Advertising and promoting conversion ‘therapy’ to under 18s could soon be banned if a group of MPs get their way. Alicia Kearns, the Tory MP and leader of the Foreign Affairs committee, has laid an amendment to the Online Safety Bill which says ‘content which advertises or promotes the practice of so-called conversion practices of LGBTQ+ individuals must be considered as harmful’.
This amendment will have consequences that go far beyond its noble aim, with serious and dangerous results
What’s wrong with that? On the surface, the amendment sounds both innocuous and sensible. Of course, we would hope and expect that all MPs would be against persecution. But this amendment will have consequences that go far beyond that noble aim – with serious and dangerous results.
If this amendment is passed, professionals simply trying to do their jobs could be accused of practising conversion therapy – because the amendment fails to define what it entails.
Children questioning their biological sex have the right to receive clinical investigation before they are told their only solution is to become transgender. The amendment risks seriously jeopardising the ground-breaking academic work of Dr Hilary Cass, who exposed the clinical failings of the UK’s gender identity service (GIDS).
Discussion of the rights of different groups is vital for a functioning democracy where freedom of speech is valued. This amendment is a threat to that core principle. In trying to protect trans people from ‘conversion’ therapy, it risks entrapping professionals who are simply trying to do their job.
The amendment fails to define what LGBTQ+ means. It’s a broad umbrella term that includes a slew of identities. But who does it – and doesn’t it – include?
The inconspicuous ‘+’ symbol is perhaps the most dangerous part of this acronym. ‘Queer theorists’ have created an alphabet of weird and wonderful identities that could become welcome under the ‘plus’. There is no symbol, word or sentence that should be beneath the legislator’s attention when it comes to the law. If passed, the lack of definitions within this amendment leaves the entire bill wide open to abuse.
The Government’s recent Online Advertising Programme consultation dealt thoroughly with how children will be adequately safeguarded from harmful and inappropriate content. It made clear that the bill in question will require companies where children use their services to be accountable, both for minimising harmful content and protecting of freedom of expression.
The controversy surrounding the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland, highlighted by Policy Exchange in a paper this week, has demonstrated the vital importance of scrupulous definition when it comes to legislation.
When politicians can’t agree on what they’re talking about – particularly in controversial amendments such as Kearns’ – the fallout can be disastrous. Those who support this amendment should be wary of wading into a battle they will very likely find themselves on the losing side of.
Comments