“Blasphemy laws are NEVER justifiable” declares Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK. “Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion or belief are the very bedrock upon which our humanist ideals rest”, and in response to the disappointing news that Denmark wants to make it a criminal offence to burn the Koran in public, he adds: “appeasing bullies doesn’t work – it merely emboldens them”. As a member and supporter of Humanists UK I entirely agree.
The very next segment of the Humanists’ newsletter, however, declares: “Humanists protest ongoing delays to conversion therapy ban”. Reports are that the UK government is dropping its committment to such a ban, “with ministers concluding it has proven problematic or ineffective in other countries”. Meanwhile, Humanists UK complain that: “LGBT people continue to be subjected to harmful attempts of so-called ‘conversion therapy’”.
I can’t help thinking that a ban on “conversion therapy” amounts to a blasphemy law, a ban on saying something that offends secular norms. As regards sexuality, pretty much the only form of conversion therapy that exists these days is speech, speech that “can include exorcisms and forced prayer” and that occurs “in closed-off religious communities”.
“Humanists UK is strongly committed to freedom of religion or belief, but that freedom should be limited where it causes harm, and conversion therapy is harmful”.
But I have a hard time accepting that such speech meets a legal definition of “harm” sufficient to justify making it a criminal offence. The whole basis of enlightenment values is that we outlaw physical violence and threats thereof, but accept people speaking freely even if others find it offensive and distressing. If we allow “psychological harm” as a reason to shut down speech, then anyone can censor speech simply by claiming to be upset. And that is exactly what activists do these days, claiming that any opinion they disagree with is “hate” speech that makes them feel “unsafe”.
Yes, it may well be psychologically distressing for a young gay adult to be told by their religious mentor that Jesus wants them to be straight, but I have little doubt that it is psychologically distressing for a devout Muslim to hear of their prophet being denigrated or their holy book being treated with disrespect. If we want to say “tough” to the latter, telling them that in a free society they must accept it, then, as I see it, we must also allow a Christian to proclaim that Jesus deplores homosexuality.
I am puzzled that Humanists UK can adopt a hard-nosed attitude to the “harm” caused to Muslims by Mohammed cartoons or burned Korans, but then go with the nebulous and un-evidenced concept of “harm” to a gay person on being told that Jesus could make them straight. It may be that their postion is a knee-jerk opposition to religion in each case, but humanism should not be anti-religion. If we really think that “Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion or belief are the very bedrock upon which our humanist ideals rest”, then we need to mean it, and reject the idea that such speech causes “harm”. “I support free speech but not where it causes harm …” is how all requests for blasphemy prohibitions start, religious or secular.
As for “forced” prayer and “closed-off religious communities”, any adult can walk away, and if they choose not to then that’s up to them. Humanists UK talk of “harrowing case studies” of “starvation”, though that exposé related only that: “On his first visit to the church, our reporter was invited to take part in a separate three-day residential programme, where those participating would be expected to pray for up to three hours at a time without eating or drinking until the third day”. Unless they were locking the doors, preventing him walking down to the nearest McDonald’s should he choose to (which, of course, would already be illegal), I’m not harrowed. Do we want to outlaw religiously-motivated fasting?
Humanists UK also link to a study of psychiatrists reporting that: “17% [of therapists] reported having assisted at least one client/patient to reduce or change his or her homosexual or lesbian feelings. […] counselling was the commonest treatment offered …” and that some therapists “… considered that a service should be available for people who want to change their sexual orientation”.
If someone goes voluntarily to a therapist and asks for it, I don’t see that it should be a criminal offence for the therapist to offer religious-based counselling, even though that counselling will likely not work. Acupuncture, Reiki and homeopathy also don’t work, but are not illegal.
OK, one might respond, but what about children, what about gay teenagers who may not be able to walk away? And yes, that’s a harder case. In general I want to protect children from religious coercion. But how far would we take it? Should it be illegal for a Catholic parent to teach their child about hell? Should we outlaw cults, outlaw Scientology, indeed outlaw Haredi Judaism or Catholicism or Islam? The teachings of all of these could be fairly regarded as abusive ideas to put in the mind of a child, and yet we tolerate them; indeed we even promote religions by handing over state-funded schools to them and by granting them charitable status.
If we are making it illegal for a religious leader to tell a teenager that gay acts are immoral, should we make it illegal for them to tell that teenager that sex before marriage is immoral, or that they should wear a hijab? I don’t think we should, since if we want freedom from religion and the freedom to blaspheme then we need to accept freedom of religion and their right to broadcast their views, however much we deplore those views.
We already have a problem with British police telling street preachers that they cannot proclaim Christianity. It’s precisely because I want the right to denigrate religion, including being disrespectful to the Prophet Mohammed, that I support their right to broadcast views that might upset others. A better approach is to remove schools from religious institutions, giving kids a right to a secular education, thus ensuring that they can also obtain views and perspective from other than their parents’ religion.
In the current climate, the really contentious issue is not so much sexuality, but “gender identity”. A ban on “conversion therapy” would include a ban on attempts to change a teenager’s “gender identity”. But our understanding of such issues is poor and is evolving rapidly, such that it could be calamitous for the clod-hopping criminal law to step in. We don’t even have an agreed definition of “gender identity”. Heck, we’d have a hard-enough time agreeing a definition of “woman” these days!
Unlike sexuality, “gender identity” seems to be fluid. The evidence is that, of young teenagers who declare a “gender identity” different from their biological sex, many, perhaps most, will desist and come to identify with their sex by early adulthood. Do we want to deny such kids access to professional counselling because the counsellors are worried that, if a teenager does come to desist, then they’ll have committed the criminal offence of “conversion therapy”? Of do we want to ensure that only gung-ho counsellors, who will push an ideological approach whatever, will take on such kids? If you think such a law is a good idea, please could you at least read this account by the parent of a trans-identifying child.
OK, you might reply, we’ll draft the law with an exemption for well-meaning professional counselling. But what about a parent, or an aunt who has doted on the kid since birth and who has their best interests at heart, or a trusted teacher? Are they allowed to talk through the kids’ feelings with them, without risk of being hauled into court? Activists will use accusations to try to silence anyone who disputes their ideology; they already do.
Then there’s the issue that “affirming” a teenager’s self-declared gender identity, that is, going along with a social transition, “is not a neutral act”, in the words of the authoratitive Cass Review, but is instead “an active intervention because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning”. Refusing to acquiesce with a social transition might thus be in the child’s best long-term interests (we don’t know, Dr Cass says “better information is needed about outcomes”), while being exactly the sort of thing that activists want to prohibit.
Then there’s the issue that social transition often pushes the child towards medical and surgical transition, which can leave the young person permanently without sexual function and unable to have children, and turns them into a medical patient for life, requiring ongoing maintenance — and yet evidence that this improves their psychological well-being or reduces their suicide rate is simply not there.
Given the uncertainties, this is no place for the criminal law and I’m glad that the UK government is realising the problems with any such law and is shelving the idea. Those advocating such a law must believe that they know what’s best for trans-identifying youths, but the evidence base is meagre. Discouraging open enquiry is the opposite of what we need. Any entry of the criminal law into the contested arena of “gender identity” is likely to do much more harm than good.
coelsblog 
It’s an interesting debate, Coel.
The criminal law has changed only relatively recently in many countries in the democratic west to end the unwarranted persecutory prosecution and punishment of gay men. However, we don’t need to jump out of the frying pan into the fire by outlawing what people can reasonably say about sexuality, gender-identity, etc.
The way the debate is generally framed in legal circles in the west is that there is free speech, and then there is speech that amounts to vilification likely to cause real harm. There is also a difference between private speech and public speech. Human rights lawyers would argue that there is a place for legal sanctions against public speech whose purpose is to incite violence against or persecution of minorities. And that is how the laws have been framed in my own country. Freedom of speech is fundamental in liberal democratic societies. We must have the right to say what we think even if it offends. But the right to freedom from violence and persecution inflicted because of matters over which we have no control such as color, race, sexuality etc., is a right just as fundamental. Words can cause real harm and not just offence to our sensibilities.
Of course, it’s very difficult to draw the line between free speech and speech that is likely to incite persecution or violence. And yet, it is a line that must be drawn somewhere, whilst still allowing reasonable freedom of speech. Otherwise demagogues who don’t like, say, Jews, or black folks or gays or atheists can whip up crowds of rabid followers to inflict harm on such groups. Such speech has led to horrors like the holocaust which saw the murder of millions of Jews, and many thousands of Roma, homosexuals an other minorities. But if in private, I say to my friends, I don’t like gays or blacks or atheists, then I don’t think I should be prosecuted for saying so.
When it comes to sexuality, I think the evidence points to it being hard-wired and so outlawing public speech that incites persecution or violence against gay people seems to be warranted. But people must still be free to say they don’t like gays. In matters such as gender identity, where there seems to be some fluidity as children age, I think people must be free to publicly discuss the issue openly without fear of prosecution, even if others may be offended. As long as the purpose of the speech is not to provoke persecution or violence against trans people then we must be free to say what we think on the issue.
Agreed, I support laws against inciting persecution or violence against such groups. Indeed, I’d support laws against incitement to violence against gay people even if being gay were a choice rather than being biological.
For comparison, being religious is a choice, and I support laws against inciting violence towards religious people.
Thanks for your response, Coel.
I have some sympathy for the position that the UK Humanists have taken on conversion “therapy”. However, I agree with the thrust of what you say – it’s hypocritical to support legislation that would limit free speech on the issue of gender-identity whilst advocating for the protection of free speech in respect of religion and blasphemy.
And I, too, support laws against inciting violence against religious groups, even though religion is, arguably, at the root of, or used to justify, so much discrimination, vilification, persecution and violence. You say that being religious is a choice, but I’ve often wondered whether religion is really a choice people make. People are indoctrinated into religion from birth, religion becomes part of their culture and psychology, part of “who they are”, and it can be difficult or impossible to change that, even in the face of evidence for religion’s falsity. With early indoctrination, perhaps religion becomes pretty much hard-wired. That may be one reason why, despite the enlightenment and the growth of science, religion, and all the problems associated with it, is still firmly lodged in the psyche of so much of humanity. And that is why I agree with your point about removing education from religious institutions so that children receive a secular rather than a religious education.
However, that’s not going to happen any time soon. As long as theism remains the majority position, trying to outlaw religious based education would be futile. The religious (the bulk of humanity) don’t see <em”their particular religions as problematic, but rather, as something sacred that they must be free to propagate. In these circumstances, the only thing secular humanists can do is to advocate for science and evidence-based education and for the free speech that makes such advocacy possible. Speech may offend but, as long as it does not cause or incite actual harm, I can’t see justification for outlawing it. Humanists can’t have it both ways. If they don’t like blasphemy laws, then they shouldn’t like laws that inhibit free speech in other areas, providing such speech does not cause or incite actual harm. The problem for those who support a ban on speech deigned to convert peoples’ gender-identity is to show that the speech involved in conversion “therapy” causes actual harm and not just offence to liberal sensibilities. If such harm could be demonstrated, then I guess I would have less of a problem accepting the limitation of the speech involved. But, as you say, so far, the evidence for such harm seems to be lacking.
Just to note that theism is now a minority position in swathes of Europe, and in many countries (e.g. France) all state-funded schooling is secular, even if they don’t outlaw private religious schools. We should do that in the UK.
Yes, in certain places things are slowly getting better. I agree that, at the very least, religious based education should no longer receive state funding. It still does in my own country, Australia. However, it was encouraging to see that those who ticked the “no religion” box at our last census now number more than 30% of the population. They have become the largest single block and outnumber any single Christian denomination or any other religion. But it would be a brave Australian government who would even suggest not funding religious schools. And then there is America and the rest of the Christian and non-Christian theist world. Making a dent there is going to be difficult. Especially in the Muslim world (about 1.8 billion) where you can’t even question religion openly without risking death on a charge of blasphemy. It’s hard to imagine how that will change.
Expressing opinions about whether one should or should not be gay, trans, or whatever is a matter of free speech. Trying to persuade people, by argument, preaching, or other legitimate means of expression, is a matter of free speech.
Offering conversion ‘therapy’ isn’t a matter of free speech, it’s an offer of psychological manipulation.
Requiring or enforcing conversion therapy is enforced psychological manipulation isn’t a matter of free speech but enforced conformity, like death for apostasy.
The difference between the last two becomes contentious when applied to children, where ‘offering’ conversion therapy to children that can’t consent amounts to enforced therapy.
So I don’t see a problem with Humanists UK opposing therapy.
But then we’re in the vague Newspeak era of what we call therapy – is expressing an opinion ‘therapy’? No. Just as ‘Islamophobia’ is Newspeak for racism, when opposing Islam isn’t about race and isn’t a phobia. Just as protecting women’s spaces is not transphobia.
Perhaps, but then most of religion is a psychological manipulation. Saying that “if you don’t believe this then you’ll go to hell” is not an attempt to persuade by argument, it is psychological manipulation. Should saying that be illegal? The Church of England’s Alpha Course is pure psychological manipulation.
True, but the key phrase there is “requiring or enforcing”. Humanists UK are asking for a ban even on voluntary “conversion therapy” regarding adults, and it is that that I can’t go along with.
The Humanists UK main campaigner on this is Nick Baldwin, who relates his own experience: “As a church member I went to my minister in my thirties and said I thought I might be gay and that I didn’t want to be. He then took me through six or so months of ‘prayer counselling’. […] The fact that I willingly submitted to this prayer counselling doesn’t mean it wasn’t abuse”.
Making that criminal (as Humanists UK want) amounts to rather strong state regulation of religion, and of people’s personal lives. He could have walked away at any point (and eventually he did).
I agree that it’s different about children. If Humanists UK were asking for a ban only with regard to children I would likely not oppose it. But should we then make it illegal for parents to teach their children doctrines about hell? OK, maybe we should, but this would be a rather radical step. It’s also worth pointing out that Humanists UK have not pointed to a single actual instance of gay conversion therapy relating to children that they would want to be prosecuted. Their only examples relate to adults.
I’m concerned about the difficulty of defining “conversion therapy,” especially when it comes to sexual dysphoria. What if someone is troubled by a wish to belong to the other gender, and seeks counselling in order to feel comfortable again in the gender matching their biological sex? Should the medical response be “, no, that’s abuse, but I can chop your … off)?
I agree. We completely lack good-quality evidence of what is the best way to respond to teenagers (or younger) with gender dysphoria. The evidence base to tell us what is in their best interests is simply not there. Given that, the last thing we need is the clod-hopping criminal law getting involved, with vague and barely defined rules as to what is and isn’t allowed. Any such law will be used by activists to try to impose an ideology on the whole area, regardless of the evidence.