[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

Sure. I am all for offering those resources.

And you can make the "willing" claim for all sorts of things. Maybe the religions in question have people brainwashed since birth have have all sorts of social pressure and barriers from being able to leave. That might be true. But can you really have the government going to adults and saying that they know better about what is better for them? Well ok the government can say lots of things. I mean can the government go and use the power of the law to do that? That kind of thinking is how being a LGBTQ person got criminalized in the first place.

I think issuing public statements about that those programs are dangerous and are not based on science and so forth is enough. Or other "soft power" methods.

[Barrister]

The question is, if you have a willing patient and a willing 'therapist', should there be a criminal ban on so-called conversion therapy?

The delicate issue here is how "willing" are those patients who are already placed in a position of vulnerability.

Which is why governments must offer resources in school, and to the general public, for young (and less young) LGBTQ people.

You can put those resources into place, and still not ban conversion therapy.

I find it difficult to believe that even if you grow up in a fairly closed-minded religious community, that you could grow up and be an adult without becoming aware of LGBTQ groups and resources.

[Valmy]

I don't know man. Really insular religions do a great job brainwashing and isolating their members.

[HVC]

I find it difficult to believe that even if you grow up in a fairly closed-minded religious community, that you could grow up and be an adult without becoming aware of LGBTQ groups and resources.

You had me until here. There are some very closed off groups.

But even super insular groups can do their own thing when they're adults. Jehova Witnesses can refuse blood transfusion even if it kills them as adults, but they can't do it to kids. I see conversion therapy in the same light. adults do a bunch of crazy things legally, and as long as it doesn't harm a third party who can't legally consent I don't care.

[Malthus]

If the "therapy" is ineffective, yet has some adverse effects, it by definition does more harm than good and so prohibiting it is justified.

The real scandal is that so much else ought to fall within the same category - much so-called "alternative medicine" is ineffective and has some adverse effects, and so also ought to be prohibited.

Yet our government licences many such products rather than prohibiting them.

The reality is that this particular practice has no political friends at the moment and lots of foes, which makes prohibiting it politically painless. Try prohibiting harmful "natural health products" or denouncing quackery such as homeopathy, and it's a different story. Though at least homeopathy doesn't itself have adverse effects (it's just a placebo); the harm there is people think it works and so won't get real medicine. See for example "homeopathic vaccines".

The Canadian position on these makes literally no sense: Health Canada, the regulatory agency, licences them as "natural health products", but also insists they aren't an alternative to real vaccines. If so, why licence them? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-homeopathy-vaccine-hesitancy-1.5058393

[saskganesh]

Sounds like a great thing to ban. Those therapists are frauds.

NHPs are regulated because there is a recognition that they are generally safe, but may have adverse effects.  The regulations force a higher standard on production, manufacture and marketing, limit health claims and increase accountability.

[Barrister]

If the "therapy" is ineffective, yet has some adverse effects, it by definition does more harm than good and so prohibiting it is justified.

The real scandal is that so much else ought to fall within the same category - much so-called "alternative medicine" is ineffective and has some adverse effects, and so also ought to be prohibited.

Yet our government licences many such products rather than prohibiting them.

The reality is that this particular practice has no political friends at the moment and lots of foes, which makes prohibiting it politically painless. Try prohibiting harmful "natural health products" or denouncing quackery such as homeopathy, and it's a different story. Though at least homeopathy doesn't itself have adverse effects (it's just a placebo); the harm there is people think it works and so won't get real medicine. See for example "homeopathic vaccines".

This is more than "politically painless" - they're hoping that the Conservatives will oppose it (perhaps outlining the same arguments I am making), which will immediately allow the Liberals to try and paint them as being "anti-Gay".

And remember this is more than merely regulating conversion therapy - they're proposing to ban it criminally.

[Oexmelin]

You can put those resources into place, and still not ban conversion therapy.
I find it difficult to believe that even if you grow up in a fairly closed-minded religious community, that you could grow up and be an adult without becoming aware of LGBTQ groups and resources.

What HVC said. There are tons of groups out there - precisely the kind of groups who would sponsor "conversion" therapy - that will do their utmost to shield their children from such resources. Hence the importance of school/official resources, including training good school counselors. 

I myself am unsure whether or not the full force of a ban is justified. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that ought to require political denunciation rather than a legal one - but I am less optimistic than Malthus as to how strenuously they will indeed be denounced.

[Malthus]

Sounds like a great thing to ban. Those therapists are frauds.

NHPs are regulated because there is a recognition that they are generally safe, but may have adverse effects.  The regulations force a higher standard on production, manufacture and marketing, limit health claims and increase accountability.

NHPs are, in some cases, quite fraudulent. Homeopathy is straight-up magic, for example.

There is certainly an argument available that regulation is better than banning, because at least with regulation, you can enforce some sort of standards; otherwise the activity could go on, only without any standards.

Mind you, the same argument applies to things like "conversion therapy". To my mind, they are no different: both are fraudulent, in that the claims made are not objectively true.

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

[crazy canuck]

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

[Zoupa]

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

Bingo

[Barrister]

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

Lots of people have destructive assumptions about themselves though.  That they're not good enough, or smart enough, or pretty enough.

We don't ban cosmetic surgery just because someone thinking they don't look good enough is a "destructive assumption".

[crazy canuck]

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

Lots of people have destructive assumptions about themselves though.  That they're not good enough, or smart enough, or pretty enough.

We don't ban cosmetic surgery just because someone thinking they don't look good enough is a "destructive assumption".

The analogy is deeply flawed.  I am too busy for a lengthy response but I will simply start with pointing out that discrimination in the basis of sexual orientation is illegal. 

[Grey Fox]

@ CC Why are you up @ 5 am & already busy?!

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

Lots of people have destructive assumptions about themselves though.  That they're not good enough, or smart enough, or pretty enough.

We don't ban cosmetic surgery just because someone thinking they don't look good enough is a "destructive assumption".

Maybe we should. It is an unnecessary drain of healthcare ressources, even if it is private.

[Malthus]

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

The real issue in that debate is whether an internalized assumption that we as a society find obnoxious ought to be legislated against - so as to prevent an individual from attempting to leave a group they disfavour to join one they favour, where the "disfavoured" group is legally protected from discrimination.

That is of course a quite different objection from the one that the treatment is fraudulent. Assume purely for the sake of argument that it works as advertised. Presumably the impulse to ban it would be the same, according to this logic.

Also - by the same token - we ought to ban a whole industry of skin-lighteners and hair straighteners. Discrimination on the basis of race is prohibited. 

It's a reasonable position, but the objection to that point is that it isn't a particularly good use of the coercive power of the state to judge and condemn personal choices one makes of oneself. Anti-discrimination usually applies to actions or choices involving other people.

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.