Is there a need to ban “conversion therapy”
in Canada?
On October 1st, 2020, the federal government introduced Bill C-6, which would modify the criminal code and criminalize the practice of “conversion therapy” (CT) in Canada. This Bill created much controversy surrounding the definition of CT, but not much was said on the justification for passing the Bill in the first place. Is there a need for the government of Canada to criminalize the practice of CT in the country? A legal brief, put together by UVVC and their legal experts,
explores this subject and it has been essential in helping me think about this question.
When enacting a law that will restrict people’s freedom, the Canadian government can only place “reasonable limits” on these freedoms, and it has the obligation to demonstrate that the restrictions are in fact justified. Article 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In their Charter Statement about Bill C-6, the federal government acknowledges that it would be infringing on the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Charter, but is this a reasonable limit imposed on the freedoms of Canadians?
Has the government demonstrated that it is justified?
The government first needs to demonstrate that there is a pressing necessity to criminalize CT in Canada. But they are hard pressed to even find any data showing that there is a conversion therapy problem in Canada. In June 2019, MP Randy Boissonnault, who is the special advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ issues, called CT an “underground practice” while admitting not to have any hard data on its prevalence. He admitted being ignorant of who practices it and how many people are subjected to it. To justify an infringement on the freedoms of Canadians, the government at least needs to be able to quantify the problem. To that end, the government is now using the, “Sex Now Survey” in an effort to show that their initiative is not based on hearsay, but on data. This survey is however very biased,[1] and it only draws preliminary conclusions that are nevertheless presented as facts.
And in any case, what will a ban on “conversion therapy” actually achieve? A report from the city of Edmonton’s administration has suggested that all a city ban can do is make a symbolic gesture. A more substantial federal ban also won’t stop people from practicing “conversion therapy.” It can only turn it into a clandestine practice. But wait, according to the proponents of Bill C-6, CT is already an underground practice, so what exactly are they trying to prevent?
In 2019, when the government was presented with a petition requesting the prohibition of CT, they rejected it on the basis that this was largely a provincial and territorial issue. They also admitted that the coercive and abusive aspects of CT were already covered by the criminal code.What has changed since then to convince them otherwise? Has new evidence emerged? Not at all! So why, after having admitted that there is no need for the federal government to legislate, do they now feel justified in doing so?
The fact is that the government wants to weigh in on this issue for ideological purposes, and the only tools it has at its disposal are those in the criminal code. Since only the federal government can make laws that apply across the country, they are in a unique position to completely eliminate the practice of CT in Canada. So, their solution is to turn CT into a crime and then ban it throughout the country. But what exactly would be the “crime” in “conversion therapy?” If a person is not coerced into undergoing a therapy, why should this be understood as a crime? The answer is that the Bill is not really trying to prevent a crime from occurring. Its primary goal is to censure the message its supporters believe CT sends. In a letter sent by the federal government to the provinces on June 21st 2019, they stated exactly what led them to legislate:
“We are concerned about the harmful effect of the message that someone’s sexual orientation is abnormal, and that it can and should be changed.”[2]
Proponents of the ban are reacting against “heteronormativity”, that is the view that sexual intercourse should only happen between a man and a woman. The Bill is about making an ideological change in the popular culture. They have bought into the view that consent should be the only norm whereby we judge the legitimacy of a sexual intercourse, and they want to make this the orthodoxy of the land. The government has abandoned its neutrality and wants, through this Bill, to impose a particular public understanding
of sexual ethics and excommunicate the dissidents.
In short, there are no unbiased data showing that there is a “conversion therapy” problem in Canada. The government knows a ban would be ineffective and has granted that the criminal code already covers what could be worrisome about “conversion therapy.” They have also conceded that this is largely a provincial and territorial issue. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the government has not shown that there is a need for this law. The law is not fighting a crime, it is fighting an ideology. But we need to ask an important question: Is it the role of our government to tell Canadians what to believe about sex? Our legal system should not be manipulated in order to impose ideologies on the population; it should remain neutral. “Neutral” means that the government shouldn’t favor or penalize a heteronormative view of sexuality or any other type of view. The people should decide which view they think is more reasonable and convincing.
[1] This survey was conducted by CBRC, a pro-LGBTQ think tank, and was obviously produced retrospectively to supply the government with the evidence they badly needed at that time. The survey comes to the preliminary conclusion that approximately 47,000 people were subjected to a form of “conversion therapy” in Canada. There are many problems with this number. It is a mere extrapolation of the sample of 7,259 people who answered the survey, but it is often thrown at city councils as fact, giving the impression that 47,000 people answered the survey. The same survey estimated that in 2012 20,000 people were subjected to conversion therapy. We are then led to believe that this practice has more than doubled in eight years – but has it really? To be trustworthy, a survey has to be representative of the population, random and non-biased. The “Sex Now” survey fails on all of these criteria, but the last of these should be of the greatest concern to the government. CBRC is obviously biased, and if the government wants to have a clear and objective idea of how much people have been subject to conversion therapy, this survey should not be the only piece of evidence they use.
explores this subject and it has been essential in helping me think about this question.
When enacting a law that will restrict people’s freedom, the Canadian government can only place “reasonable limits” on these freedoms, and it has the obligation to demonstrate that the restrictions are in fact justified. Article 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In their Charter Statement about Bill C-6, the federal government acknowledges that it would be infringing on the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Charter, but is this a reasonable limit imposed on the freedoms of Canadians?
Has the government demonstrated that it is justified?
The government first needs to demonstrate that there is a pressing necessity to criminalize CT in Canada. But they are hard pressed to even find any data showing that there is a conversion therapy problem in Canada. In June 2019, MP Randy Boissonnault, who is the special advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ issues, called CT an “underground practice” while admitting not to have any hard data on its prevalence. He admitted being ignorant of who practices it and how many people are subjected to it. To justify an infringement on the freedoms of Canadians, the government at least needs to be able to quantify the problem. To that end, the government is now using the, “Sex Now Survey” in an effort to show that their initiative is not based on hearsay, but on data. This survey is however very biased,[1] and it only draws preliminary conclusions that are nevertheless presented as facts.
And in any case, what will a ban on “conversion therapy” actually achieve? A report from the city of Edmonton’s administration has suggested that all a city ban can do is make a symbolic gesture. A more substantial federal ban also won’t stop people from practicing “conversion therapy.” It can only turn it into a clandestine practice. But wait, according to the proponents of Bill C-6, CT is already an underground practice, so what exactly are they trying to prevent?
In 2019, when the government was presented with a petition requesting the prohibition of CT, they rejected it on the basis that this was largely a provincial and territorial issue. They also admitted that the coercive and abusive aspects of CT were already covered by the criminal code.What has changed since then to convince them otherwise? Has new evidence emerged? Not at all! So why, after having admitted that there is no need for the federal government to legislate, do they now feel justified in doing so?
The fact is that the government wants to weigh in on this issue for ideological purposes, and the only tools it has at its disposal are those in the criminal code. Since only the federal government can make laws that apply across the country, they are in a unique position to completely eliminate the practice of CT in Canada. So, their solution is to turn CT into a crime and then ban it throughout the country. But what exactly would be the “crime” in “conversion therapy?” If a person is not coerced into undergoing a therapy, why should this be understood as a crime? The answer is that the Bill is not really trying to prevent a crime from occurring. Its primary goal is to censure the message its supporters believe CT sends. In a letter sent by the federal government to the provinces on June 21st 2019, they stated exactly what led them to legislate:
“We are concerned about the harmful effect of the message that someone’s sexual orientation is abnormal, and that it can and should be changed.”[2]
Proponents of the ban are reacting against “heteronormativity”, that is the view that sexual intercourse should only happen between a man and a woman. The Bill is about making an ideological change in the popular culture. They have bought into the view that consent should be the only norm whereby we judge the legitimacy of a sexual intercourse, and they want to make this the orthodoxy of the land. The government has abandoned its neutrality and wants, through this Bill, to impose a particular public understanding
of sexual ethics and excommunicate the dissidents.
In short, there are no unbiased data showing that there is a “conversion therapy” problem in Canada. The government knows a ban would be ineffective and has granted that the criminal code already covers what could be worrisome about “conversion therapy.” They have also conceded that this is largely a provincial and territorial issue. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the government has not shown that there is a need for this law. The law is not fighting a crime, it is fighting an ideology. But we need to ask an important question: Is it the role of our government to tell Canadians what to believe about sex? Our legal system should not be manipulated in order to impose ideologies on the population; it should remain neutral. “Neutral” means that the government shouldn’t favor or penalize a heteronormative view of sexuality or any other type of view. The people should decide which view they think is more reasonable and convincing.
[1] This survey was conducted by CBRC, a pro-LGBTQ think tank, and was obviously produced retrospectively to supply the government with the evidence they badly needed at that time. The survey comes to the preliminary conclusion that approximately 47,000 people were subjected to a form of “conversion therapy” in Canada. There are many problems with this number. It is a mere extrapolation of the sample of 7,259 people who answered the survey, but it is often thrown at city councils as fact, giving the impression that 47,000 people answered the survey. The same survey estimated that in 2012 20,000 people were subjected to conversion therapy. We are then led to believe that this practice has more than doubled in eight years – but has it really? To be trustworthy, a survey has to be representative of the population, random and non-biased. The “Sex Now” survey fails on all of these criteria, but the last of these should be of the greatest concern to the government. CBRC is obviously biased, and if the government wants to have a clear and objective idea of how much people have been subject to conversion therapy, this survey should not be the only piece of evidence they use.
BY Ricardo FortunéFree to Care
https://www.freetocare.ca/blog/is-there-a-need-to-ban-conversion-therapy-in-canada
https://www.freetocare.ca/blog/is-there-a-need-to-ban-conversion-therapy-in-canada