He had to “take a swallow,” Alexander Noordijk admits. The 51-year-old pastor from Monnickendam had just finished a home visit to a member of the Protestant church in his hometown on Tuesday evening, when he called in the live stream of a parliamentary debate on conversion therapy.
For years, Noordijk has been fighting for a ban on such ‘homogenement’ and shared his own experiences several times in the press. He grew up in a Pentecostal church, at the age of 23 he fell in love with a boy. To get ‘get rid of’, he went to a ‘Christian psychiatrist’, who claimed that his homosexuality was a serotonin deficiency.
I estimate that perhaps a thousand people have suffered damage from this in recent years
And now MP Wieke Paulusma (D66) called him in the debate: “With this law we want people like Alexander […] protect, […] Because there are still people or organizations that perform this kind of practices. “
For a long time it did not seem that the House of Representatives would agree with a ban on such conversion practices, but on Tuesday evening three parties who were initially against were more positive. This is NSC, CDA and BBB. With that, a ban now seems to be coming. Three questions.
1
What does conversion therapy entail?
In some Orthodox Christian and Islamic religious communities, LGBTIQ+persons undergo certain forms of therapy that aims to change or suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity. How that works, varies. Sometimes it concerns conversations or sessions where ‘demons’ are ‘driven out’, in other cases electric shocks are administered.
Pastor Alexander Noordijk underwent three sessions of prayer healing. The elders of his church stood around him, he says. “I had to imagine that I was in my mother’s womb. I had to break through the fruiting weighing to be born again, as a straight.”
It is unclear how many Dutch people have undergone these types of treatments. Figures are missing, if only because for conversion there is no clear definition. Experts put in one research From 2020 for the Ministry of Health that fifteen people and organizations would be concerned with conversion therapy, but that at the same time it is not about clear ‘counters’ that can be closed.
Noordijk guides young people who have experienced ‘homogenement’ with six other experiential experts. “It happens more often than we think, I estimate that perhaps a thousand people have suffered damage from this in recent years.” With his team, Noordijk assists ‘dozens of people’. “That starts with listening, because we have experienced it ourselves, we know what they are talking about. We will send some people to mental health care.”
NSC and CDA found that the bill contained ‘vague concepts’, which could lead to’ action of action ‘by care providers’
2
Why were political parties against a ban?
Conversion therapy has been banned in recent years in countries such as Canada and New Zealand. In the Netherlands, D66, VVD, GroenLinks-PvdA, SP and Party for the Animals served three years ago bill In order to criminalize conversion therapy in minors and adults where the ‘practitioner’ is overcome. Providers of these treatments could receive a fine of a maximum of 22,500 euros or a year in prison.
The Council of State, which issues advice on every bill, showed an understanding of “the desire to combat conversion actions”, but raised questions about the necessity and feasibility of criminalization. Experts already warned that the prohibition can also have a counterproductive effect: young people would go less to assistance.
That criticism also sounded last February, when the House of Representatives debated for the first time about the initiative. NSC and CDA found that the bill contained ‘vague concepts’, which could lead to ‘deflection of action’ among care providers.
3
What has changed in the new bill?
Last Friday, the initiators of the law sent an amended proposal to the Chamber. They meet a few objections from NSC and CDA, for example the complaint that a single pastoral conversation could already be regarded as conversion therapy. The petitioners now emphasize that they are “systematic psychological pressure”. This does not include incidental conversations, “even if there is some psychological pressure on that person in such a conversation (sideways). The enforceability is also clarified: “It must always be proven that the actions performed have a systematic or other penetrating character.”
NSC, CDA and BBB were positive about these adjustments on Tuesday evening during the debate. CDA MP Derk Boswijk is happy that “the threshold has been raised”, so that incidental conversations with youth workers remain protected. He also sees “the desirability of the normative character” of the bill. NSC MP Jesse Six Dijkstra is talking about a ‘clear improvement’. NSC and BBB still submitted changes.
Next week the House of Representatives will vote on the proposal. To get a majority, support is needed from NSC, CDA and/or BBB.
Read also
Everyone is against ‘homogenement’ of young people, but politics is divided over a ban