Public Policy Researcher Carys Moseley comments on Scotland’s recent consultation on banning ‘conversion therapy’
The question of whether a conversion therapy ban could come in has surfaced once again, this time in Scotland.
Last week the Scottish Government published its response to its own consultation on ending conversion therapy in Scotland. There was a vast number of responses – 5,881 in total. Most of the responses came from individuals (97%), but with many organisations including Christian Concern responding as well.
What do Scottish people actually think?
Over half (54%) of all responses to the Scottish consultation were against the proposed ban. The Scottish Government was keen to argue that the responses overall only reflected concern from those organisations and individuals already interested in the topic, not public opinion at large.
The Scottish Government is probably saying this because a poll in January this year by YouGov for the Equality Network found two thirds of Scots in favour of a ban.
However previous polling by Whitestone for Christian Concern in May 2023 found widespread support for freedom to choose therapy relating to sexuality and strong opposition to criminalising therapists. The key difference here is in which questions are asked. This is very similar to how the public is polled on other controversial subjects such as assisted suicide. More on this below.
Scottish Government wants to legislate anyway
The Scottish Government’s response to its own consultation makes clear that it wants to pass a law to ban conversion therapy regardless of what Westminster does. This shows a disappointing and arrogant disregard for its own consultation.
Could banning conversion therapy be a vote-loser?
This ramping up of the rhetoric is curious given that the 2023 polling found only 5% of Scots thought banning conversion therapy should be a priority. The Scottish elections are due next year on 7 May 2026. Polling since 2021 shows Scots’ support for the governing Scottish National Party has been dropping over time, to the point where they might not win the next election.
As recently as last May the SNP government was reported to have dropped plans for a total ban on conversion therapy, said to be too complex legally to be workable. They were also prepared to drop plans to criminalise misogyny through a standalone bill, wanting to insert an amendment into Scottish hate crime legislation instead. The Guardian characterised First Minister John Swinney as having opted for ‘safer, centrist territory’. So, what is really going on?
Keeping the issue going until after the Scottish elections
The answer is that the Scottish Government has promised to keep on engaging with the UK government on the proposal for a bill in Westminster. Such a bill would be for all the UK. The SNP says that if this bill does not get published, it will bring in its own bill for Scotland only in the first year of the next session of the Scottish Parliament.
In other words, the SNP is assuming that it will win the Scottish elections next May. As suggested above in relation to polling, this could turn out to be optimistic on the SNP’s part.
Threat to religious freedom
It’s very telling that half of the responses from organisations came from faith groups. This reflects a widespread concern about the future of religious freedom in Scotland. Faith groups on the whole were more critical of and opposed to the proposed ban than were other types of organisations, especially medical and healthcare organisations. The reason for that would be that several of the latter have been signed up to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy. This is the policy drawn up for mental health professional organisations ten years ago that prohibits therapists from offering therapy that could be deemed to change, suppress or modify same-sex attraction or gender confusion.
Groups claiming to support parents and individuals were more evenly divided. This appears to be more due to gender transition for children being a major focus of public debate in recent years.
No real evidence for a ban
The Scottish Government continues to maintain that there is evidence in favour of the need for a ban.
In our response to the consultation, we highlighted the fact that the petition to a Scottish Parliament committee supporting the ban fails to provide real evidence in favour. This is on three counts.
First, the petition mishandles historical academic research published in 2009 from King’s College London. It ignored the study’s findings for clients’ own motivations for seeking out therapy for problems with sexuality. It also ignored the study’s findings that most mental health professionals themselves supported therapeutic choice for their clients.
Second, the petition ignores the problems with the design of the Faith and Sexuality Survey conducted by the Ozanne Foundation in 2018. The survey’s inadequate design made it unusable. Despite this the petition insisted without evidence that ‘most people who had undergone conversion therapy’ now wanted it criminalised.
Third, we said at the time that a Freedom of Information request to the Scottish Government from 2020 found that it possessed no real evidence for conversion therapy happening in Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s ban proposal is based on dogma, not reality.
Games politicians play
The Scottish Government’s consultation response uses very similar tactics and plays very similar games to ones already seen elsewhere in this area. For example:
It claims that a ban would apply equally to attempts to change people’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, as from heterosexual to homosexual. This is hard to believe as the entire focus of ban proposals worldwide tend only to the former. The government is kicking sand in people’s faces here.
Is Christian work the real target?
Typical of such consultations, what is not said is just as important as what is said.
Take for example the section on Gender Identity. It is curiously a very short section of the Scottish Government’s response, odd given the high level of public concern.
Section 53 very briefly says this:
“We also wish to be clear that the processes or practices surrounding gender transition or gender recognition are not the subject of these proposals.”
At the stroke of a pen this brackets out from consideration all work in healthcare settings such as the NHS or even private gender identity clinics. What is left therefore is basically Christian pastoral work of all kinds, and conversations, be they in families, schools, social services, prisons and other settings. This is hardly reassuring.
Threat to Christian teaching about marriage
Then the Scottish Government claims that in response to concerns, ‘religious practices such as self-selected celibacy’ will not be criminalised. Here is the quote in full:
“Celibacy would only ever be an example of a conversion practice where an individual is coerced or forced into celibacy as a means of attempting to change or suppress their sexual orientation and where it is likely to cause the person harm.”
Now this sounds like a real concession. However, given that conversion therapy bans revolve around the precise meaning of words, the choice of words is always crucial. Celibacy is not the same as abstinence. Celibacy tends to be considered abstinence from sexual behaviour in the case of single individuals, not married people. This ban proposal does nothing to protect someone with unwanted same-sex attraction who is married or in a relationship. I can also envisage that some will try to attack marriage at the fundamental level by arguing that abstinence in this context is not truly ‘self-chosen’. Where will all this leave the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 about the husband’s body belonging to the wife and vice versa? As somehow coercive?
A shield from pornography or not?
Likewise the Scottish Government says this about pornography:
“Parental controls such as not allowing a child to watch pornography would also not meet the requirements of criminality under our proposals.”
Clearly this is responding to widespread concern that some children have been drawn into identifying as members of the opposite sex partly due to viewing pornography. However, nothing at all is said to protect adults, particularly spouses, from the use of pornography that would damage a relationship or marriage.
A wife who wants her husband to stop using gay or trans porn could be criminalised for advocating conversion therapy.
Harm test to be reviewed
The Scottish Government admits that many opponents of the proposals were concerned that banning conversion therapy on the basis of harm to individuals was inappropriate. In particular harm was deemed to be too subjective a category by which to judge individuals and their words and actions. Again, this sounds promising to begin with.
It is considering evidence from those in principle sympathetic to a ban who fear re-traumatisation from giving evidence. It is also looking at claims that evidence of harm could take years to manifest. Some respondents, presumably supporters of a ban, felt this was not properly reflected in the consultation.
A major problem here is that from the outset, ‘evidence’ for a ban has come from undercover activists fabricating evidence on the basis of blatant lying about their own stories, and claiming to be offended by other people’s words. There is a real potential here for the so-called harm test to be weaponised by those making false allegations.
High level of concern about proposed criminalisation
The response to the consultation reminds the public that both criminal and civil procedures have been proposed to enact the ban. Flow-charts are reproduced from the consultation.
The Scottish Government chides the respondents for not having considered all of these as a single package, but for focussing on each proposal singly. This is frankly rather extraordinary. It is as if it is trying to reassure people that its proposals are not that draconian after all!
Church leaders deeply concerned
Given all these problems, it’s hardly surprising that many church leaders have signalled their deep concern by signing a letter opposing the proposals. They have warned that the ban could criminalise Christian belief and teaching.
The Minister for Equalities of the UK government, Olivia Bailey, told a fringe event organised by Stonewall at the recent Labour conference that it is working on a bill for the UK. In theory we know from past experience how governments can consult for ages on this issue, only to admit the proposals are not really workable. In practice, however, the pressure is still on inside government to enact a ban either by criminal or civil means.
What a ban would do
We have an idea of what a ban would actually amount to. Malta passed a ban the bad fruits of which are now clear. Matthew Grech is an ex-gay man in Malta who is currently being dragged through the courts by the Maltese equivalent of Stonewall for stating his beliefs on television. He has had to go to court more than ten times to clear himself of the accusation of promoting conversion therapy, and his case continues with support from the Christian Legal Centre.
Christians need to be watchful
Christians need to remember that these frequent consultations aren’t just all talk. Around the world, conversion therapy bans have been enacted, placing unacceptable and unnecessary limits on religious freedom and free speech. The recurring threat of a ban now, in the run-up to the Scottish elections, should send a renewed warning to Christians to be watchful of further developments in Scotland and Westminster in the coming months.
