In December 2016 Malta became the first country in Europe to ban homosexual conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy or sexual orientation change efforts. Under the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Act, anyone found guilty of trying to “change, repress or eliminate a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression” will face fines or a jail sentence.
Undoubtedly, the central motivation of this regressive and draconian law was a politically-driven and vote-catching exercise on both sides of the House. The upshot is harming the best interests of the adults and minors who experience same-sex attraction or gender identity conflicts.
Prior to the enactment of the Act, a Church panel of seven learned experts published a position paper on the proposed law criminalising the controversial gay homosexual conversion therapy. This document immediately drew the ire of the LGBTIQ community and the Malta Gay Rights Movement, labelling the Church’s position “fundamentally flawed”.
The Prime Minister said the position paper was biased on an underlying premise that homosexuality could be an illness or is linked to paedophilia.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna suddenly was in the eye of the storm. He said that any therapy that went against people’s wishes was unacceptable. Most importantly, he wisely urged the public to read the document in its entirety before drawing any conclusions.
My reading of the position paper leads me to believe that this constructive and comprehensive document is devoid of overt or covert homophobic or transphobic elements, or any suggestion of homosexuals being mentally deranged or paedophilic.
Malta’s professional bodies, meaning psychologists, psychiatrists, family therapists and counsellors had been commissioned to draft the Bill. Whether they consulted at any stage of their deliberations the 2009 American Psychological Association (APA) report titled ‘Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation’ is a moot point.
Assuming they performed this onerous task, they would have discovered that all seven had engaged in homosexual activism before their selection for the task force panel.
As if that were not bad enough, the APA had rejected for membership on the panel every practitioner of sexual-reorientation therapy who had applied for inclusion.
Commenting on this biased state of affairs, the late clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi said: “The fact that the task force was composed entirely of activists in gay causes, most of whom are also personally gay, goes a long way toward explaining their failure to be scientifically objective.” The same author called the APA task force report a mockery of science.
Avoiding conflict of interest in order to achieve sound, unbiased science is in the vested interest of the professional bodies as well as the public.
‘A Critical Evaluation of the Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, Resolutions, and Press Release’ written jointly by James E. Phelan, Arthur Goldberg, and Christopher Doyle, is a must read, particularly by Malta’s professional bodies that presumably form part of larger bodies such as the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and others.
The authors of the critical evaluation say that many concerns surfaced when they analysed the report within the context of a methodological, clinical, and ethical framework.
The central motivation of this regressive and draconian law was a politically-driven and vote-catching exercise
Nicholas A. Cummings served as president of the APA for several years. He is the man who had led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness. He asserts that the APA has not only become politically correct but that its political correctness rules, not science.
The position taken by Malta’s professional bodies lacks conviction and credibility. They should leave no stone unturned in reviewing their recommendations and advising the political class that the law calls for a radical rethink.
First, freedom of choice should govern one’s sexual orientation.xxxxxx The resolve and decision to seek treatment concerning sexual orientation, behaviour and identity, should be solely the patient’s. A patient should not be manipulated by any special interest group, worse still by the political class for their own selfish ends.
Second, the law is patently dishonest and discriminatory. It favours persons who question their sexual orientation to undergo affirmative therapy, but forbids helping others to resist, overcome, or change attractions, behaviours, or self-identification, even if this is what the person wants or requests.
Third, the law is an affront to the integrity of therapists. It denies them a tool they can use to assist persons, particularly distressed children, who are most in need of compassion, not politically correct treatment.
Fourth, children with a history of sexual abuse and a feeling of being ‘born that way’ are subject to potentially ending up depressed, anxious, and riddled with suicidal thoughts. In turn, their parents and families are subject to excessive distress over the plight of their children.
Fifth, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child clearly states that: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration.”
The homosexual justification for anti-conversion therapy is clearly mirrored in the myth “born that way”. Mark Joseph Stern, a lawyer and writer on LGBTQ issues claims that “homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait”. There is undeniably insufficient scientific evidence in support of this claim.
In Sexuality and Gender, Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences, renowned academics Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh write that while genetic and innate factors may influence the emergence of same-sex attraction, these biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation, and environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.
The law that bans sexual orientation therapy takes freedom away from therapists, from parents, and persons desiring help. The law is an affront to truth and freedom.
If a dispute goes to the Constitutional Court it would be an important test case.
Frank Muscat is a retired Inner and North London Panel of Guardians-ad-litem and Reporting Officers and Law Society Child Care Panel Interviewer (London).