The first recorded use of the term “conversion therapy“ was in 1967 to describe a “sex change” surgery:
This girl was a transsexual who had been changed into a female by conversion therapy.Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 149–162
However today LGBT activists adopted the term “conversion therapy“ to mean the opposite. Trying to persuade a person not to have their reproductive parts surgically removed or would be an example of “conversion therapy”. B. M. Dank who described himself as an “outspoken advocate on gay rights issues in the 70s” was the first to use the term in this way:
Evidence of successful conversion therapies have not been produced. B. M. Dank in D. Spiegel & P. Keith-Spiegel, Outsiders USA xiii. 291/1
It is important to understand there never has been a therapist advertising a service under the name “conversion therapy”. It is a blanket term created by political activists to criminalise those whose speech is not inline with their radical ideology. It covers everything from “corrective rape” and electric shock treatment to a parent talking to their child in an attempt to discourage them from starting a process that could results in the removal or mutilation of their reproductive parts. They pretend rape, EST and talking are basically the same and that they all amount to torture.
Scotland's Conversion Therapy Ban explained in activists own words. pic.twitter.com/cKsInDttq9
— Phil Holden (@phil_m_holden) March 2, 2024
In the above video Jen Ang a law professor from Glasgow University speaks as part of the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practises in the Scottish Parliament. She states that:
- there is no problem with corrective rape and electric shock treatment in Scotland
- if there were current laws are able deal with it
- new laws with strong punishments are needed to mainly address the issue of “speaking“
The group recommended an increased sentence for the crime of “conversion therapy” should be considered if the “victim“ is a child and the one speaking is their parent.
The Group recommends that a higher sentence be imposed in certain situations. These are cases constituting aggravated forms of conduct. Three such situations are envisaged:... In addition to the possibility of an increased sentence, the Group recommends that, where the perpetrator of any of the criminalised acts has parental or guardianship rights in relation to the victim, the legal consequences may include the modification or withdrawal of such rights. Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices: report and recommendations (point 16, 18)
- the causation of serious bodily or mental harm (where the perpetrator intended such harm, was aware of its likely occurrence or should have been aware of its likely occurrence)
- the performance of conversion practices on a child
- the performance of conversion practices on a person in a situation of vulnerability, for instance, persons with mental disorders and persons who are in a situation of dependence (where the perpetrator was aware of the situation of vulnerability)
So among the most serious offences are any involving parents and their children because these automatically meet all three aggravating criteria if their child was upset by the conversation and the parent knew or should have known the conversation might have been difficult.
The sentencing recommendations show how the most serious offences should be dealt with:
We therefore propose the following sentencing range for convictions under this offence:Consultation on ending conversion practices - page 9
- on summary conviction: imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (£10,000), or to both
- on conviction on indictment (solemn procedure): imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to an unlimited fine, or both.
