Bojo’s Therapy Ban – Brits, Please Speak Up!


For no clear reason, the Johnson Government, which we know is influenced by the notorious Stonewall ‘charity….’

=

A Jellyfish Trapped In A Fairy Circle? 

…is proposing to drag the UK down the same rancid alley into which Justin Turdo has just led Canadians.

=

Canada Condemns Kids Who Desperately Need Therapy 

There’s much that is very bad, and nothing really good, about the UK version.

In particular, from the second half of this email, I plucked this chilling sentence.

The paper says young people should be supported in “exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path.”

Is that not horrific?

Neither parents nor anyone else should seek to discourage a youngster from embarking on a life-time of perversion?

As with Cameron’s homo-wedding diktat, there is to be a flawed consultation, but in the absence of any alternatives, decent Brits need to use it to oppose the jackboot scheme as best they can.

C4M has circulated a useful advisory, and I append it, urging all UK citizens to put it to good use and send your conclusions to the Minister, Liz Truss.

=

TELL THE GOVT: “CONVERSION THERAPY CONSULTATION IGNORES IMPACT ON FAMILIES”

The proposed conversion therapy ban could give the police dramatic new powers to intervene in family life. It is likely that there will be huge scope for false accusations to be made against parents.

Yet in the Government’s consultation there isn’t a single question about the impact on parenting and family life. All we have is a vague assurance that “parents will remain able to raise their children with the values of their faith”. We need to speak out now.

The proposal covers ‘talking therapy’ intended to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The consultation says this will be unlawful with under-18s “under any circumstance”. But what does therapy mean? Astonishingly, under the plans a single conversation could qualify as ‘therapy’.

It’s not at all clear how this will operate. Could parents’ conversations on same-sex marriage or trans issues trigger a criminal investigation? Yes, we think so in the examples below. The plans risk severely damaging the ability of parents to talk to their children about marriage and gender.

The 36-page consultation document completely fails to address the crucial area of everyday family life. The standard 12-week consultation period has been slashed to just 6 weeks. Ministers say they are trying to get ready for legislation in the spring. But rushing a ban through will inevitably lead to bad law.

Having spoken to lawyers, here are some scenarios we fear could happen if the Government gets this wrong:

  • Noah, aged 13, asks his dad what he thinks about same-sex marriage. His dad says he’s totally against it. Noah disagrees. He tells a youth worker about the argument, saying, “I might want to get married one day, and who knows whether it will be to a man or a woman?” The youth worker claims to the police that the father was trying to change Noah’s sexual orientation.
  • Parents find out that their daughter Olivia, aged 14, has been visiting the website of Mermaids, a controversial trans group. Her parents block her access to the website. Olivia mentions it to her teacher in passing. The teacher reports it because he believes Olivia is actually a trans boy whom the parents are trying to change. Police interview the parents.
  • Lucy, age 5, tells her parents she learned in RSE lessons that men can marry men and women can marry women. She’s glad, because she’ll be able to marry her best friend Rachel. Her parents tell Lucy that marriage is between a man and a woman. Lucy tells her teacher what her parents said. Social services and the police are informed about potential conversion therapy.
  • A school is heavily promoting trans rights, using Stonewall and Mermaids materials. A teenage boy, Jack, tells his school teacher he thinks he’s a girl trapped in a boy’s body but doesn’t want his parents to know. The school treats him as a girl. When Jack’s parents find out, they withdraw him from the school. The parents are reported for conversion therapy.
  • A mother learns that her 13-year-old daughter, Eve, wants to buy a chest-binder and take puberty blockers. Eve’s mum warns her about Keira Bell, who started down the same path and ended up having a double mastectomy, only to regret it later. Eve describes this conversation to her friend and it ends up being reported as conversion therapy.

Even if the parents are not convicted, the process of being reported to the police and investigated would be extremely damaging for these families. The consultation ought to have devoted a substantial discussion on these issues. But not one question is asked.

By overlooking the whole area of family life the consultation is not fit for purpose. Please tell Equalities Minister Liz Truss MP this today. You could make two or three of the points below. 

Please use your own words.

  • The consultation document completely fails to consult about the impact of the plans on family life.
  • The plans contain no safeguards that everyday conversations in the home will be protected.
  • Parents have a pretty good idea when a school has addressed gender ideology in a completely biased way. They should be able to complain without any risk of counter accusation by the school deploying the new law against them.
  • A six-week consultation period is far too short for something this complicated and controversial.
  • The new offence could be easily used to make false accusations against parents simply because they disagree with same-sex marriage or transgender ideology.
  • The Government must respect the right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with their beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. This is protected under human rights law.
  • The new law on conversion therapy could lead to massive intervention in family life. Yet not a single question is asked about this. The Government hasn’t considered this issue.
  • Parents are worried about the impact of gender ideology on their children. They must not be at risk of prosecution simply for, say, discouraging their 12-year-old daughter from taking damaging puberty blockers or wearing a harmful breast binder.
  • The paper says young people should be supported in “exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path”. But parents must not be at risk of prosecution just because they express a viewpoint. There is a lack of safeguards.
  • Rushing a ban through to please activists is a recipe for a bad law.
EMAIL EQUALITIES MINISTER LIZ TRUSS MP NOW