The clock is ticking on a bill to ban conversion therapy, at least for this year. Let’s hope that time runs out before it becomes law.

The Tories had previously promised to ban the practice of attempting to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity, but the government appears to have had second thoughts. When Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse asked last week if the bill would be ready in time for the King’s Speech in November, Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt avoided the question. Instead, Mordaunt pointed out that, ‘those are abhorrent practices that sometimes have lifelong impacts on those who have had to endure them.’

Quite. So why not unleash the full force of the law on those supposed conversion therapists intent on straightening out gay people and – perhaps more pertinently – trying to de-trans those who claim to have a gender identity different to their biological sex? It’s an emotive subject, and seemingly an easy win for the government.

The first clue as to why the government is hesitating may be in Mordaunt’s reply. Many abhorrent practices are already illegal. Electric shock treatments, while horrifying to read about, are a thing of the past. When Alan Turing was convicted of gross indecency, he chose chemical castration over imprisonment. But that was 1952; today we live in a rather different world where it is widely accepted that sexual orientation is immutable, and what goes on between consenting adults is their own business. If abusive practitioners are employing violent or coercive methods in 2023, the existing law can deal with them.

Yet some LGBTQIA+ activists will give the Tories a hard time if they don’t implement a crackdown on conversion therapy. For these lobbyists, conversion therapy bans have become a rallying campaign, on a par perhaps with their calls for gender self-identification.

That ludicrous idea, of gender self ID, at least, seems to have come off the rails now that even Keir Starmer has found the gumption to get down from the fence. The Labour leader has declared that ‘We don’t think that self-identification is the right way forward’, and has correctly defined a woman as an ‘adult female’.

But while gender self-ID now conjures up images of those who might exploit it – like the rapist Isla Bryson, who was initially sent to a women’s prison – conversion therapy provokes rather different feelings. Surely, its supporters say, if a bill protects only one person then it is worthwhile legislation? And even if nobody is ever prosecuted, the government has at least signalled its virtue?

Such thinking, however, does not make for good law. If this bill is rushed through, there could be unintended consequences that could easily backfire.

A similar bill to the Tories’ conversion ban had been expected at Holyrood. But this month’s SNP programme for government was silent on a ban of conversion therapy. According to reports, the SNP has postponed a ban because of concerns that it could criminalise parents who question their child’s wish to change their gender. When even hapless First Minister Humza Yousaf puts on the brakes, this is surely a matter that should go no further on either side of the border.

That said, it would do no harm to look at what has happened elsewhere; Justin Trudeau’s Canada, for example. Two years ago, Bill C-4 made it an offence to ‘cause another person to undergo conversion therapy’. But to ban something, it needs to be defined. The Canadian definition is worth reflecting upon:

‘Conversion Therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to

a)     change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;

b)     change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;

c)     change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;

d)     repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;

e)     repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or

f)      repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.’

The prohibition here occurs in one direction only. Activists who seek to help children find their transgender identity have nothing to fear from the law in Canada. But a parent who puts their foot down and tells a child to wait until they know what it means to be an adult may run the risk of finding themselves in hot water.

It’s dangerous legislation, but may help to explain the ludicrous story of Kayla Lemieux, an Ontario teacher who showed up to school wearing huge size-Z prosthetic breasts. Despite apparently dressing as a man outside work – something Lemieux has denied – the teacher was backed by the school board. Perhaps, given the wide-ranging Canadian law, this is no great surprise.

What is clear is that the Canadian conversion therapy legislation is an ass. We should learn from their error and avoid introducing anything similar on this side of the Atlantic.