New Zealand has just introduced legislation that would ban LGBT conversion therapy in their country with a penalty of three to five years in prison.
The newly proposed bill would charge anyone performing practices intended to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
Conversion therapy has no place in New Zealand
In a statement, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said the proposed measures would end practices that do not work, are widely discredited, and cause harm.
“Conversion practices have no place in modern New Zealand,” Faafoi said.
He added, “They are based on the false belief that any person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is broken and in need of fixing.”
He pointed out that Health professionals, religious leaders, and human rights advocates here and abroad have spoken out against these practices as harmful.
He also said that these practices have the potential to perpetuate prejudice, discrimination, and abuse towards members of the LGBTQ communities.
New Zealand penalties versus conversion therapy
When New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ran for a second term last year, she had made ending conversion therapy in the country one of her campaign promises.
Under this bill, those who perform conversion practices on persons younger than 18 years old or on someone with impaired decision-making capacity could face up to three years imprisonment.
Likewise, if these practices cause anyone “serious harm,” they face up to five years imprisonment.
Faafoi said the bill has been “carefully designed” so that legitimate health services, counselling, and “general expressions of religious beliefs or principles about sexuality and gender” will not be captured.
He likewise said the definition of conversion practices under the law required that they were “performed with the intention of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”
The problem of definitions in the bill
Activist Shaneel Lal– who is campaigning against conversion practices in New Zealand– said the bill is welcome and has “potential for real change.”
However, Lal raised issues with the bill’s wording, like “serious harm” as this “implies that it is OK to cause harm, if it is not serious harm.”
These raise concerns that survivors would have to gather evidence required to show that serious emotional and psychological harm had been done to them.
Lal also said that proving intent was difficult from a legal perspective and this could make it hard for survivors to prove before the prosecution.
Moreover, Lal said the first offence should not have age limits as queer people could experience harm at any age.