"Conversion therapy":
The danger of the Victorian model
Both the NSW Government proposal and Alex Greenwich’s legislation are based on the legislation currently in place in Victoria. The Government’s proposal explicitly states that its definition of “change and suppression” is the Victorian model. Mr. Greenwich’s legislation is over 80% word-for-word the same as the Victorian legislation.
Before implementing the Victorian model we must understand the devastating impact that it has had on religious freedom. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) plays a crucial role in enforcing the Victorian laws, and has a site detailing what has now been made illegal. In it’s own words, this site shows how dangerous the Victorian model is.
(All quotes are taken from the VEOHRC site, or the video that it hosts)
The laws are based on an extreme understanding of harm and what is harmful. They do not just ban coercive and genuinely harmful practices, they consider anything that is not full support for LGBTIQ+ people to be “suppression”, which they claim is always harmful. This includes:
- Conversations
- Prayer
- Celibacy, or not having sex
The Commission states that these harms were significant enough to limit the right to religious freedom, which is otherwise protected under Victorian legislation.
“Any activity to encourage this person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity will cause harm and is likely to be a change or suppression practice.
“Conversations risk causing deep harm
“Prayers that are directed at a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity cause harm and are prohibited.
“The individual may feel tension and fear rejection if they are asked to choose between their faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity.
There is evidence that this ultimatum leads to harm.
“A same-sex attracted member of your congregation is recommended or commits to celibacy: Likely to cause harm and be a change or suppression practice.
Conversations
The Commission considers that even simple conversations can be considered harmful “suppression practices”. This includes talking to someone about “who they should have sexual relations with”. There is nothing in the legislation that protects conversations between family members, children and parents, or married couples.
Religious conversations about sexuality are also heavily restricted, unless they are actively approving of LGBTIQ+ activity. For example the Commission states:
Conversations risk causing deep harm and being a change and suppression practice when they are conducted for the purpose of changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, for example by telling people:
- how they should feel about themselves
- who they should have sexual relations with
- that their gender identity is not real or acceptable
Astonishingly the Commission tells religious institutions what their religious beliefs should be providing :
Support to these members can include reassuring them that:their God loves them everyone has a different path the person belongs in the faith: they are respected and included as they are.
Prayer
Prayer is clearly seen to be a private practice by the VEOHRC, and prayer with other people or for other people regarding sexuality or gender identity issues is heavily limited. Prayers asking for Gods help – even if asked for and completely consensual – are banned. For example the Commission states:
You can continue to practice your faith through your private prayers with your God.
Prayers that are directed at a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity cause harm and are prohibited.
These could include prayers thatask for healing ask for a person to change ask for a person to not act on their attractions talk about a person’s brokenness or need to repent ask for long-term celibacy
These examples are contrasted with prayers that the Commission considers to be “acceptable”. They are described as follows:
prayers:for guidance that are supporting and reassuring that the person is created in their God’s image and perfect the way they are that acknowledge their God loves the individual.
Consent and coercion
The Victorian conversion laws preclude consent to a “conversion or suppression” practice. You cannot even consent to a conversation or a prayer.
The Commission’s website makes it plain that the Commission considers any religious teaching, counselling or conversation that does not affirm a person’s sexuality or gender identity as coercive, even in passive situations because of what they call a “power imbalance” between religious leaders and community members. The Commission states that any person who asks for counsel or prayer about changing their sexuality or gender identity is “heavily influenced by a desire to be accepted” and is doing so out of a position of fear. In other words, being part of a religious community that does not unconditionally affirm a person’s sexuality or gender identity is inherently coercive and harmful to someone who struggles with these issues.
The Commission states:
“Someone may be willing to take part in these practices. However, those who have been through this have told us that this willingness is heavily influenced by wanting to be accepted, whole and worthy. This comes from a deep connection with their faith or community.
A power imbalance often exists between a faith leader and a person seeking their advice. This person may feel tension and fear of rejection if they are asked to choose between their faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity.
There is much evidence that this ultimatum – forcing someone to choose – leads to harm. Under this law, a person cannot consent to these practices.
Even if a person is willing to participate, it is still against the law to carry out these practices.
“Allowing an adult to consent to change or suppression practices undermines the intention of the ban and fails to acknowledge the insidious nature of these practices. This is because of the undue influence and power imbalance that are often inherent in change or suppression practices.
“Survivor groups indicate that LGBTIQ+ people of faith may have participated willingly in conversion programs, as many of these programs have claimed they only exist to help those who express an independent desire to change.
Survivors report that they were coerced by parents, pastors, or because of the ideologies implicit within their religious community. They are also often internally driven by the fear of rejection and the desire to be ‘whole’.
Controlling religious beliefs
The Commission’s directions and information on their website don’t just target activities that they disapprove of, but also the beliefs that underly them. Throughout the website, they not only outline what is not acceptable, but tell people of faith what they are allowed to say, do and believe.
The Commission particularly targets the concept of sin or human brokenness – that humans are not perfect as they are, and need to be saved/healed/corrected. This is a fundamental belief of most of the world’s religions. Most faiths hold that all people have a broken sexuality in one way or another, and need to commit to living out a correct sexual ethic. The commission rejects this concept entirely, and requires faiths to teach that people are “perfect as they are”.
“Your private prayer with your God can continue. You can continue to hold your own view on sexuality and gender.”
“A person’s sexual orientation and gender identity do not need to be fixed; they are not broken.
“There is nothing wrong with being heterosexual or straight, or with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or asexual – all of these are perfectly natural (video)
“The individual may feel tension and fear rejection if they are asked to choose between their faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Survivors report that they were coerced … because of the ideologies implicit within their religious community.
“these practices … are based on ideas that we now know to be untrue and harmful (video)
“Prayer (with that person or with their knowledge) that indicates they are broken and need to be healed is likely to be a change or suppression practice [… including] talk about a person’s brokenness or need to repent
The Commission goes on to define approved religious beliefs and actions, including a section titled “what is allowed?”
“There are many ways you can continue to practice your faith without causing harm.
“What is allowed?
It is completely legal – and encouraged – to undertake activities that support or affirm someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including:
- providing acceptance, support or understanding of a person – or referring them to a person more suited to do this
- facilitating a person’s coping skills to be their authentic self, or explore or develop their identity
- facilitating social support for the individual
- assisting a person to express their gender identity
- assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition
- assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition.
“Support to these members can include reassuring them that:
- their God loves them
- everyone has a different path
- the person belongs in the faith: they are respected and included as they are.
“Support in the form of prayer that does not cause harm include:
- praying for inner peace
- praying for guidance for that person
- prayer to affirm that the person is made in their God’s image, perfect as they are.
Celibacy
The commission targets celibacy multiple times. The idea of a person not having sex, or exercising self-control, is considered to cause “serious and ongoing harm”.
“A same-sex attracted member of your congregation is recommended or commits to celibacy: Likely to cause harm and be a change or suppression practice …
Denying someone their total self – their sexuality – causes serious and ongoing harm.
“Praying … with or for an LGBT person to be celibate: Likely to cause harm and be a change or suppression practice …
These could include prayers that:
- ask for a person to not act on their attractions …
- ask for long-term celibacy.
Religious teaching and sermons
The Commission claims that sermons and general teaching about sexuality are still permitted. However, any indication that the teaching might be directed at an individual means that it could be a “conversion practice”. Even if a teacher is aware of a LGBTIQ+ person in their audience, then their general teaching could be illegal. The commission is not trying to prevent only harmful practices, but the beliefs that underlie traditional teachings about sexuality, gender and marriage.
“You can continue to hold your own view on sexuality and gender.
“Examples of activities that would not be prohibited include:
- a religious leader delivering a sermon which expresses a general statement of belief
- explaining a religious view of relationships.
These two activities may be considered a change and suppression practice if they are directed at a person for the purpose of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“If an individual has approached you about their sexual orientation or gender identity, or if others know that someone in their group is questioning themselves, then using a group conversation to address it may still count as targeting them.”
“Survivors report that they were coerced … because of the ideologies implicit within their religious community.”
Faith community membership
The Commission seems to reject the rights of a faith community to determine their membership and require their members to affirm and live out their faith in accordance with their own doctrines, tenets and beliefs. Instead, the commission expects communities must allow LGBTIQ+ to continue to be members, even if those people do not believe the community’s teachings on sexuality and gender, or live in contradiction to those teachings.
The effect of the Commission’s explanation of the Victorian Conversion Practice laws is that a religious community cannot require someone to uphold the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of the community in order to be a member of the faith community. This means that effectively the person’s ‘right’ to live according to their understanding of sexuality and gender identity overrides the religious rights and authenticity of the faith community and overrides the rights of all the other members of the community to associate with people who hold the same faith. Where a community’s faith conflicts with an individual’s sexuality or gender, then the community is effectively expected to either change or suppress their faith.
“There is nothing wrong with being heterosexual or straight, or with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or asexual – all of these are perfectly natural (video)
“People can still be a person of faith or not, whichever they prefer (video)
“Peer support can come in the form of … a faith group that supports LGBTQA+ people practicing your faith
“Change and suppression practices delay people from being able to fully enjoy being who they are. When practices occur in faith communities, it makes it difficult for them to continue being people of faith.
“A power imbalance often exists between a faith leader and a person seeking their advice. This person may feel tension and fear of rejection if they are asked to choose between their faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity.
There is much evidence that this ultimatum – forcing someone to choose – leads to harm.
“Survivors report that they were coerced … because of the ideologies implicit within their religious community. They are also often internally driven by the fear of rejection
“Support to these members can include reassuring them that:
- their God loves them
- everyone has a different path
- the person belongs in the faith: they are respected and included as they are.
Requirement to affirm LGBTIQ+ ideology
Not only does the Commission state what teachings and beliefs it considers acceptable, it effectively requires a faith community to actively prevent “conversion practices”. If a church or other legally identifiable group does not take these steps, it will be very difficult for it to defend a claim of vicarious liability for any “suppression practice” that one of its members has engaged in.
“Can an individual or organisation be held legally responsible for the actions of others within their faith organisation, school, or workplace, for example faith, school, and work leaders?
Vicarious liability is when an organisation can be held legally responsible for the actions of others who engage in prohibited conduct during employment, including as a volunteer or while acting as an agent. Your organisation or group could be held liable if you cannot show that you have taken reasonable precautions to prevent someone engaging in a change or suppression practice.
“These reasonable precautions are similar to the positive duty obligation that exists for the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful conduct as far as possible.
The positive duty is about being proactive, identifying problems and taking reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate the causes of that conduct, as far as possible, that may be part of the systems or culture of the particular environment.
This forces faith communities to be able to demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable precautions” to prevent any activity that the Commission deems harmful. The definition of “reasonable precaution” is not provided, but would, in the view of the Commission would include educating their members to affirm LGBTIQ+ identity and ideology.
The Commission provides these examples of what is considers to be ‘reasonable precautions’:
- increasing staff, volunteer and community awareness and understanding of the Act and practices
- incorporating the Act in policies and procedures, codes of conduct and induction processes (staff and volunteers)
- creating specific roles (first points of contact to discuss and understand change or suppression practices, roles to train staff and volunteers, roles to manage reports change or suppression practices)
- reviewing and incorporating information about how the law regards change or suppression practices into procedures and policies related to the duty of care for others.
The Commission also requires a religious believer who is not willing to ‘affirm’ a person’s sexuality or gender identity to refer them to someone who will so affirm. Many religious believers would consider such a requirement to render them complicit in what the believer conscientiously considers to be sin:
If you are not comfortable affirming someone’s sexuality or gender identity, refer them to a person – or service … who can do this and have conversations with them safely.