Christian Concern may challenge government over conversion therapy ban

[ResisterRex]

In the Telegraph. Quite long:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/11/christian-group-prepares-legal-challenge-conversion-therapy/

"Christian Concern’s legal challenge would involve an application for a Declaration of Incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act as a ban would infringe freedom of the individual to exercise personal autonomy rights.
It would also raise questions about compatibility with other Articles of the Convention, including Article 9 which guarantees religious freedom, claiming that any legislation banning “conversion therapy” is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

And:

"Christian Legal Centre lawyer, has questioned the lawfulness of the proposed ban.
He said that: “The new law addressing ‘talking conversion therapy’ would have significant legal and social consequences, particularly for those who have legal capacity and desire counselling, for their own reasons, to move away from same-sex attraction or behaviour, or to reconcile their gender identity with their biological sex.”
He added: “A ban could also affect practitioners caught up in an overly broad or ill-defined ban on ‘conversion therapy’, despite practising within a peer regulated and ethical framework. This could give rise to claims under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”"

And:

"chief executive of Christian Concern, said: “Whatever is announced by the Government in May, the problems remain: the definitions are inadequate, human rights will be breached and there is no evidence that a ban will help anyone.
“In such a scenario we will face no alternative but to pursue legal action against any proposed legislation in this area.”
Ms Williams added: “The Government is being strong-armed by manipulative campaigns rather than following its own research that further legislation is not needed.
“The fear of upsetting privileged lobbyists runs so deep the Prime Minister capitulated within hours.
“No one has produced any evidence of what LGBT activists call coercive ‘conversion therapy’. What the activists describe would already be illegal.
“The Government’s proposals would only stop people seeking the change they want to see in their lives. That is a basic freedom which the Government should not try to take away.”"

A ban does often seem impossible to legislate for. Aggravating features of existing legislation might have been an option for LGB (such as coercive rape of lesbians) but so much of what was proposed is already illegal. It seems very hard to separate out what is not covered, and ban it. And to do that without impinging on free speech at least, since religious freedom is a qualified right.

Its not a 'free speech' issue, its about coercion.
If a religious group finds that its members have difficulty accepting their sexual orientation, they should examine their teachings and culture.

I agree that people need to be able to follow their own religious faith. Coercion of any kind needs to be illegal but I think it is already. However much I disagree with a view that homosexuality is wrong (and I do disagree) I don’t think we should ban people exploring what they want for their lives within their own faith. I also disagree that people need to ‘examine the teachings’ of their faith and persuade themselves to support gay relationships. Faith isn’t a choice. They think they are following the teachings of their God, and as long as they don’t persecute others, they need to be allowed to do that. Their beliefs (although I disagree with them) are protected legally. I’m not sure a ban on voluntary prayer practices would stand up in a court (freedom of religion).

came on to say "rubbish" but they've got a point. Their yucky religion is entirely legal and involves telling homosexuals they are wrong and must repent.

I think the problems arise when they get power, not when they preach this stuff that they believe.

Trying to overturn specific protection of lesbians gay men and bisexual people? No chance. I dare them to try.

To be clear, though, this isn’t about making it illegal to tie someone to a chair and throw rocks at them while showing them “unhealthy” pictures of naked members of the same sex.

This is about someone’s ability to say to their own religious leader, in complete privacy, “I think my feelings are sinful and I want to pray for [insert deity] to remove them.”

While we might disagree with the premise, do we really believe a legal ban doesn’t infringe their religious freedom?

They have a point.

Unless there is very pressing, immediate and absolutely clear evidence - and there isn't, there isn't even a clear definition of what's being talked about - doing nothing is infinitely less harmful than creating badly written, vague, exploitable law with years of unintended consequences.

... but i think the reality is that these organisations do have huge power over the lives not only of their congregations but of the family members (minors) of those congregations.
So a gay 15 year old is pretty much under the control of the pastor, etc, if his father (a congregation member) agrees to conversion therapy surely? hence the need for the state to step in.

I don't agree with praying someone isn't gay. But equally I don't think any government should tell any religion what they can and can't pray about. What's next?

And the rest is already illegal. All the physical acts are already illegal.

This was always going to be a problem and people pointed it out. It got lost a little when they decided not to include gender in the bill.

But as it stands now, they are still talking about restricting the types of therapy that adults can access if it seemed to touch on sexuality, as well as their religious practice. There are plenty of celibate gay Catholics, for example, what happens to them if they want to deal with that in a religious or therapeutic context? Or on the secular side, a young man who was sucked into male prostitution at a fairly young age who wants to explore how it interacted with his sexuality?

A lot of the same problems are at work.

I'm guessing this is the "let's make sure we have an extra bit of law to ban lesbian and gay Christians from marrying in Church" kind of Christian rather than the "trans people are on a sacred journey" kind of Christian

‘So a gay 15 year old is pretty much under the control of the pastor, etc, if his father (a congregation member) agrees to conversion therapy surely? hence the need for the state to step in.’

I think this sort of situation is far less common in the UK than in the US (although I’m sure it might happen). But it could be dealt with by social services.

Thing is tabby, we talk a lot about things that aren’t that common that social services could help with on this board don’t we? And generally conclude it’s still a problem.

Of course I agree that forcing a child into religious practices to change their sexual orientation is abusive. However, I don’t agree that any manifestation, in prayer, of the fact that someone doesn’t want to feel certain things, should be illegal.

That seems to me to deny the rights of others to prioritise their spiritual world over our secular world.

Evangelical Christian Concern vs a person variously described as transgender and non-binary and *:
'Ben John of Christian Concern in his response to Living in Love and Faith, part of a number of resources encouraging more LGBT inclusion within the Church of England, argued against transgender rights, saying that "transgenderism is a false ideology". In response to comments from Alex Clare-Young (a non-binary minister of the United Reformed Church) and his wife, John said "what we're actually seeing here is a lesbian couple. This man isn't really a man. She's a woman. ... These were leaders in the church. Should we be ordaining transgender people?" ...

In response, Clare-Young asked John to re-edit his video and remove personal attacks, saying that the comments "were leading to personal harm to myself, my wife, and the others in the video. ... It describes me and my wife as being in a same-sex marriage, which isn't true." '

'Clare-Young was in the co-ordinating group for Living in Love and Faith, recruited by the Bishop of Coventry, Christopher Cocksworth. Church Times quoted Clare-Young as writing: "I want to stress that same-sex marriage is not the only thing required for LGBTQ+ equity and justice in the Church. Many churches and many Christians, in many denominations, still treat LGBTQ+ people in horrific ways, and spiritual abuse of LGBTQ+ people is still horrifically common." '

*'Alex Clare-Young is a transmasculine non-binary Minister of the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom. They minister mainly to an online church (Churspacious), and offer education and advocacy to schools, churches and Christian communities on issues relating to gender identity.'

** Publisher's Note quotes self-descriptions as 'transgender' and 'moving between genders':
blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Transgender-Christian-Human-by-Clare-Young-Alex-author/9781849526906

The more extreme the Christian the evangelical they are unfortunately.
They think they have to save souls etc.

More evangelical