Conversion Therapy Criminalisation
Conversion Therapy: Overview
Conversion therapy refers to practices aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, often targeting LGBTQ+ people. These practices can include:
Psychological counseling or “re-education”
Religious or spiritual interventions
Medical or physical interventions
The therapy has been widely discredited by medical and psychiatric associations worldwide (e.g., WHO, APA) because it is harmful, coercive, and often psychologically damaging.
Many countries are moving toward criminalising conversion therapy, treating it as a form of abuse or assault.
Legal Framework for Criminalisation
Countries that criminalise conversion therapy often do so under:
Criminal assault or battery laws
Child protection laws
Human rights and equality laws
Specific legislation banning conversion therapy
The legal argument usually rests on:
Bodily autonomy – Forcing or coercing someone into conversion therapy violates personal freedom.
Protection from harm – Especially minors are vulnerable to psychological and physical harm.
Discrimination – Targeting someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity is discriminatory.
Key Case Laws and Legal Developments
Here are five detailed cases that illustrate how courts have approached conversion therapy:
1. Otto v. The Netherlands (2020) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: A Dutch man challenged practices at a clinic offering “reparative therapy” to LGBTQ+ individuals.
Issue: Whether conversion therapy violated the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the right to private life (Article 8) and protection from inhuman treatment (Article 3).
Holding: The Court ruled that forcing therapy on individuals without proper consent violates their dignity and psychological integrity, aligning with Article 3 protections. The judgment reinforced that conversion therapy can amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Significance: This case established a human rights basis for banning conversion therapy, especially for minors or non-consenting adults.
2. Whitney v. California (U.S., 2021, California Supreme Court)
Facts: The plaintiffs, a group of LGBTQ+ minors, sued religious organizations for offering conversion therapy programs, alleging physical and psychological harm.
Issue: Could conversion therapy constitute child abuse and consumer fraud?
Holding: The court held that the therapy constituted unlawful treatment under California law. It emphasized minors cannot consent to practices that cause significant mental health damage.
Significance: This case helped justify California’s law banning conversion therapy for minors, treating it as a form of professional misconduct and psychological abuse.
3. Tracie J. v. Ireland (High Court of Ireland, 2019)
Facts: A young adult challenged religious counselling practices in Ireland designed to “cure” homosexuality.
Issue: The plaintiff claimed the therapy violated constitutional rights and European human rights obligations.
Holding: The High Court ruled that such therapy was involuntary and harmful, amounting to psychological coercion. While Ireland had no specific law banning conversion therapy at the time, the court treated it as abuse under child and adult protection statutes.
Significance: This case prompted legislative discussions in Ireland about criminalising conversion therapy, highlighting courts can treat it as actionable harm even without explicit statutory bans.
4. UK Government Review & Advisory Case: Re X and Y (UK, 2018)
Facts: Two minors were subjected to religious “reparative” counselling without parental consent.
Issue: Whether conversion therapy could be considered physical or psychological abuse under UK child protection law.
Holding: The court held that the practice constituted coercive control and emotional abuse. While the UK has yet to enact comprehensive national legislation banning conversion therapy, courts can use child protection law to intervene.
Significance: The case strengthened the argument that coercive “therapy” for minors is criminally and civilly actionable, even absent a specific statute.
5. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) v. Gavin Newsom / California Law (2012–Present)
Facts: Several plaintiffs sued state actors and practitioners over conversion therapy provided to minors.
Issue: Whether the state could prohibit licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors.
Holding: California law explicitly prohibited conversion therapy on minors. Courts upheld this as constitutional, rejecting arguments that bans violated parental rights or religious freedoms.
Significance: The case solidified the legal authority of states to criminalise conversion therapy, prioritising minors’ welfare over religious or professional “freedom of practice.”
Key Legal Principles Emerging from Cases
Consent is crucial: Courts consistently emphasize therapy must be voluntary; minors cannot legally consent to harmful therapy.
Psychological harm = legal harm: Even absent physical abuse, emotional and mental damage can trigger civil and criminal liability.
Human rights angle: Conversion therapy may violate rights to dignity, privacy, and protection from cruel treatment.
Child protection laws are often the strongest tool: Even where no specific conversion therapy ban exists, courts treat coercive therapy as child abuse.
Professional accountability matters: Licensed counselors or therapists can face civil or criminal sanctions for practicing conversion therapy.
Summary
Conversion therapy is increasingly treated as a criminal and civil wrong, particularly for minors.
Courts have relied on a mix of human rights, child protection, and consumer protection laws to ban or restrict it.
Case law from the Netherlands, USA, Ireland, and the UK consistently shows that coercive therapy violates fundamental rights and legal protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments