The Scottish Government has launched a public consultation on “ending conversion practices” in Scotland. We are very concerned about the potential impact of this proposed legislation, and we want to help our members to respond.
We will respond to the consultation on behalf of our whole membership, but want you to add your voice to ours. The consultation is available at:
The deadline is 2 April 2024.
We acknowledge the Scottish Government’s intention behind the proposed legislation – to protect vulnerable people from harm – is good and right. We also wish this to be the case in Scotland and agree that no one should be coerced into attempting to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the problem is that the proposed legislation has the potential to be harmful for all individuals involved and affect religious freedom in Scotland.
The Scottish Government are proposing to introduce the following as new laws in Scotland:
Criminal law proposals:
- A new criminal offense of engaging in conversion practices.
- A new criminal offense of taking a person out of Scotland for conversion practices.
- A new statutory aggravation to existing laws – eg a charge of assault with a statutory aggravation involving conversion practices.
Civil law proposals:
- A new civil protection order to protect an individual at risk.
- A new civil protection order to protect the wider community
- If either of these are breached, this becomes a criminal offense.
The key question is what does the Scottish Government mean by “conversion practices”? – as this will define how the law would work in practice. This is what they say in the consultation document (our emphasis in bold):
paragraph 18 (pg10)
There is no international, universal definition of the term “conversion practices”, which is sometimes referred to as “conversion therapy”, “sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts”, “reparative therapy” or “gay cure therapy”.
paragraph 43 (pg15)
Our proposals are informed by the definitions used by different bodies, and in other countries as set out in Part 3. Taking these into account, we consider that core to the definition of conversion practice is a purpose or intention to change or suppress another individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. For any act or course of behaviour to fall within the scope of this legislation, it will have to meet the intent requirement.
paragraph 50 (pg17) – definition of “suppress”
Some examples of the types of acts that could be motivated by an intention to suppress another person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are:
• Prescribing medication to suppress a person’s sex drive.
• Therapy or counselling that requires a person not to act on their same-sex attraction, including through celibacy.
• Controlling a person’s appearance (eg clothes, make-up, hairstyle).
• Restricting where a person goes and who they see.
At the heart of the Evangelical Alliance’s engagement with proposals to end conversion practices is the need to consistently demonstrate that everyday activities of a church supporting people to live in line with their faith convictions should not be categorised as a conversion practice. This means churches should continue to be free to teach fidelity within a marriage between a man and a woman, and abstinence outside of this, and provide discipleship, support and prayer to those seeking to live this way.
Helping you respond to the consultation
We have produced this guide to help you respond to the consultation. We would encourage everyone, in any context, to respond to the consultation. This law has the potential to affect parents, church leaders, anyone involved in pastoral care, youth groups, schools, support groups and the freedom of religion and belief in Scotland.
It is important to make clear to the Scottish Government how problematic this legislation could be. If you are a church or charity leader, we would encourage you to submit a church or organisational response, and then encourage the rest of your leaders and individual members of the church/organisation to submit their own response. It can’t be overstated enough how vital it is to make our voice heard, we want to ensure the Scottish Government is aware of the breadth and depth of concerns that surround these proposals.
You can respond to the entire consultation if you wish, but we have selected what we believe to be the most important questions to respond to and provided an explanation and suggestions for how you could go about responding.
If you have any questions or queries about this consultation, do not hesitate to get in touch with us at scotland@eauk.org
The overall proposals
The proposals create broad new criminal and civil offences and lack clarity as to how they would impact the everyday activities of churches and Christians. Underlying many of the problems with these proposals is the implicit characterisation of Christian teaching on sex and sexuality as inherently harmful. Therefore, there is significant risk that these measures would lead to the criminalisation of such activity, including prayer, discipleship, even in cases where support is sought and desired by an individual.
Question 1 Do you support our approach to defining conversion practices which focus on behaviour motivated by the intention to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
We suggest you respond ‘No’ to this question and then provide more detail in response to question 2.
Question 2 Please give the reason for your answer to Question 1.
- We would encourage you to explain, with examples, why the proposed approach would be problematic. It is worth setting out how it could affect situations involving church leaders and discipleship, parenting and children, friends supporting each other.
- It is worth explaining how everyday Christian practices could be restricted because of the overly broad definition.
- We would encourage you to explain that there is a danger that the Scottish Government is conflating Christian sexual ethics with “harm”, and that supporting those who choose to abstain from sexual activity and seek support should not be classed as a conversion practice.
- In particular, we suggest noting that the inclusion of “suppress” within the proposals, risks criminalising those who provide or offer support for Christians seeking to abstain from same-sex sexual activity.
- We would encourage you to explain how the law would be belittling, demeaning and harmful towards Christians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, same-sex attracted (they may use any of these labels) as well as those with gender dysphoria.
- We would encourage you to explain why the use of the word “conversion” is extremely problematic in this proposed legislation – new life in Jesus is not “harmful”.
Suppress
The proposals include the banning of activity that ‘suppresses’ another’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This is very difficult to define but would seem to include support for people who are same-sex attracted but wish to refrain from sexual activity. At the heart of this problem is an assumption that someone is being restricted from living their full life if they do not engage in sexual activity – even where this is freely chosen. The proposals conflate attraction, orientation and activity, and potentially categorise any support for someone refraining from sexual activity as ‘suppression’.
Question 3 Do you think that legislation should cover acts or courses of behaviour intended to ‘suppress’ another person’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
We suggest you respond that ‘It should not be covered’ and then set out reasons why in response to question 4.
Question 4 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 3.
- We would encourage you to explain that supporting someone who does not wish to act on their same-sex attraction should not be considered to be a conversion practice.
- You may wish to explain to the Scottish Government how there are differences between identity and expression within Christian sexual ethics.
- As well as limiting the support available for Christians who seek it, it would also criminalise churches or organisations who wish to offer such support to their congregation.
- We would encourage you to explain how difficult it would be to apply this law in the context of a parent-child relationship and a child struggling with gender dysphoria.
Questions relating to the specifics of the proposals
Questions 5 and 6 relate to the package of measures which includes both criminal and civil measures. Such an approach creates a complicated framework where it is hard to see where actions cross the threshold of criminality. This is not a good basis for effective law.
Question 5 Do you support or not support an approach which uses a package of both criminal and civil measures to address conversion practices in legislation?
We suggest you answer ‘Do not support’ and then set out reasons in response to question 6.
Question 6 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 5.
- We would encourage you to explain why criminal measures are highly inappropriate given the conflation of Christian sexual ethics with “harm”, it is foreseeable that within this approach a church or Christian ministry providing support for those who seek it would find themselves guilty of a criminal offence.
- We would encourage you to explain that a lower threshold for civil orders (see Q27, Q28) is of particular concern as it is based on a balance of probabilities, and therefore even more likely to restrict Christian ministries.
Provision of services
The proposals suggest that both the coercive activity which tries to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and the provision of services that seek to do so, would be criminalised. This is very problematic because of the lack of clarity in definitions and thresholds in the law. This means that support groups for people seeking to refrain from sexual activity could be captured, as too could a structured discipleship course or even regular pastoral meetings.
Question 7 What are your views on the proposal that the offence will address the provision of a service?
We suggest that you respond ‘Do not support’ and set out your reasons in response to question 8.
Question 8 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 7.
- We would encourage you to explain how damaging this aspect of the proposed legislation would be on organisations such as Living Out, who through their ministries demonstrate that those who are same-sex attracted can choose a life free from sexual activity without their life being diminished in any way.
- We would encourage you to explain that individuals should be free to seek support, and that the provision of such support should not be criminalised.
- We would encourage you to explain that the term “service” in this consultation could be applied very broadly meaning many everyday church activities could potentially meet a threshold for conversion practices – and how this is highly problematic for freedom of religion or belief and Christian communities in Scotland.
A coercive course of behaviour
The Evangelical Alliance has consistently affirmed that forced or abusive behaviour should not be permitted. However, action to address this needs to ensure that that is what is in scope and it does not restrict people from accessing the support they choose, or unintentionally criminalise Christian ministries.
We wholeheartedly oppose coercive behaviour but are concerned that discipleship and support within a community with clear convictions on sexual practice could be construed as directive and therefore fall foul of the law.
Question 9 What are your views on the proposal that the offence will address a coercive course of behaviour?
We suggest you respond ‘Do not support’ and set out your reasons why in response to question 10.
Question 10 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 9.
- We encourage you to set out that any forced or abusive behaviour should not be tolerated and the criminal law already provides routes to address this.
- You may wish to point out that the lack of clarity could lead to the unintentional criminalisation of those providing pastoral care and support.
- We would encourage you to explain the problems with paragraph 103 (pg32) in the consultation document in how this aspect of the legislation would work in practice, for example, would teaching and discipleship in the context of a church with a clear position that sexual activity should only be within a heterosexual marriage be considered directive?
- Paragraph 104 of the consultation document refers to a course of action that leads to the punishment of an individual. It is important to note that in no way should punishment be supported, however, churches should remain free to require agreement with beliefs and actions consistent with that of, for example, membership or leadership positions. Such action should not be classed as punishment.
- We would encourage you to explain that without a very clear and high threshold for “harm”, there is a risk of this aspect of the proposed legislation being used because of offense or disagreement.
Too low a threshold of harm
Questions 11 and 12 address the requirement that conduct has caused harm. We fully oppose harmful behaviour and at the same time have concerns that this threshold is dangerously low and could restrict Christian activities and unintentionally criminalise every Christian practice. We do not wish to see people in fear, alarm or distress, however someone’s response to a situation should not be sufficient to lead to its criminalisation.
Question 11 What are your views on the requirement that the conduct of the perpetrator must have caused the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm (including fear, alarm or distress)?
We suggest that you respond ‘Do not agree’ and it important that you set our reasons why in response to question 12.
Question 12 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 11.
- We would encourage you to emphasise that your disagreement with this approach is due to the potential for this threshold to capture normal Christian activities. In no way should physical or psychological harm be supported.
- We would encourage you to explain that the threshold of “harm” being fear, alarm or distress is too low since the definition of conversion practices risks Christian sexual ethics being viewed as inherently harmful, and therefore any articulation of these beliefs could be considered to cause such consequences.
Consent
The consultation suggests that consenting to activity considered to be a conversion practice would not be a defence for those providing it. We consider that this mischaracterises a wide range of practices which could be caught within the proposed law. If support for Christians refraining from sexual activity, and teaching, prayer, discipleship and pastoral care to this end, are potentially classified as such, then these are reasonable activities which someone should be able to consent to their engagement with. It is inappropriate to compare such practices to torture or degrading treatment where consent is not a defence.
Question 17 Do you agree that there should be no defence of consent for conversion practices?
We suggest that you respond ‘No’ to this question and then set out your reasons in response to question 18.
Question 18 Please give reasons for your answer to Question 17.
- We would encourage you to explain that the reality is that evangelical Christians who are lesbian, gay or bisexual will look for support in living out their beliefs. Therefore, for a range of activities including pastoral care, prayer and support groups which potentially could fall within the definition of “conversion practices”, it is important people can consent to receiving these.
- It is important that individuals are free to seek the support they wish in living out their faith convictions, and those who provide such support are not criminalised.
- We would encourage you to explain how there is an inconsistency with the language of change in this proposed legislation, in that for example – according to the consultation, change to a new gender identity is seen as right and positive but change when someone becomes a Christian and is living out a new sexual ethic isn’t.
- Therefore, if someone comes to faith and seeks mentoring or pastoral guidance around their sexual expression, a pastor or friends would be criminalised by this proposed legislation.
Civil Protection Orders
The Scottish Government are proposing supplementing the criminal ban on conversion practices with civil measures which they say are designed to protect people who may be at risk of becoming victims. The burden of proof for these measures would be lower than in criminal cases, requiring only a balance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Combined with the low thresholds used for designating activity as harmful, and therefore potentially a conversion practice, the use of such civil protection orders places churches and Christian ministries under a very real threat. There is no need for evidence that conversion practices have taken place for an order to be granted. If activities of a church or ministry could be construed as a provision of a service, then continuing with this after a protection order is in place could lead to criminal prosecution.
Question 27 What are your views on the purposes of the proposed conversion practices protection order?
We suggest you respond ‘Do not support’ and set out your reasons in response to question 28.
Question 28 Please explain your answer to Question 27
- We would encourage you to explain how Civil Protection Orders are highly problematic and could lead to any and every church leader in Scotland being enforced with one, because there doesn’t have to be proof of conversion practices having taken place. These measures have even lower thresholds for proof than the criminal measures.
- We would encourage you to show how it is problematic even to have the limitation on what wouldn’t be criminalised to non-directive prayer/pastoral support for a non-predetermined outcome, because how would this work for a church or being in leadership, of which virtually all aspects of the Christian life have some directive component.
