Ending conversion practices in Scotland - consultation analysis: SG response

Suppression

58. Many consultation respondents had strong opinions about the inclusion of suppression and concerns about what might be considered to be suppression. This section outlines some of these concerns and aims to provide reassurance that religious practices such as self-selected celibacy will not be criminalised by proposals.

59. A small majority of all respondents (52%)^[6] indicated that they did not think the legislation should cover acts intended to ‘suppress’.

60. Reasons for this mainly related to the lack of clear parameters and definition of what suppression would mean in the context of conversion practices. For example, that including suppressive acts may impact family, religious and clinical settings. Some argued that it could create a ‘chilling effect’ whereby parents, clinicians, or religious leaders avoid engaging with the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity altogether for fear of criminalisation.

61. On the other hand, respondents who supported the inclusion of suppression in the legislation noted that they considered it vital to protect people from harm and to ensure that legislation has no loopholes, for example where the perpetrator believed that ‘change’ was not possible. Many stated that suppressive acts are frequently used within conversion practices to coerce or force a person to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity, which can cause shame and serious psychological harms. All LGBTQI+ Group respondents and most Medical, Psychology or Counselling Group or Body respondents supported the inclusion of suppression in proposals.

62. However, many supportive respondents also acknowledged the importance of ensuring the parameters and definition of suppression are sufficiently clear so that it does not unduly interfere with family and religious rights or clinical practices.

63. We recognise that ‘suppression’ of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity potentially encompasses a broader range of practices than only those which are seeking to ‘change’. However, in line with international legislation and upon appraisal of evidence on conversion practices, we have assessed that it is important that legislation is not limited to only acts intending to ‘change’.

64. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the concerns raised and wish to offer reassurance that religious practices such as self-selected celibacy will not be criminalised. Celibacy would only ever be an example of a conversion practice where an individual is coerced or forced into celibacy as a means of attempting to change or suppress their sexual orientation and where it is likely to cause the person harm. Parental controls such as not allowing a child to watch pornography would also not meet the requirements of criminality under our proposals.

65. In response to the concerns raised and as part of our ongoing work to review and improve our draft legislation, we will carefully consider how we can ensure that the proposed legislation does not unintentionally capture either day-to-day parental activities, religious practices, or ethical medical and healthcare services beyond the safeguards already set out.

We acknowledge the concerns raised and wish to offer reassurance that we will carefully consider the feedback received.