The government has retracted its decision to U-turn on introducing a new law that bans conversion therapy in the UK.
Former Prime Minister Theresa May had initially promised back in 2018 that the highly controversial practice – which attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity – would be outlawed in the UK, just like is in many other countries across the globe.
“We will ban conversion therapy to prevent these abhorrent practices which can cause mental and physical harm,” vowed May in 2018.
“The ban will eliminate coercive practices which cause mental and physical harm to individuals and we will ensure the action we take to stop this practice is proportionate and effective and does not have unintended consequences.”
“People should be free to be themselves in the UK,” she concluded.
ADVERTISEMENT
If you’re unfamiliar with what the practice involves, conversion therapy – which is also sometimes called cure therapy or reparative therapy – refers to any form of treatment or psychotherapy, ranging from forms of therapy and prayer, to more extreme acts such as “exorcisms, physical violence and food deprivation”, that aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or suppress a person’s gender identity.
The government has now retracted its decision to U-turn on banning conversion therapy in the UK / Credit: Manchester Pride
It has, understandably, generated significant backlash, with LGBT charity Stonewall saying it is based on an assumption that being lesbian, gay, bi or trans is a mental illness that can be “cured”.
ADVERTISEMENT
The NHS and other professional bodies have warned that all forms of conversion therapy are “unethical and potentially harmful”.
“While ‘conversion therapy’ does not work, it is still extremely harmful, causing severe psychological damage to victims and survivors of this practice, and reinforcing the myth that there is something inherently wrong with being LGBTQ+ and that we can and should be brought out of existence,” added Dr. Christopher Owen – Inclusivity Development Manager at Manchester Pride.
Current Prime Minister Boris Johnson had previously agreed to continue with May’s promise to bring forward legislation that bans conversion therapy – especially after there was outrage from campaigners, organisations, and celebrities – but early on Thursday evening, reports began emerging and several news outlets were said to have been informed by a government spokesperson that ministers had decided to drop the ban.
They would, instead, “proceed by reviewing how existing law can be deployed more effectively”.
Conversion therapy attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity / Credit: Unsplash
A Downing Street briefing paper entitled “conversion therapy handling plan”, seen by ITV News on Thursday, said: “The PM has agreed we should not move forward with legislation to ban LGBT conversion therapy.”
The briefing warned of a “noisy backlash from LGBT groups and some parliamentarians when we announce we do not intend to proceed” – and the LGBT sector will see it “as a signal the government is uninterested in LGBT issues”.
News of the decision to scrap the ban had been heavily criticised since it broke, with Labour MP Chris Bryant, who is gay, most-notably calling it “a terrible betrayal of a promise and of a whole community”.
ADVERTISEMENT
“So-called conversion therapists pray on tender hearts and do immeasurable harm,” he added.
After years of delay in which LGBTQ+ people in the UK have continued to suffer as a consequence of conversion practices, it's devastating to hear that the UK government is again breaking its promise to our communities, walking away from its commitment to end conversion therapy.
Labour’s Anneliese Dodds also tweeted in response to the initial reports that it was an “outrageous decision”, adding that “a government that believes conversion therapy is acceptable in 21st Century Britain is no friend of the LGBT+ community.”
And Liberal Democrat equalities spokesperson, Wera Hobhouse, said it was “giving the green light to a form of torture in the UK”.
However, only about three and a half hours later after announcing its decision to U-turn, a Downing Street spokesman told Sky News, and other news outlets, that the government will in fact ban conversion therapy.
But controversially, it will only ban gay conversion therapy, not trans conversion therapy.
ADVERTISEMENT
The NHS and other professional bodies have warned that all forms of conversion therapy are “unethical and potentially harmful” / Credit: Unsplash
This has, of course, been met with criticism from some MPs and charities, with Rainbow Project notably saying any ban that didn’t include transgender people was “not a real ban”.
Labour MP Nadia Whittome also tweeted following the retracting of the U-turn that: “Boris Johnson has U-turned again after the strength of feeling and will ban conversion therapy for cisgender lesbian, gay and bisexual people but not trans people.
“It’s still not good enough. LGB comes with the T, and the Tories are not on our side.”
Independent review into police actions during Manchester synagogue terror attack finds ‘no misconduct’
Emily Sergeant
An independent review into the terror attack at a synagogue in Crumpsall last week has concluded there was ‘no misconduct’ by the police.
The investigation was carried out by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following the shocking knife and car attack, which took place last Thursday 2 October on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue.
Two men sadly lost their lives during the attack – Adrian Daulby, 53, who is believed to have been shot dead by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) while trying to stop the attacker from entering the synagogue, and Melvin Cravitz, 66, a worshipper who also helped stop the attacker.
The attacker has been named as 35-year-old Jihad al Shamie – a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent who lived in Prestwich – who at the time was on bail for an alleged rape, before being shot dead by police.
Statement from Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson following an update from the Independent Office for Police Conduct. This comes after last week's attack at Heaton Park Synagogue. pic.twitter.com/5tQQKeNaTh
The IOPC says its investigation is ‘mandatory’ in situations where police use of force may have resulted in the death of a member of the public.
Their investigation looked at the actions and decision-making of the officers involved in the incident.
“Over the coming days, we will continue to review the substantial amount of evidence gathered up to now, and will begin the process of obtaining more detailed statements from police witnesses,” the IOPC said in a statment.
GMP’s Chief Constable, Sir Stephen Watson, says he ‘welcomes’ the IOPC’s finding that no misconduct is apparent in the actions required of officers in ‘bringing this dreadful attack to an end’.
An independent review into police actions during the Manchester synagogue terror attack has found ‘no misconduct’ / Credit: GMP
He said in a statement addressing the matter: “Our thoughts will always be with the families and loved ones of those directly affected by this tragedy together with the wider community across Greater Manchester and beyond. Our significant presence and determination to protect everyone from all faith communities across our city region will continue unabated.”
With the IOPC’s investigation into the incident still ongoing, CC Watson assured ‘GMP is committed to openness, transparency, and candour’.
“In respect of all our previous dealings with [al Shamie], and we have therefore asked the IOPC to include this aspect in their ongoing review,” CC Watson continued.
“This includes previous reports of harassment, and an arrest for reports of rape over the past year, for which he was on bail at the time of the attack.”
Featured Image – GMP
News
Breakaway competition R360 issues statement after rubgy unions warn players of sanctions
Danny Jones
Prospective breakaway competition R360 have issued a response to the joint statement from multiple countries’ rugby unions, which has warned players of sanctions should they choose to join the new league.
While the vast majority seemingly remain opposed to the new concept, backing from certain key figures has resulted in the likes of the UK and Irish rugby unions, along with other key nations, sharing their unified stance against the potential rival.
Put in the simplest terms, the R360 model is rugby’s equivalent of what the proposed European ‘Super League’ was for football just a few years ago, with similar questions being raised around how it could jeopardise existing contests, player wellbeing and more.
Now, though, the new format – which has been largely backed and developed by former World Cup winner with England, Mike Tindall – delivered its own reply on Wednesday, 8 October.
Shared publicly to the press, the alternative tournament wrote: “It’s not always easy to embrace new opportunities, but as we’ve seen throughout history, it’s essential for any sport to grow. So many players love what R360 can do for them and the game, and we can’t wait to kick off next year.
“Player welfare is one of the key reasons for creating our global series, which will greatly reduce player load and capture the attention of a new generation of fans globally. We want to work collaboratively as part of the global rugby calendar.
“The series is designed with bespoke schedules for men’s and women’s teams and R360 will release all players for international matches, as written into their contracts. Our philosophy is clear – if players want to play for their country, they should have that opportunity. Why would the unions stand in their way?
“We look forward to submitting to the World Rugby Council for sanctioning next summer as planned.”
At present, R360 is due to hold its inagural season this time next year, with eight new male teams and four women’s sides expected to get underway from October 2026 onwards.
In addition to more lucrative contracts like those promised in the IPL (Indian Premier League) cricket, LIV Golf and the aforementioned albeit failed Super League, R360 is also set to offer a reduced playing schedule but one that would still tempt athletes away from their current teams to new franchises.
The national rugby unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy have released the following statement on the proposed R360 competition ⬇️#IrishRugby
Although they have assured player care is an utmost priority, their health and fitness is one of my concerns put forward by the total eight rubgy unions who have urged current pros to stay away from the breakaway competition.
In case you haven’t seen the statement release by England, Ireland and Scotland, as well as France, Italy, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, it begins by “urging extreme caution for players and support staff considering joining the proposed R360 competition.”
Assuring that they welcome “investment and innovation in rugby”, they feel this particular idea won’t improve the sport but could instead “fragment or weaken it.”
Having assessed the proposals supposed value/addition to the “rugby’s global ecosystem”, it seems the fear is that the outcome will be a “net negative to the game”, with little to no detail as to how it can run alongside existing fixtures, assure proper management of player welfare and more.
As for Wales, despite opting not to put their name to the open letter itself, they have stated publicly: “The Welsh Rugby Union supports this statement, and we’re considering changes we may need to make to qualification rules in Wales as part of ongoing analysis following our recent consultation process.”
The statement continues: “The R360 model, as outlined publicly, rather appears designed to generate profits and return them to a very small elite, potentially hollowing out the investment that national unions and existing leagues make in community rugby, player development, and participation pathways.”
It seems there is deep concern for how it could affect grassroots and the international rugby too, not just league and union, and have failed to full explain or help key organisations “better understand their business and operating model.”
Most notably, they sign off by adding: “Each of the national unions will therefore be advising men’s and women’s players that participation in R360 would make them ineligible for international selection.”
What do you make of the whole debate – do you like the current schedule/format as it is, or do you think there’s room for a new chapter in the rugby world?
Emily Sergeant -
1st April 2022 
