How Trudeau’s proposed ‘conversion therapy’ ban is a covert assault on religious freedom
October 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The promoters of bill C-6, a bill introduced early this year by the Trudeau liberals which seeks to suppress so-called “conversion therapy” from homosexuality to heterosexuality, are in a bit of a bind. Why? Because their hopelessly flawed bill enshrines two contradictory doctrines and leads to the unconstitutional establishment of an LGBT confessional state.
Let us start with the contradictory doctrines enshrined in C-6. The first is what can be called the “nature” theory of homosexual orientation. In the mind of the proponents of C-6, the best defense of “gay rights” is the affirmation that there is what could be called a “gay gene” or, in other words, a biological determination of sexual orientation against which it would be absurd to fight. (Now, this is actually in itself a bad argument, because even if there was a gay gene — which there is not —, one could still fight it, just as one could fight any other condition that had a genetic component, like alcoholism, for example.)
Conversion therapy is therefore bad, and cruel, they say, because it goes against a person’s nature, his so-called innate sexual orientation. Therapy, in their mind, can only lead to repression of one’s nature, to becoming twisted and maladjusted.
Now, along comes another doctrine, gender theory, which is the exact opposite of the “nature” theory of homosexual orientation. Gender theory says that one’s identity is independent of one’s biological nature, that identity is independent of biology. Let us spell this out even further: according to gender theory, not only one’s orientation, but one’s whole gender, attitudes, behavioral patterns, manner of thinking and acting, is completely detached from biology. So, in fact, proponents of gender theory at the very least state that biology does not determine orientation.
Clearly, therefore, homosexual “nature” theory and gender theory, both of which happen to be nonsense in themselves, are also incompatible with each other. And yet, C-6 enshrines both, at least implicitly, because, while it suppresses conversion therapy on the basis that one’s orientation cannot change (calling a “myth” the fact that a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity can change), it permits “gender transition” and “a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development” on the basis that one’s sexual identity is not biologically determined.
This incoherence in itself should be reason enough to reject this bill. But it gets worse, since we quickly see that there is method behind this madness. Behind the incoherence is a dark, unavowed motive, which is to eliminate religious freedom in practice while keeping it “on the books” in theory, that is, without explicitly striking this right from the Constitution.
How do the promoters of C-6 aim to abolish religious freedom? We can find out by asking this simple question: how can the promoters of this bill, who surely profess to be fair and balanced, who profess the right for people to choose their own path in life, then turn around and say that a person with same-sex attraction cannot “explore his identity and its development” in the heterosexual direction? Remember, they cannot answer, in the manner of a proponent of the “nature theory” of sexual orientation, “because same-sex attracted persons are ‘born that way,’” because, according to gender theory, which they also espouse, biology doesn’t have the last word on what “identity” a person is free to choose.
This lack of logical consistency, which allows the promoters of C-6 to favor “transition” (conversion?) or “exploration” only in one direction, to the LGBT lifestyle, must therefore have an underlying motive. What could it be? Well, the promoters of this bill must know that the main reason why people would choose to “explore” in the direction of heterosexuality is for the sake of a deeply held, alternative, moral and religious conviction, shared by Christianity, Judaism and Islam, among many other traditions, that homosexuality is wrong. The promoters of this bill hate this religious viewpoint. They want to get rid of this religious viewpoint. But they cannot so easily get rid of it, given the constitutional protections afforded to freedom of religion.
Since they cannot abide any doctrine questioning homosexuality and cannot ban these directly (for now), they seek to criminalize conversion away from homosexuality, thus accomplishing in practice what they cannot accomplish in theory. Religious discrimination is therefore the real reason why C-6 is being so zealously promoted, by zealots allowing conversions only to what they believe should be the state religion, and criminalizing conversions away from it.
But notwithstanding its Anglican tradition, Canada is not a confessional state. Canada, as per its Constitution, does not accept the criminalization of religious and moral convictions, in the name of an “official” LGBT faith. Let no one, therefore, be fooled: C-6 is nothing more, nothing less, than the establishment, by stealth, of a confessional LGBT state in Canada, a state which favors conversions to its viewpoint while criminalizing conversions away from it.
For that reason alone, C-6 ought to be rejected.