Could the UK’s Proposed Conversion Practices Bill Breach Human Rights

Listen to Post

Disclaimer: This article is published for educational, journalistic and public-interest purposes. It examines the proposed Conversion Practices Bill in England and Wales, relevant UK legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and concerns raised during parliamentary scrutiny. The legislation remains in draft form as of 30 October 2026. References to potential human rights breaches are legal arguments and concerns, not findings by a court that the Bill is unlawful. The article does not endorse coercion, violence, psychological abuse or discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. Everyone deserves protection from abuse, dignity, autonomy and freedom from degrading treatment. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice.

Stop the Conversion Therapy Ban

Examining the Draft Conversion Practices Bill 2026, Dennis Kavanagh‘s ECHR Warnings, Parental Rights, Freedom of Speech, Religious Liberty and the Rule of Law. When Protecting People From Harm Raises Questions About Fundamental Freedoms and Criminalisation On Ordinary Conversations?

The UK Government’s proposed Conversion Practices Bill has reignited a debate about the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals from harmful practices and safeguarding fundamental human rights.

On 29 October 2026, criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh, representing the Gay Men’s Network, gave evidence to the Joint Committee examining the draft legislation.

During his evidence, Kavanagh raised serious concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Free Speech Union has also launched a petition titled Stop the Conversion Therapy Ban, arguing that the proposed legislation risks criminalising conversations involving parents, therapists and religious leaders.

The Government, however, maintains that its proposals are intended to prohibit abusive conversion practices while preserving legitimate healthcare, religious expression and other forms of support.

The central question is therefore not whether abuse should be prohibited. Abuse should never be tolerated.

The question is whether the proposed legislation defines criminal conduct clearly enough to protect people from harm without unnecessarily restricting lawful speech, private family life, religious beliefs and personal autonomy.

What Is Conversion Therapy?

Conversion therapy, also referred to as conversion practices, describes attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Historically, practices have included:

• Physical violence or intimidation.
• Psychological manipulation and humiliation.
• Threats, coercion and emotional abuse.
• Attempts to force individuals to deny or change their sexual orientation.
• Religious or purported therapeutic interventions intended to change a person’s identity against their wishes.

Such practices can cause significant psychological harm.

However, it is important to distinguish abusive conduct from supportive, exploratory or ordinary conversations in which individuals discuss their beliefs, concerns or personal circumstances.

This distinction lies at the centre of the current legislative debate.

What Does the Draft Conversion Practices Bill 2026 Actually Propose?

The Government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill on 25 June 2026, applying to England and Wales.

The Bill proposes three criminal offences relating to abusive conversion practices and a system of civil conversion practice protection orders.

Its principal provisions include:

Clause 1: Definition of Conversion Practices

Defines conversion practices by reference to conduct intended to cause someone to have, not have, or believe they have or do not have a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity.

It also establishes the meaning of abusive conversion practices and exclusions relating to certain healthcare services.

Clause 2: Criminal Offence

Creates an offence involving abusive conversion practices that cause serious harm, alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on the individual’s usual day-to-day activities.

Clause 3: Conduct Outside England and Wales

Addresses encouraging or assisting abusive conversion practices performed outside England and Wales.

Clause 4: Protection Orders

Introduces civil protection orders intended to prevent individuals from being subjected to conversion practices.

Clause 5: Organisational Liability

Addresses offences involving corporate and unincorporated bodies.

The Government describes these measures as necessary to address gaps in existing criminal law.

Critics argue that some of the terminology could create uncertainty about which conversations or interventions cross the criminal threshold.

Importantly, causing someone ordinary upset or disagreement is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the proposed Clause 2 offence. The additional statutory elements, including the required adverse effect on day-to-day activities, matter.

Nevertheless, concerns remain about how these provisions might be interpreted, investigated and enforced.

Dennis Kavanagh’s Warning: Five Articles of the ECHR Potentially Affected

During parliamentary evidence on 29 October 2026, Dennis Kavanagh argued that the draft legislation presented significant human rights risks.

His concerns focused on five Convention rights:

Article 7: No Punishment Without Law

Article 7 of the ECHR protects individuals from being convicted or punished for conduct that was not sufficiently defined as criminal at the relevant time.

Criminal offences must be accessible and reasonably foreseeable.

Example in everyday life:

Imagine parents discussing their teenager’s gender identity.

They ask questions, express concerns and suggest that their child take time before making major decisions.

The parents believe they are providing ordinary parental guidance.

If the statutory definition of abusive conversion practices is insufficiently clear, they may struggle to determine whether a particular conversation could expose them to investigation or prosecution.

Kavanagh argued that parents should be able to understand the criminal law without needing to wait for future guidance or court decisions.

Legal concern: A criminal offence drafted too vaguely could raise questions under Article 7 and the common-law principle of legal certainty.

However, a disagreement or parental conversation would not automatically constitute an offence under the draft Bill.

Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

Article 8 protects private life, family relationships, personal autonomy and aspects of an individual’s identity.

This protection extends to both parents and children, although their interests may sometimes conflict.

Example in everyday life:

A parent is concerned about their child’s wellbeing and wants to discuss the potential consequences of a proposed medical intervention.

The child may feel distressed by the discussion.

Should the state intervene merely because a difficult conversation has taken place?

Alternatively, what if a parent uses intimidation, threats or coercion to control a child’s identity or personal decisions?

Article 8 requires consideration of the rights and interests of everyone involved.

Kavanagh warned that the proposed legislation could interfere with family relationships and parental decision-making.

Legal concern: Any interference with Article 8 must have a lawful basis, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate.

Protecting children and vulnerable individuals from abuse is a legitimate aim. The legal debate concerns whether the proposed restrictions go further than necessary.

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Article 9 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to hold religious or philosophical beliefs.

The freedom to hold beliefs is absolute. The freedom to manifest those beliefs may be subject to lawful and proportionate restrictions.

Example in everyday life:

An adult voluntarily approaches a religious leader for guidance about their sexuality or identity.

They ask for prayer and wish to discuss their faith.

A genuine concern would arise if a broadly drafted law discouraged voluntary religious conversations that do not involve coercion or abuse.

However, religious freedom does not create an unrestricted entitlement to intimidate, threaten or psychologically abuse another person.

Legal concern: The Bill must distinguish protected religious expression from conduct that legitimately warrants criminal sanction.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

Article 10 protects freedom of expression, including the right to express opinions that others may find controversial or disagreeable.

It is not an absolute right.

Restrictions may be justified to protect the rights, health and safety of others, provided they meet the Convention’s legal requirements.

Example in everyday life:

A teacher, counsellor or parent expresses a sincerely held opinion about sex or gender.

Another person strongly disagrees.

Does disagreement amount to unlawful conduct?

Not ordinarily.

A democratic society must allow disagreement, debate and discussion.

However, expression forming part of a sustained course of abusive or coercive conduct may raise different legal considerations.

Legal concern: If people cannot reasonably predict which conversations are lawful, they may avoid legitimate discussions altogether.

This is commonly described as a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination

Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights protected by the Convention.

It operates alongside other Convention rights rather than as a completely independent general equality guarantee.

Example in everyday life:

Two parents express different philosophical beliefs about gender identity.

Both engage in non-abusive conversations with their children.

If the law were applied differently to them solely because of their protected beliefs, questions could arise under Article 14, read together with Articles 8, 9 or 10.

Kavanagh specifically raised concerns about the treatment of people holding gender-critical beliefs.

Legal concern: The legislation must be applied without unjustified discrimination while providing effective protection to LGBTQ+ people.

An Article 14 breach would require a proper legal assessment of differential treatment, relevant protected status and justification.

Could the Bill Be Declared Incompatible With Human Rights?

Dennis Kavanagh suggested that the legislation could be vulnerable to a declaration of incompatibility.

Under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, certain courts may declare that legislation is incompatible with Convention rights.

However, a declaration of incompatibility does not automatically invalidate an Act of Parliament.

This reflects the UK’s constitutional framework and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, courts must interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights so far as it is possible to do so.

Section 6 generally makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights, subject to statutory qualifications.

The important distinction is that a barrister’s warning about incompatibility is not the same as a judicial determination that legislation breaches human rights.

The Bill has not yet become law, and no court has determined that its provisions violate the Convention.

What Other UK Laws and Constitutional Principles Could Be Relevant?

The proposed legislation also raises questions about its relationship with existing law.

Human Rights Act 1998

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 3: Interpretation of legislation.
• Section 4: Declarations of incompatibility.
• Section 6: Acts of public authorities.
• Section 7: Proceedings involving Convention rights.

These provisions would be particularly important if an individual challenged the interpretation or enforcement of future legislation.

Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act protects individuals against unlawful discrimination in specified circumstances.

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 4: Protected characteristics.
• Section 6: Disability.
• Section 10: Religion or belief.
• Section 13: Direct discrimination.
• Section 19: Indirect discrimination.
• Section 20: Duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• Section 26: Harassment.
• Section 29: Provision of services and public functions.

Sexual orientation, sex, gender reassignment and religion or belief are among the protected characteristics under the Act.

A particular concern would arise if enforcement practices unlawfully discriminated against people because of their protected characteristics.

For example, a disabled person involved in an investigation might require reasonable adjustments to access a relevant service or process.

However, the Equality Act does not automatically prevent Parliament from creating criminal offences, and not every disagreement or upsetting conversation constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Children Act 1989

The Children Act 1989 provides an important framework for safeguarding children and considering their welfare.

Section 1 establishes the paramountcy of the child’s welfare in specified court decisions concerning upbringing.

Section 3 defines parental responsibility.

Example:

Parents may have legitimate concerns about a child’s wellbeing, but parental responsibility does not permit abuse or override every right and interest of the child.

The question is how future legislation would balance parental responsibilities with protection from coercive conduct.

Serious Crime Act 2015

Section 76 addresses controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, subject to its statutory conditions.

This is relevant because some conduct described as conversion practices may already constitute criminal behaviour.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Existing offences relating to physical violence and bodily harm can apply where someone is assaulted or injured.

A person cannot escape liability for violence merely by describing it as therapy or religious intervention.

Public Order Act 1986

This Act includes offences involving certain threatening or abusive conduct.

Its provisions may be relevant to some harmful behaviour, although they do not make every offensive opinion or private disagreement criminal.

Common-Law Principles

The following constitutional principles also matter:

The rule of law: Individuals should be governed by clear, publicly accessible laws rather than unpredictable exercises of power.

Legal certainty: People should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited.

Proportionality: Interference with qualified Convention rights must be justified and no more restrictive than necessary.

Access to justice: Individuals should have meaningful opportunities to challenge unlawful decisions.

Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament can enact primary legislation, but this does not eliminate the importance of constitutional scrutiny or human rights accountability.

These principles are not interchangeable with criminal offences. They provide the legal framework through which legislation and public authority decisions may be assessed.

Why Existing Criminal Laws Matter

One argument advanced by opponents of the Bill is that many of the most serious forms of conversion abuse are already unlawful.

Violence, sexual assault, unlawful imprisonment, harassment and certain forms of coercive control can already result in criminal liability.

This raises a legitimate question:

If abusive conduct is already prohibited in many circumstances, what additional behaviour does the Government intend to criminalise?

The Government’s answer is that existing law does not adequately capture every harmful conversion practice, particularly some forms of psychological abuse.

Supporters therefore argue that targeted legislation is necessary to close those gaps.

Opponents argue that new offences must be sufficiently precise to avoid capturing lawful counselling, parental guidance or religious discussion.

Both positions deserve careful parliamentary examination.

Disability, Mental Health and the Risk of Unintended Consequences

The debate also has implications for disabled people and individuals experiencing mental health difficulties.

Some people may have conditions affecting communication, emotional regulation, decision-making or their ability to participate in formal investigations.

For example, an autistic person might communicate in a direct way that others interpret differently from its intended meaning.

Someone with an anxiety disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder may experience significant distress when faced with uncertainty about whether their words could have legal consequences.

These considerations do not excuse abusive conduct.

They do, however, reinforce the need for clear statutory language, fair investigative procedures and appropriate reasonable adjustments.

The Equality Act 2010 may require reasonable adjustments in relevant public services and processes, while Article 6 of the ECHR protects the right to a fair trial where a criminal charge is involved.

Lawmakers must consider not only the intended benefits of legislation but also the possibility of unintended consequences for vulnerable individuals.

Public Law: Why Parliamentary Scrutiny Matters

Public Law examines how government power is created, exercised and controlled.

The draft Conversion Practices Bill provides a practical example of the constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Joint Committee examining the draft legislation is expected to report by 22 January 2027.

Its work provides an opportunity to assess whether the proposed offences are sufficiently clear, proportionate and compatible with fundamental rights.

A central constitutional question is whether Parliament has struck an appropriate balance between the protection of individuals from abuse and the preservation of civil liberties.

The rule of law requires more than good legislative intentions.

It requires legislation that can be understood, administered fairly and challenged through appropriate legal processes.

The Free Speech Union Petition: Stop the Conversion Therapy Ban

The Free Speech Union has launched a campaign calling for the proposed legislation to be stopped.

The organisation argues that the Bill could have unintended consequences for parents, therapists and religious leaders who engage in conversations about sexuality and gender.

The petition is available at:

https://freespeechunion.org/campaigns/conversion-therapy-petition

The petition represents a campaigning position, not an independent legal ruling.

Individuals considering signing should examine the Government’s draft legislation and the parliamentary evidence before deciding whether they agree with the campaign.

The public can also participate directly in the parliamentary scrutiny process.

The Joint Committee is accepting written evidence until 5 pm on 16 November 2026.

Conclusion: Protecting People From Abuse Must Not Come at the Expense of the Rule of Law

The debate surrounding the Conversion Practices Bill is not simply a disagreement about sexuality, gender or religious beliefs.

It raises fundamental constitutional questions about the relationship between the individual and the state.

Protecting people from coercion, violence and psychological abuse is a legitimate and important responsibility of government.

However, criminal legislation must also be clear, proportionate and compatible with fundamental rights.

Dennis Kavanagh’s evidence highlights concerns that deserve serious legal scrutiny, particularly regarding legal certainty, private and family life, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and discrimination.

Those concerns should not be dismissed merely because the Bill pursues a protective objective.

Equally, the genuine experiences of people harmed by conversion practices must not be overlooked.

The challenge for Parliament is to ensure that legislation protects vulnerable people without creating unjustified interference in lawful conversations, legitimate healthcare, family relationships or personal beliefs.

A democratic society should be capable of protecting individuals from abuse while also protecting their fundamental freedoms.

That is the balance Parliament must demonstrate before any proposed criminal legislation becomes law.

Sources and Further Reading

1. UK Government: Draft Conversion Practices Bill, published 25 June 2026: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-conversion-practices-bill
2. UK Parliament: Joint Committee on the Draft Conversion Practices Bill: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/10049/draft-conversion-practices-bill/
3. Free Speech Union: Stop the Conversion Therapy Ban: https://freespeechunion.org/campaigns/conversion-therapy-petition
4. Free Speech Union: Dennis Kavanagh’s parliamentary evidence and video: https://lnkd.in/p/e2ApWfFv
5. Human Rights Act 1998: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
6. Equality Act 2010: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
7. Children Act 1989: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents
8. Serious Crime Act 2015: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents
9. Offences Against the Person Act 1861: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents
10. Public Order Act 1986: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents