is recognised as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 so a law which claims that it is not possible to change sexual orientation would breach Article 14 rights not to be discriminated against.
- Christians believe that sexual activity should be reserved for heterosexual marriage. Expressing this belief in a private conversation or counselling someone to abstain from engaging in sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage could be a criminal offence under the proposed legislation and this would breach Article 9 rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- Christians should be free to clearly express their religious belief that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is immoral without fear of criminalisation. Any risk of criminalisation would breach Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.
- Many people seek to move away from LGBT identification for reasons of conscience. Criminalising anyone who offers to help them would breach Article 9 rights to freedom of conscience.
- Some people want therapy for unwanted sexual attractions so that they can get married to someone of the opposite sex. Preventing them from having conversations about this would breach Article 12 rights to marry.
- Those who believe that it is not possible to change biological sex could be criminalised for expressing this belief and this would breach their Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.
- Church ministers and youth pastors would have their Article 9 and 10 rights breached if they were convicted of a criminal offence for counselling church members to follow Biblical sexual morality.
A new civil order relating to conversion practices
(27) What are your views on the purposes of the proposed conversion practices protection order?
We suggest answering: “Do not support”.
(28) Please explain your answer to Question 27.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- It is not clear on what grounds a civil protection order would be granted. The grounds could be entirely subjective.
- No protection order should be used to prevent someone from engaging in conversations which they desperately want to have.
- This would amount to a ‘must stay gay’ order on someone who may wish to move away from a homosexual lifestyle.
- It is not clear how people are made aware that someone has such a protection order.
- The whole idea of a protection order relies on the false claim that certain types of consensual conversations are harmful.
A new civil order relating to conversion practices: considerations
(29) Do you agree or disagree with the proposals for who should be able to apply for a conversion practices civil order?
We suggest answering: “Do not agree”.
(30) Please explain your answer to Question 29.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- I do not agree that anyone should be able to apply for a protection order to prevent someone from engaging in consensual conversations.
- I do not agree with protection orders that amount to ‘must stay gay’ orders on people who may desperately wish to explore other options.
A new civil order relating to conversion practices : additional considerations
(31) Do you have any other comments regarding the civil order?
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- It is absurd for the government to think that it makes sense to create protection orders to prevent people from engaging in certain types of consensual conversations.
- The whole proposal relies on the false assumption that certain types of consensual conversations are harmful. There is no evidence to support this and so no evidence to support these protection orders.
https://www.freetotalk.org/talking-doesnt-harm
Impact assessments
(32) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on equality by:
(a) Age
(b) Disability
(c) Gender reassignment
(d) Civil partnership
(e) Pregnancy and maternity
(f) Race
(g) Religion and belief
(h) Sex
(i) Sexual orientation
We suggest you tick the boxes for Gender reassignment, Religion and Belief, Sex, and Sexual orientation.
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
- Many people who have undergone gender reassignment subsequently regret this and wish to detransition. These people are discriminated against by this legislation since it would be illegal to discuss detransitioning with any gender reassigned person.
- Many people with sexual orientations wish to engage in consensual conversations about changing their lifestyle and moving away from unwanted sexual attractions. These people would be discriminated against by the legislation since it would be illegal to have a conversation with them about this.
- Christians believe that sexual expression is reserved for heterosexual marriage. Christians would risk committing a criminal offence for discussing their beliefs on sexual morality with other people. This constitutes discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.
- Many people identify as ‘ex-gay’ which has been ruled to be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. These people are discriminated against by this proposed legislation since they would not be able to talk about their stories of changing sexual orientation or share the benefits they have experienced from their change of sexual orientation.
(33) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on children and young people, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
You do not have to answer this question.
(34) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on socio-economic inequality?
You do not have to answer this question.
(35) Do you have any views on potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on communities on the Scottish islands?
You do not have to answer this question.
(36) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on privacy and data protection?
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
- The proposal is to criminalise certain types of private consensual conversations. This constitutes a serious breach of privacy.
- The proposed law opens up the possibility of people or the police spying on citizens to see whether their private consensual conversations could possibly be described as conversion practices. This is a serious breach of privacy.
(37) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on businesses and the third sector?
We suggest you make some of the following points in your own words:
-
-
- The third sector includes hundreds of churches in Scotland. Christian churches which believe that sexual expression is reserved for heterosexual marriage would be discriminated against by this legislation and risk criminalisation for expressing their religious views.
- Church pastors and youth workers would be at risk of criminalisation for counselling church members to follow biblical sexual ethics. This will seriously hinder their work in the community.
- There are many Christian charities in Scotland which uphold Christian sexual ethics. All these charities would also be discriminated against by this legislation.
(38) Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the proposals in this consultation on the environment?
You do not have to answer this question.
About you
The final section of the consultation asks some questions about you. You can ask for your response not to be published if you so wish, or to be published without your name.
