Prosecuting parents would collapse support for conversion therapy ban

Prosecuting parents risks collapsing support for Labour’s conversion therapy ban , a poll has found. Opponents have claimed that parents could face five years in jail for telling children to accept the bodies they were born with under the current terms of the draft Conversion Practices Bill. A poll has found support for the bill more than halves if parents are not protected from criminal charges for refusing to use opposite-sex pronouns for their child or withholding consent for medical transition.

At a parliamentary hearing to scrutinise the bill on Thursday, Dennis Kavanagh, a criminal barrister and director of the Gay Men’s Network, warned that, under the draft legislation, a mother telling her child “I want you to love your body” could risk prosecution, even if she meant no harm. He told MPs: “You could, as a parent, be 100 per cent motivated by welfare, and still trigger the bill.” The new poll, commissioned by The Christian Institute and carried out by Whitestone Insight, surveyed 4,201 UK adults between July 20 and 23.

Pollsters asked the 51 per cent of respondents who backed the bill if they would still support it if certain scenarios fell within the legislation and could lead to police investigation or criminal charges. They found that just 49 per cent of initial supporters would continue backing the legislation if it covered parents refusing to allow their children to attend school dressed as the opposite sex. ‘No distinction between adults and children’ Even fewer – 46 per cent – maintained their support if it could criminalise a mother for refusing to allow her teenage daughter to wear a chest binder, receive puberty blockers, take testosterone or undergo a mastectomy.

Child cruelty is already illegal in England and Wales. However, Labour’s draft Conversion Practices Bill would create three offences, including carrying out an abusive conversion practice. It defines conversion practices as “any conduct” intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity, which is abusive and causes serious physical or mental harm, or serious alarm or distress substantially affecting daily life. But the bill leaves courts to decide what constitutes abuse, listing factors including “psychological or emotional pressure”.

Mr Kavanagh said the offence was “so poorly drafted and so incoherent”, and cast the net of criminal liability so widely that it could not be rescued. Bridget Phillipson, the minister for women and equalities, has insisted that challenging conversations between parents and children, including refusing to accept a child’s transgender identity or preferred pronouns, would not be criminalised. However, giving evidence to MPs, opponents claimed that the wording of the new bill did not guarantee this.

They criticised the fact there was no exemption for parents acting reasonably or in their children’s best interests, and that there was no express requirement to intend harm or act recklessly. Simon Calvert, deputy director of The Christian Institute, said: “This polling exposes the enormous gap between support for the words ‘ ban conversion therapy ’ and support for what the sweeping draft legislation the Government proposes could actually mean in people’s lives.”

At the committee evidence session on Thursday, Helen Joyce, a gender-critical activist, warned that the draft legislation failed to distinguish between abuse and responsible parenting. “This bill makes no distinction whatsoever between adults and children. The words adult, child, parent and family do not appear in it,” director of advocacy at Sex Matters told MPs. “If my husband takes my phone away from me because he doesn’t want me contacting people, that’s coercive control.

If I do that to my child, that may be responsible parenting.” Naz Shah, a Labour MP on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the draft bill, challenged witnesses who supported the bill over assurances that parents would be protected from prosecution. She pointed out that refusing to affirm a child’s transgender identity could cause sufficient psychological distress to bring parents within the scope of the legislation. Ms Shah said: “In some instances, just refusing to affirm a child’s identity could actually cause huge amounts of alarm and distress and psychological issues.”

Questioning claims that the threshold for prosecution was sufficiently high, she asked Prof Ilias Trispiotis, a member of the steering group of the Ban Conversion Practices Coalition: “As much as you say it’s a high bar, it’s not then, is it?” She added: “Parents fall into this bill.” A Government spokesman told The Telegraph: “This draft bill would outlaw a specific form of abuse, setting high bars which protect regular parenting. Parents are free to raise their children and have difficult, challenging conversations, but no one is free to commit abuse. ” “LGBT+ people should never, without exception, have to suffer coercion or abuse in an effort to change who they are.

Successive governments have agreed for almost a decade that conversion practices have no place in modern Britain.”