The House of Representatives agreed on Tuesday with a ban on so -called conversion therapies. LGBTI people would “cure” those controversial practices of their orientation. The proposal has been on the shelf for almost three years and now gets green light. But despite the festive spirit at interest group COC, there are also doubts.
“This is a victory!” The COC welcomes. The rainbow flag can be done at the interest group for LGBTI+ people. They hope that the ban will ensure that religious organizations stop seeing homosexuality as a disease. “You destroy people with this.”
The interest group also sees the adoption of the bill as recognition for LGBTI people who underwent the therapies. “There is nothing wrong with them, but with the people who visited them.”
Behind closed doors
Yet culture theologian Frank Bosman of Tilburg University fears that the ban will make little difference. “It is primarily a political signal that we should not want this as a country,” he says. “But little changes in practice.” According to him, these therapies mainly take place in small, closed religious communities where homosexuality is still seen as something that needs to be corrected.
Conversion therapies are not always ITDrijvers, he emphasizes. “It can also be in the form of a conversation. It is said in small groups: if you pray hard enough, you will get it out.” This almost always happens in a closed circle. “In both cases you create a climate where people see orientation as a disease.”
In the larger churches, such as the Protestant Church and the Roman Catholic Church, it is hardly found. “They have a self -correcting capacity. If something happens, the umbrella organization usually intervenes.”
What about that bill?
The bill took a long time before it was possible through the Lower House. Parties such as VVD, D66, SP, GroenLinks-PvdA and Party for the Animals wanted for years that the ban came. Nevertheless, there were still doubts at other parties.
For example, NSC, CDA and BBB found that the ban was too unclear and difficult to maintain. According to them, it is difficult to determine whether someone is actually forced to change his or her orientation.
With an adjustment in the bill, that came to an end. In order to be prosecuted, there must be long -term and systematic talk to people. A conversation with a pastor about orientation can therefore continue to exist.
According to Bosman, it is understandable that Christian parties have difficulty with the ban. “They are afraid that the government will interfere with what is preached within the church walls.” Yet most churches do not strongly resist the ban. “Then it seems like they approve the therapies. And they don’t want that either.”
Afraid of complications
The theologian states that large ecclesiastical communities are not necessarily against a ban. “But they look at the ban with caution,” he says. “Churches are afraid that they will experience the complications of it in the long term.”
Although he endorses the prohibition, Bosman thinks that enforcement is legally a difficult task. “With extensions and the more spectacular prayer healings, the punishability speaks for itself. But with therapies that mainly take place in talk form, that is very difficult to prove. It can actually be seen as a conversation.”
There are no precise figures about how many people undergo a conversion therapy per year, partly because it takes place in closed communities.
The Senate also has to insempt with the bill. That is expected to happen within a few months.