AP

WORDS AND CONVERSION PRACTICES

            To communicate in a world of communication, one needs to have something to communicate. Take, for example, the recent law in New South Wales which follows other states in banning conversion practices to do with sexual orientation and gender identity. On 13 March 2024 the Attorney-General, Michael Daley, read the bill for the second time. In his opening paragraph he was exuberant: ‘This is an historic day.’ He went on to say: ‘There is nothing wrong with LGBTQ+ people. They do not need to be fixed.’ But, said Mr Daley, ‘This bill represents a carefully balanced approach’. He praised his own bill as firstly, educative; secondly, providing for a civil complaints approach; and thirdly, a targeted criminal law response.  The constant refrain was that LGBTQ+ people are not broken, and do not need fixing.

            Sexual orientation and gender identity were each asserted to be on a spectrum. Only general expressions of religious beliefs, principles or teachings are allowed. We are assured that ‘Counsel and guidance can still be given, provided they are not directed to change or suppress.’ Daley explained that, for the ‘guilty’ party, ‘the person who provides or delivers the conversion practice must have the intention of changing or suppressing the other person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.’ The definition of a banned conversion practice ‘has been carefully crafted to ensure that it does not cover the expression of religious belief, including in prayer, if not directed to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity.’

            All that was supposedly delivered to clarify matters. Yet it does not seem to fit under the good proverb: ‘To make an apt answer is a joy to a man, and a word in season, how good it is!’ (Prov.15:23) Sexual orientation might include bestiality or adultery, maybe paedophilia. In the United Kingdom the famous or notorious Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), run by the National Health Service, was closed when it was revealed to too many people what was actually going on where the only philosophy seemed to be gender affirmation or get another job. Puberty blockers for children have also been banned in the UK, presumably on the grounds that one’s gender is not a matter akin to a biological kaleidoscope. Reality is a stubborn foe.

            Let us concentrate for now on the speech as it was delivered. The Thought Police are out and about, but one can only be reminded of George Orwell’s wonderful essay on ‘Politics and the English Language’ where he pointed out many defects: the ‘lack of precision’; ‘swindles and perversions’; and ‘sheer humbug’. His sad reflection was that ‘words and meaning have almost parted company’. It not obvious why he felt the need to use the word ‘almost’. The Attorney-General has graciously granted permission to pastors and parents to speak in general terms, but not to apply those principles to any specific case. Prayer too is allowed, provided one does not expect it to achieve anything.

            The whole speech, of course, was not designed to inform the reader but to soothe the voter.

– Peter Barnes