Bethel McGrew
The U.K. government has just published a draft bill, long in the making, that pitches itself as legislation protecting LGBTQ individuals from “abuse,” but is really designed to persecute conservative Christians. It would make “conversion practices”—defined as any attempt to steer someone away from a gay or transgender identity—a criminal offense, putting concerned parents and clergy in the crosshairs. A conviction could bring penalties of up to five years in prison and unlimited fines.
Concerned critics are naturally being assured that no one’s legitimate freedoms of expression or religion are in any danger. Introducing the bill, Minister for Equalities Olivia Bailey painted a dramatic picture of young “LGBT” people being beaten or sexually assaulted, or under threat of assault or murder from their families. (As an underdiscussed side note, such stories are far more likely to be a product of the United Kingdom’s unchecked immigration from Muslim countries than homegrown Christian “fundamentalism.”) Of course, the United Kingdom already has a variety of laws against assault, harassment, false imprisonment, and other straightforward abuses. So what gap is this law supposed to fill? That was the question that couldn’t be satisfactorily answered when a similar bill was first proposed five years ago. It remains to be seen whether it will have more success in the parliamentary review process today.
Interestingly, the text of the bill is theoretically supposed to cut both ways, defining “conversion therapy” as any attempt to convince someone he doesn’t or does have a particular “orientation” or “identity.” But in practice, of course there will be no accountability for leftist ideologues in the helping professions who have ushered children into deep sexual confusion. Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to find a silver lining in a clause carving out protections for those who provide “health care services.” However, there is an “unless”: “unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position.” Who gets to decide what constitutes “the standards reasonably expected”?
Without a Bill of Rights and a court willing to enforce it, English counselors are vulnerable to the whims of an authoritarian state.
Indeed, that is the question. As Christian counselor Lesley Pilkington learned 15 years ago, there is no reason for British conservatives to expect protection when those “standards” are set by the same lobby now pushing this bill. Pilkington lost her professional license after a gay journalist posed as a man seeking her help to leave the lifestyle, then secretly recorded their therapy sessions. He subsequently complained that she hadn’t been persecuted quickly or thoroughly enough for his preference.
Principled Christians here in the United States are better protected for now, as we saw in the hopeful precedent set by SCOTUS’s ruling in favor of therapist Kaley Chiles. In Colorado, an attempted ban on so-called “conversion practices” was struck down as an infringement on Chiles’ freedom of speech. Like Pilkington, Chiles used talk therapy with willing patients and could not in good faith be accused of harassing or coercing anyone. But without a Bill of Rights and a court willing to enforce it, her English counterparts are vulnerable to the whims of an authoritarian state.
On X, the Gay Men’s Network has joined other British “LGB without the T” activists in lodging their own distinctive protests of this bill, concerned that gay youth are “transitioning” into the opposite sex. Their concerns are obviously very different from the concerns of conservative Christians, but they are correct to recognize the internal contradictions of a movement that on one hand claims to support same-sex love and on the other hand tries to abolish the gender binary altogether. One hopes they would also respect the freedom of counselors like Lesley Pilkington to help patients who want to reject a gay orientation label.
Flawed though their motives might be, it is ironic that secular voices like the Gay Men’s Network are at least present and accounted for in the fight, while some British evangelicals will wrinkle their noses at “culture war.” The idea persists in such circles that it is impious to be active in politics or fight encroaching threats to Christians’ civil liberties, because Jesus would want us to focus solely on meek evangelism. Instead of thanking advocacy groups like Christian Concern for consistently raising awareness about such threats, the elite Christian class dismisses them as fringe groups or “right-wing” fearmongers.
If the point were not blindingly obvious already, it should be clearer than ever today that culture war is upon British Christians whether they invited it or not. A courageous remnant has recognized this and is prepared to put up a lonely resistance. As their brothers and sisters across the pond, we see them, and we stand with them in solidarity.
About the Author: Bethel McGrew has a doctorate in math and is a widely published freelance writer. Her work has appeared in First Things, National Review, The Spectator, and many other national and international outlets. Her Substack, Further Up, is one of the top paid newsletters in “Faith & Spirituality” on the platform. She has also contributed to two essay anthologies on Jordan Peterson. When not writing social criticism, she enjoys writing about literature, film, music, and history.
