A MN discussion on a challenge to Church of England advice into schools led me to read a Christian Concern article. A new-to-me source whose website offered a 'related news' link to another article on a HoL private members bill about banning Conversion Therapy.
Last Friday’s debate in the House of Lords on Baroness Burt’s bill to ban ‘conversion therapy’ was a historic first.
This was the first time in British history that more politicians in Parliament opposed a conversion therapy ban than supported one. This was also an international first, as this has never previously happened elsewhere either.
During the debate, peers also strongly criticised the current Scottish Government consultation on ‘Ending conversion practices in Scotland’, to which Christian Concern encourages people to respond.
What can we learn from this unusual event? And what does it mean for another private member’s bill on the same topic, scheduled for its second reading in the House of Commons on 1 March? (Public Policy Researcher Dr Carys Moseley)
This is interesting enough (I think) for its own thread but also led to another thought. Which may be interesting to others. So I am both:
-
curious about whether this is a sign that tides may be turning in terms of the attention being given to banning Conversion Therapy. Is this vote simply a response to a badly-drafted bill or is this something that people are more aware and cautious about. (Being more cautious about badly drafted bills is in any case a good thing).
-
who tells members of the House of Lords what to do? When we talk in other threads about writing to an MP should we also find someone in the HoL who we have something in common with and try letter writing to them. Perhaps let them know about interesting research, reports, etc. (I read the thread about JKR having freedom to stand up against the herd. Often its said that she can do that because she has wealth and independance.) It strikes me that those in the HoL are relatively allegience free when compared to MPs. They cannot lose their jobs, they can change parties without fear of losing a seat, many have wealth and some have a long history in politics and may want to continue to fight for what the public wants.
Aligning with HoL members may not work and I don't have any idea (other than the above) about this. But these too are lawmakers and they may be more independant than other lawmakers right now. Are they a sleeping giant that is showing signs of waking up and asserting themselves. (We could be there with a cup of tea and a Tunnock's teacake handy while they are waking. Eager to point out what has been happening while they were sleeping and where a good fight may be brewing). I am sure that organisations like Sex Matters are sending stuff to HoL members as well as HoC members but perhaps we could each 'adopt a Lord' or at least try and engage with one and tell them why these issues are important to them.
No paywall. https://christianconcern.com/comment/3-lessons-from-the-historic-conversion-therapy-bill-debate/
Disclaimer: This may be a very a very naive take on things. I am not someone who has much faith in or interest in politics. But like (I suspect) many on this board I went to sleep in terms of my own feminism a decade ago when I retired. I felt secure that feminism and equality were on a good course with solid progress and had done my bit to help. Clearly I was wrong.