THE ARMOUR OF THE LGBTQI WARRIORS
The Political Weaponisation of “Gay Conversion Therapy” The Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, seems to be increasingly committed to following other states in banning ‘gay conversion therapy’. Just to be […]
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
The Political Weaponisation of “Gay Conversion Therapy” The Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, seems to be increasingly committed to following other states in banning ‘gay conversion therapy’. Just to be […]
The Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, seems to be increasingly committed to following other states in banning ‘gay conversion therapy’. Just to be completely clear, the report by The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) itself records that there is no evidence of this actually occurring. As a submission by the Australian Association of Christian Schools (AACS) categorically states:
AACS is not aware of any Tasmanian Christian school having been involved in, or having offered or supported, any form of coercive SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) conversion practices. It is important to clearly state that AACS does not support any coercive and abusive gay conversion practices. They are abhorrent. We acknowledge that some people have been deeply hurt through these terrible practices and they have no place in modern Australia. Whether there is a need for the Tasmanian Parliament to introduce new legislation to address these archaic practices is, however, questionable. There has been no compelling evidence
provided by the TLRI that these abusive practices remain in use in Tasmania. And if they were, they would be covered by existing health regulations and professional standards… [2.7.5]
With a report over 300 pages long, the TLRI is probably banking on hardly anyone reading it. But the practical ramifications for legal, social and cultural change are enormous.
The Tasmania Law Reform Institute’s work on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conversion Practices (April, 2022) will form the legal basis for the Tasmanian Parliament in deciding what legislative practices will be implemented. Significantly, the report recommends no less than sixteen(!) major changes:
Significantly, the only religious group that the TLRI sought a representative from was the Uniting Church of Australia. This really ‘bells the cat’ as to what conclusions the TLRI are seeking to find and subsequently legislate. The ‘progressive’ views of the Uniting Church on homosexuality are well-known.
The Institute defends the decision to consult only with them on the tenuous premise that the Uniting Church is already broadly accepting of “community members of all backgrounds and identities” as well as being “the nation’s largest non-government provider of community and health services”. This second point is highly debatable, indeed almost definitely false. That honour goes to the Roman Catholic Church, the major denomination in Australia which was not official consulted or represented in the final report.
The TLRI report allows for people to teach what the Bible says, as long as people are not helped to follow it. As 2.6.15 states:
[It is OK to] Believe and preach that sexual divergence from heterosexuality is ‘sinful’. That is not part of a conversion practice unless it is accompanied by assertions that a sexually divergent person can and should subject themselves to intervention to remove the ‘sin’.
This is condemning people of faith to hypocrisy. i.e. to believe and teach something that they have no intention of putting into practice. Significantly, this is a danger that Jesus Himself constantly warns against (Matt. 7:24-27) and condemns (Matt. 23:1-3).
In an attempt to counter the suspicion that the report “serves to unjustly discriminate or disproportionately target any social, political or religious group” [2.6.16], the TLRI argues that they are not targeting “classes of individuals” who hold to a particular belief, but “general classes of conduct that arise from a belief”. However, once again, this really begs the question. What “class of individual” believes one thing and practises another?
The report itself doubles down, saying that some religious beliefs lead to behaviour that is worthy of prosecution.
“For instance, laws on sedition, terrorism, domestic violence, hate speech, discrimination, blasphemy, and so on, are all responses to conduct grounded in ideological, religious or cultural beliefs which parliament(s) have considered are a risk to individuals or the community.” [2.6.16]
Can assisting someone to change from homosexual acts and desires really be equated with “sedition, terrorism, domestic violence and hate speech”?
The TLRI is aware that laws need to address “conduct rather than the underlying beliefs that motivate it.” They explicitly acknowledge this complexity as presented by the submission from Tasmania Police who wrote:
It should be noted that offences that require ideological motivations are likely to complicate the process of police investigation and prosecution for activities that otherwise constitute unlawful behaviour. The TLRI is correct, in the view of Tasmania Police, to assert that law enforcement agencies do not have the capacity or expertise to investigate or prosecute matters that require establishment of an ideological basis for an act…
Noting that the TLRI has not reached the stage of defining SOGI conversion practices for the purpose of law reform, Tasmania Police asks the TLRI to continue to be cognisant of the very real difficulties of investigating and prosecuting ideologies. [2.6.20]
It’s was only a little over a decade ago that the TV show Seinfeld did an episode in which the character of Kramer refuses to wear an Aids ribbon. Comedians seem to be more socially prescient than the rest of society. But what was once a joke, is quickly becoming no laughing matter.
This is because what has become clear is that the LGBTIQ+ community will now only accept total affirmation. Anything else is to be considered ‘harmful’ and therefore guilty of both criminal and civil prosecution. And as such, if Jeremy Rockliff does not take a truly liberal stand against this report then religious practitioners—such as me—will almost definitely be going to gaol within the next three years.
– Mark Powell