Draft Conversion Practices Bill - Oral Evidence 29/10/27, 12.15pm

[ImNotAsCooperativeAsYouMightWantAWomanToBe]

This will be worth watching on Thursday. It will be on Parliament TV.

(Image incoming)

Yep, let's send benevolent people jail for 5 years.

Ilias makes his living in grievance-motivated law.

Galup person is obviously very motivated.

Stonewall chap looks the most normal and tbh, quite embarrassed to be there.

Is Kai a trans identifying female? A few indicators: name/hands/voice.

And it would appear she had assistance from the panel she is talking to from online posts and photos

Also shouldn't that panel be also be declaring any conflict of interest?

Yes

Wish there was a sigh or eyeroll reaction available.

This is all just such bullshit.

Yes, and ex-Mermaids:

"Kai O’Doherty (they/them) is the Head of Policy & Advocacy at Mermaids, a UK-based charity which supports and advocates for trans children and young people, and their families. They are a trans advocate originally from Bermuda, who has previously organised in Bermuda, Montreal, and the UK."

events.humanitix.com/the-global-fight-for-trans-justice

Ilias is quite dominant here.

Does their definition of suppressing a sexual identity include stopping a gay or straight child under 16 consenting to sex?

I'd love them to point to the gaps in the law that are being closed by this law. My reading of the law is that everything that it purports to criminalise are already crimes under other legislation, but what it adds is a massive chiling effect on parents, clinicians, teachers or anyone that demonstrates anything other than unquestioning affirmation. It's self-ID by the back door.

I couldn't believe that when this was brought up in the Commons the response was "I'm sure they will come to light in the parliamentary scrutiny process." If the government proposing the bill cannot even articulate what behaviour that is currently legal but needs to be criminalised then the bill shouldn't be getting anywhere near a committee!

I need to head back to work shortly. Does anyone know what time Dennis Kavannah etc will be up?

I think it's an hour for each panel so about 1:15

Well done that Baroness for bringing up parental rights

I've just joined, didn't think I'd be able to sit through the first bit.

If the motivation is benevolent where is this hate that they wish to punish as a crime? 🙄

Asked to define 'serious distress' and how a parent can reconcile all this with parenting teenagers.

The panel refer repeatedly to coercive control legislation.

'like coercive control, involves a pattern of behaviour'

'there are many examples'
'hard to describe'

no shit, mate.

Ilias seems to see no difference between adult & child relationships.

'Evidential difficulties' for coercive control.

Well, yes.

Well that's the M.O. of the TQ mob.

We need a clear threshold and a high threshold ... but we also know from coercive control legislation that having to prove actual harm because of the pattern, because of the vulnerability of survivors, can be a barrier .... (paraphrase)

'change criminal threshold from evidential to a likelihood doesn't mean lowering the threshold'

A question about how the SCA doesn't cover children. Under this bill, if you were a parent who wasn't affirming, they would fall under this?

'... negative conversations would be ... would have to produce extremely harmful effects in order to be captured '

'In some instances refusing to affirm could cause huge amounts of alarm and distress ... parents fall into this bill'

'It's a very high bar, very difficult to answer those questions in the abstract' cites FGM and coercive control