Amendment of BANNING OF CONVERSION THERAPY ACT 2020
-
BANNING OF CONVERSION THERAPY ACT
PREAMBLEConversion therapies based on sexual orientation, disability, neuro-type and gender identity are harmful towards the disabled , neurodivergent, LGBTQ+ people all around the European Union. Not only can these practices lead to severe mental illnesses, trauma and suicidal behaviour on the victim, but their validity is often questionable, as there is little to no proof that these practices work as intended.
DEFINITIONS
I. Conversion therapy: The practices of changing a person's sexual orientation, disability , neuro-type or gender identity by fraud, pressure or force.
SECTION I - RECOGNITION OF CONVERSION THERAPY
I. The European Union recognizes all forms of conversion therapies as torture and abuse.
II. This act recognises any negative reinforcement in therapies as torture and abuse.SECTION II - ENSURING PROTECTION
I. It is the duty of member states and their governments to protect people from conversion therapies and other practices based around conversion therapies. The member state and their government shall uphold this duty by ensuring that these practices are not performed.
II.The act does not ban therapies to help with an issue that genuinely affects the wellbeing and functioning of a disabled or neurodivergent person or their ability to live a successful independent lifeSECTION III - IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
I. Member states shall close all services involving conversion therapy in the next 3 months after the passage of this Act. Member states shall ensure that no institutions may continue to practice conversion therapy.
II. It shall be an illegal and punishable offence in all member states to provide or practice services involving conversion therapy.
III. All member states of the European Union are required to adjust their national law(s) with this Act in 3 months from its approval by the European Council.My proposed amendments extend the protections of the act to the disabled and neuro-divergent. It does not ban legitimate therapies this is solely to protect people like my autistic son from the horrors of ABA which as in the case of my son have caused high levels of PTSD equivalent to those suffered by the LGBTQ community. I recognise there is already a ban in place through the European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act 2020 but this will just strengthen those rights specifically in case of so called therapies.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
Debate begins NOW and will continue until 10:43 GMT on July 17th, 2024.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I do not support this amendment, not because I am against the intent behind it, but because I don't think this is the act we should be amending regarding this issue, particularly when we have the European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act of 2020, as mentioned by Councillor Roscoe himself, strangely enough.
The term "conversion therapy" refers to a specific type of therapy which specifically focuses on changing one's sexual orientation or gender identity, not neurodivergence. If there is a loophole of any sort that allows any harmful practices for neurodivergent children under the guise of therapy, it is that act which should be examined and amended as such, not this one.
Devon Albert
Interim Councillor for The State of Elthize -
There is also protections in the act I mentioned however the reason I specifically chose to amend this act is this covers essentially the same therapy. The history of ABA is that it was adapted from gay conversion therapy to the point its actually nicknamed "Autistic conversion therapy" in the Autistic community whom I am in touch with reguarly. Therefore just adding a few words to this act would cover gay conversion therapy, trans conversion therapies and also any other general conversion therapy.
This is why I adapted this act this way. I hope this can give context as to the reasoning behind adopting a change to this act over the Neurodivergent rights act. I also didn't want to open up the European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act 2020 for fear of malicious actors attempting to use the opening up to expand such rights to amend the act to weaken autistic and neurodivergent rights in that act as I am aware that act is a target for those with the agendas of weakening disabled and neuro-divergent rights therefore this seems the best way to achieve more robust protections.
James Mizrahi-Roscoe , IAC Commissioner
-
I do not support this amendment - it is redundant and simply not as well written as the prohibition in the NDA.
Section I, clause II, for example, would ban the use of aversion therapy in treating addiction, even in the presence of Section II, clause II. Section II, clause II itself is so vague - what is the benchmark for "genuinely affects?" - that it could provide a legal avenue for cranks to attempt to impose bans on controversial drugs with genuine use cases in the treatment of mental disorders, from amphetamines to GLP-1 agonists. It is also entirely possible that the definition of conversion therapy provided could give the legally incompetent, particularly those who find themselves under a conservatorship or guardianship because they would otherwise self-harm as a result of mental disorder, a path to endanger themselves. And this is without mentioning the possible negative political effects of equating having certain mental disorders, like ASPD, with being a sexual or gender minority.
As an aside, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that opposition to the NDA was so high because of an opposition to rights for the sick, disabled, and neurodivergent - if I remember correctly, that act in its original form was plagued with sweeping vagueness, accidentally requiring states and employers to overlook genuine infirmity, mental or otherwise, in any and all decisionmaking, undermining the democratic process, the good functioning of business, and the health of the ill or impaired.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen