The first reasonable response to which we referred in our original article, “Canada’s Conversion Therapy Bill C-4,” is from the Canadian Religious Freedom Summit, to which we will refer later. The second reasonable response is from a Canadian pastor. Pastor Paul Carter, a council member of The Gospel Coalition (TGC) of Canada, wrote a column titled “Bill C-4: History, Concerns, and Response.” In his first paragraph, Carter says:
On January 7th, 2022, Bill C-4 will become the law of the land in Canada. Christian pastors, parents, counsellors and mentors may all be affected. Canadian Christians need to understand this law and they should be prepared for coordinated action. This brief summary has been created to serve that end and should not be understood or construed as legal counsel.
Carter first gives the “Background and History” of Bill C-4 and then expresses his “Concerns About Bill C-4”:
In 2020, The Gospel Coalition Canada asked the Parliamentary Committee to clarify the definition of conversion therapy association with Bill C-6 [prior to C-4]. The concern was that the overly broad definition could lead to conversations between parents and children, or between pastors and congregants being criminalized. We further asked the Committee to clarify specifically what is meant by the terms “practice, treatment and service.” The wording of the approved Bill C-4 provided no such clarification. (Bold added.)
As such, it remains unclear to parents, pastors, counsellors and mentors how these terms ought to be understood. Assurances by lawmakers have been provided to constituents that the Bill only seeks to criminalize coercive efforts and coercive practices, treatments and services and that it would not apply to a person who sought out a pastor or mentor for help to live a chaste sexual lifestyle or to live in alignment with their biological sex. However, no such assurances appear in the language of the actual Bill. (Bold added.)
In reading Bill C-4, it is appropriate to see its possible dangers, and Christians should be concerned. But the concern should be directed at how the bill could be interpreted as to apply to everybody, including Christians. Yet too many have jumped to unwarranted conclusions about what the bill has said without knowing how Bill C-4 will be implemented and enforced. Instead, Christians first need to find out what it means for Christians and not what the application of the bill could be for psychotherapists.
Dr. John MacArthur has issued “A Call for Pastors to Stand United on Biblical Morality.” MacArthur refers to an email he received from Pastor James Coates and says:
James’s recent email gave me insight into the Canadian government’s decision to pass Bill C-4, which “directly comes against parents and counsellors who would seek to offer biblical counsel with respect to sexual immorality and gender.” James indicates that it could be used to “criminalize evangelism” (emphasis added).
MacArthur is wrong when he declares that Bill C-4 “directly comes against” and James is wrong in saying, “that it could be used to ‘criminalize evangelism.’” Notice the words could be. Again, these are tentative words. A few synonyms are “indefinite,” “unconfirmed,” and “uncertain.” While Bill C-4 has been enacted into law, the outcome of the bill’s enforcement against anyone other than licensed psychotherapists remains to be seen.
MacArthur then refers to a forwarded email that Coates had received from Pastor Andrew DeBartolo, who quotes from the Preamble to Bill C-4 and then says, “According to Canadian law, as of January 8, 2022, the belief in God’s design for marriage and sexuality will now be seen as a myth.” By whom? Certainly not Bible-believing Christians! The Preamble gives the reasons for the law and unfortunately could be used in interpreting the law.
It is the law itself and particularly the “Definition of conversion therapy” that is of ultimate concern. DeBartolo then quotes from the bill’s definition of “conversion therapy, and says,
The definition is intentionally broad, and it can clearly be used against any preacher or elder who either speaks against homosexuality/transgenderism or who counsels a person to obey Christ and abandon their homosexual/transgender actions and lifestyle. This means as of January 8, 2022, it will be against the law to preach, teach, or counsel regarding God’s design for marriage and sexuality. (Bold added.)
DeBartolo is again clearly in error. The Canadian Religious Freedom Summit Initiative was read aloud in churches by pastors all across Canada on January 9. The initiative reads in part:
With the Lord’s help, we will continue to proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) without fear or favour. This includes God’s life-giving design for human beings, made in His image, male and female (Genesis 1:27), with sexual intimacy reserved for the covenantal union of a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24).
These pastors spoke “against homosexual/transgenderism” and predictably no Canadian pastor was arrested.
On January 16, MacArthur and, with his beckoning, about 5,000 pastors across the United States, joining with him, rightly preached a sermon on “biblical sexual morality” in response to Canada’s Bill C-4. MacArthur reacted rightly by preaching on “biblical sexual morality,” but wrongly by using it to make false accusations against Bill C-4 when its application is unknown.
We know of no one to date who has been arrested or charged with a crime for their preaching or counseling the biblical truth about homosexuality, even though many LGBT friendly websites have indicated where both the state licensing laws and the conversion therapy ban laws in the US have been violated. And probably because conversion therapy bans, where they exist in the US, are aimed at state licensed therapists. They are not aimed at private parties or religious leaders.
It is too bad that these 5000 pastors would not be willing to speak out about banning all psychotherapy for Christians and to declare their confidence in the Word of God for believers to be conformed into the image of Christ, rather than listening to the words of sinful humans in their psychological attempts to improve the flesh, which is enmity against God and ultimately has no eternal value.
“Direct Threat to Religious Liberty”?
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently posted a Briefing on conversion therapy bans, titled “Direct Threat to Religious Liberty.” Mohler eloquently and eruditely explains the dire possibility of these bans, especially in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). However, like many other individuals, Mohler dramatically and drastically exaggerates the possibilities for the Bill C-4 enacted law in Canada and likewise for the proposed law in the UK
Mohler’s stringent claims in his Briefing, are reflective of a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is a statement that seems to be true until you apply the rules of logic and discover that it is not. The logical fallacy, of which Mohler is guilty in his Briefing, is the “Slippery Slope.”
The fallacy of slippery slope … involves a claim that a chain of causal events will occur. This fallacy is committed when a person argues that some event or practice he or she disapproves of [e.g., conversion therapy bans] will trigger a sequence of events ultimately leading to some undesirable consequence [e.g., ban against evangelizing homosexuals]. The reasoning is that since we do not want the undesirable consequence, we ought therefore to oppose the initial event or practice. The fallacy in the reasoning consists in the false assumption that the chain of events will in fact occur….
Mohler introduces the subject of his Briefing by saying:
I want us to look at headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, having to do with legislative bans on what is called conversion therapy. And here we see the intersection, indeed the collision between the LGBTQ ideology and biblical Christianity. It’s an unavoidable collision. We’ve seen that over and over again. And as we went into the end of the year 2021, just before Christmas, I mentioned that this particular development is one that will quickly demand our attention. How quickly? Right now. It’s of top priority. (Bold added.)
Throughout his Briefing Mohler’s inflamed remarks seem like a “five alarm fire” has enveloped the church!
Mohler presents the following to support what he says:
But the controversy over what’s called conversion therapy is directed not just at those official, professional medical and therapeutic context, but frankly, as are defined by the legislative proposals in both Canada and the United Kingdom, any effort to change someone’s sexual orientation.
He says the bans are directed at “any effort to change someone’s sexual orientation.” Throughout his Briefing “any effort” becomes a present reality for Mohler and an imminent invasion on religious and private liberties, i.e., religious liberties for Christians and private liberties of choice for those who seek conversion therapy (slippery slope). Although Mohler has provided examples of what couldbe, he gave no examples in his Briefing of what has happened. There is a great deal of difference between what could be and what is happening under Bill C-4 and what will happen to the coming UK law.
One cannot say what the outcome will be of the enacted law in Canada or the content of the proposed law in the UK when enacted. It is not yet known in Canada how Bill C-4 will be implemented and especially how “practice, treatment, or service” will be applied or to whom it may be directed. As we will explain later, though the psychotherapists will be restricted, it is doubtful that the bill will prevent churches and Christians’ efforts “to change someone’s sexual orientation.” Certainly, no conversion therapy ban in the United States would prohibit biblical activity. In an “Abstract” of a law volume titled The Legal Status of Conversion Therapy, the law states: “The bans do not apply at all to private individuals or ‘members of the clergy…providing religious counseling to congregants.’”
Mohler then goes on to say:
But let’s get to the biggest issue of Christian concern, these particular bills could have the effect of chilling the preaching, restricting the liberty of the pulpit in Christian churches, and even could extend to potentially criminalizing personal conversations and even outlawing certain kinds of conversations between parents and children…. [T]hey want to criminalize and sanction and make illegal any confrontation on biblical terms of their own new morality (bold added).
Mohler’s words could have and could extend are possibilities, not realities. Mohler’s sentence, “[T]hey want to criminalize and sanction and make illegal any confrontation on biblical terms of their own new morality,” is a slippery slope into the yet-to-be-known outcomes of Bill C-4. We have not searched all the conversion ban laws in the U. S., but one can be certain, with all the LGBT activists around, that there would be one case that would reflect Mohler’s observation. What Mohler contends has not happened in the U.S, and, contrary to what Mohler suggests, it is our belief that it will NOT happen in Canada under Bill C-4 as we shall explain later.
In speaking of Canada’s Bill C-4, Mohler says:
The main thrust of this legislation is towards outlawing any kind of therapeutic context that would make a moral judgment consistent with Christianity in this case. (Bold added.)
“Christianity” in “any kind of therapeutic context” should be an oxymoron for Christians but has resulted in the prolific promotion of conversion therapy referrals from churches. Conversion therapy is a form of psychotherapy that is already controlled by 50 state licensing laws, which, at least in California, outlaw moral judgments in therapeutic settings.
Mohler inflates his charge with a steep slippery slope when he declares:
But the bigger threat is, of course, that this will be extended throughout society, inexorably, unavoidably, to every other context, including Christian institutions, Christian organizations, and even Christian churches. This is legislation that no one in Canada wants to admit is directed to the pulpit, but make no mistake, it’s directed to the pulpit (bold added).
Note Mohler’s words “will be” are the foundation of his ongoing slippery slope that follows and ends with “it’s directed to the pulpit.” These statements are absolutes! Mohler’s wild guess of what “will be” and the certainty that “it’s directed to the pulpit” are mere speculation.
Concluding his comments about Bill C-4, Mohler says: “One of the most radical aspects of the Canadian legislation is the removal of any exemption for consent” (bold added). One important fact that needs to be understood about conversion therapy bans is that much of the concern of Mohler and many other Christians has to do with the “exemption for consent” for those homosexuals who would like to become heterosexual through a psychotherapy that is already controlled by Canada. Mohler and many Christians are standing up for licensed psychotherapists to be able to do conversion therapy, which is licensed and regulated by the government. Our sole interest as believers should be that “the bans do not apply at all to private individuals or ‘members of the clergy . . . providing religious counseling to congregants,’” as exists in the US
Based upon our surveys over many years, we conclude that most pastors in the US refer their people to licensed-by-the-government psychotherapists. This must mean that they do not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture or of the validity of the Bible’s promises that have to do with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3-4). No wonder Mohler and many other pastors want to come to the defense of psychotherapists!
We hold Focus on the Family (FOTF), Dr. James Dobson, Jim Daly (the current head of FOTF), the American Family Association (AFA), and the Family Research Council (FRC) responsible for much of the current trust in psychotherapists, the current love for conversion therapy on the part of pastors, and the current desire of Christian leaders, like Mohler, to attempt to protect “choice” for psychotherapy clients so that pastors can send congregants to psychotherapy. FOTF, AFA, and FRC spent large amounts of money and received national coverage promoting conversion therapy. Pastors and Christian organizations that trust in the psychological wisdom of mere humans over the Word of God for transformational change are crying out against any and all bans of conversion therapy under the illusion that it will impinge on the preaching and teaching of God’s Word regarding what the Bible teaches about creation and transformed lives. It hasn’t in the entire US!
Mohler continues with his slippery slope fallacy:
Now, remember how modern world in its modern sexual liberation worships the word consent. But in this case, consent is actually thrown overboard because the LGBTQ movement is demanding absolute coercion. That is to say, the Canadian legislation does not even allow a legal option for an individual seeking counseling, who is seeking to reject sexual impulses. We are being told here that if that’s identified as a sexual orientation, there can be no effort to address it as morally wrong or to change it. None of it comes under the designation LGBT.
This is true and follows from the fact that this is the result of licensing by the government. Mohler’s statement is not true in the US and it remains to be seen regarding pastoral counseling in Canada.
Every Bible-minded Christian should be against any alternative to a biblical conversion and biblical transformation. The support Mohler has for the “consent” clause for psychotherapy clients, which is typical throughout church circles, leaves the Christian at the mercy of a psychological “salvation.” Mohler’s desire for conversion therapy, a fleshly substitute for what the Bible offers, reveals a naivete on his part about the spiritual differences between psychotherapy and the Scriptures.
Upon reading Mohler’s slippery slope fallacy in the following statement, remember that no one knows what the enforcement of Bill C-4 will be, and thus it is not known what Bill C-4 will mean when enforced. Nevertheless, Mohler, like many others, attributes a meaning to the bill throughout his Briefing that has not been determined. This sheer confusion is inexcusable on his part! Mohler begins with a false assumption, acts as if what he says is true, and then exaggerates the possibilities.
Now you can immediately see where this would run into a head-on collision with religious liberty in Canada. What happens when a young person, of age is in this case not necessarily important, but let’s say a young person goes to talk to a Christian counselor, that Christian counselor, according to this legislation, is not legally able even to discuss in biblical terms the sexual orientation issue or how that would apply in Christian holiness to our understanding of biblical morality and God’s intention for Christians living out the Christian life.
How long will it be before pastors are brought up, or say Christian teachers or a Christian professor at a Christian college university is brought up on charges of violating this because in an individual conversation, or even in a group context, there is an open statement that, according to biblical revelation, these sexual orientations defined as LGBTQ, all the sexual impulses and all the sexual behaviors involved in them comprehensively are identified as sin and condemned in scripture. How long can it be before those individuals are facing the force of law? And by the way, that is not necessarily even the strongest threat here. The threat here is simply towards the marginalization of anyone who would dare to stand in any way over against the absolutest claims of the sexual revolutionaries. “You’re on the wrong side of history,” they’ve been arguing. Now they’re going to say, “You’re on the wrong side of the law.”
Mohler wrongly claims that the enacted Bill C-4 will ultimately lead to the inability of Christians to ever evangelize those of LGBT persuasion under any circumstances. Based upon his many conjectures and the absence of provided proof, it is apparent that Mohler’s Briefing is a wrong response for the wrong reason, just as MacArthur’s response was for the wrong reason.
The United Kingdom
Mohler discusses the proposed legislation in the UK. He indicates that “The current proposal in Britain does indeed allow for an exception for consent, that is, an individual can consent to this kind of conversation, but actually has to invite it.” Mohler then slides down another slippery slope as he speaks about the proposal as if it is an enacted law. The following will demonstrate how unreasonably Mohler has used the slippery slope to advance his twisted suspicion of what could be as if it is. Mohler says:
I want to read to you a direct section from the proposed British legislation. The statement says this, “Legitimate talking therapies that support a person who is questioning if they are LGBT do not start from the basis that being LGBT is a defect or deficiency. Instead,” and again, I’m reading from the legislation. “Instead the therapies are open and explorative discussions focused on helping a person to decide on their options in a supportive manner. Professional bodies and regulators are best placed to set out professional obligations and identify practices that are harmful for the individual involved.”
Here again Mohler is coming to the defense of the right of conversion therapy counselors to be free to exercise the very activity that the law in the UK, when enacted, will probably ban, just as the conversion therapy ban bills in the US do.
In contrast to what Mohler’s slippery slope logical fallacy about the UK law, we refer to a Reuter’s article about the proposed law. The Minister for Women and Equalities in the UK has said: “People’s personal freedoms are key to the health and functioning of a democratic society, such as freedom of choice, freedom of speech and belief, and are central to my proposals.”
Mohler continues his Briefing by falsifying what could be.
Now, if you heard what I just read there, in this proposed British legislation, coming with the full authority of the current British government, the definition of what is being outlawed is, and again I’m just reading from the bill, anything that starts from the basis that, “being LGBT is a defect or deficiency.” So now you have the British government saying, “Here’s the message you have to carry into the conversation. Here’s the message you have to carry into any professional context,” but don’t believe for a moment it will stop there. This is the British government saying to schools, colleges, universities, “This is the message you have to take into the classroom. This is the message you have to take into your hiring, your housing, your student conduct policies.”
Mohler then goes on to verbally hyperventilate about what could be the result of the proposed U.K bill by another grand slam slippery slope logical fallacy:
And this is also the message that is being sent to Christians and to Christian churches and to their credit, in both Canada and in the United Kingdom, there are a significant number of evangelical Christians who are pressing back and saying they see this for exactly what it is; a threat to the freedom of their own pulpits, to the freedom of their own churches to stand on biblical truth. But looking at this proposed British legislation, we need to recognize that the pressure that is being brought on the government right now, even as the legislation is being considered in parliament, is whether or not it should be strengthened. “Strengthened to what?” you might say. Well, Stonewall, a British LGBTQ organization, has put out a statement demanding a ban on conversion therapy, as it’s defined here, “with no exemptions and no excuses.” No exemptions at all.
Now one of the things that comes up here is that you could have a conversation between a pastor and a parishioner, just to use the language that the British would use, or you could have a conversation between a parent and a child. If that conversation is not directly outlawed by this legislation, it is put into a context that is, at the very least, legally suspect.
Speaking of a Christian Church and a Christian pastor, one of the individuals cited in the article said, “My pastor’s attempts at therapy might have appeared innocuous and he may have truly believed he was doing the right thing, but his action caused me a great deal of harm.” Notice the morality of harm and notice the fact that this is explicitly a pastoral conversation, and notice something else, that pastoral conversation is here defined as therapy. That’s the problem here. We’re not just talking about what just about anyone would recognize as a genuinely therapeutic context, that’d be problematic enough. Here you have a direct reference to a pastoral conversation, biblical council [sic].
Some evangelicals in Canada and in the United Kingdom have been bold to speak out concerning this threat. A spokesperson for the Evangelical Alliance in Great Britain speaking of the legislation there said, “It would place ministry leaders at risk of arrest for encouraging young people to maintain chastity until marriage and it would criminalize a member of a church who prays with another member when they ask for prayer to resist temptation as they are attracted to someone of the same sex, but do not wish to act on it.”
Now, notice something there. Here you have a representative of the Evangelical Alliance pointing out that this is a direct threat to the integrity and the autonomy of Christian ministry. Let’s just state the obvious. If the government can tell you it is illegal to teach biblical truth on the issue of human sexuality, the array of LGBT issues, understand two things. Number one, it won’t stop with LGBT and understand, eventually it means the criminalization of whatever Christian speech is no longer politically attractive. And that eventually will mean everything that is revealed in scripture, most essentially, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mohler closes poignantly as follows:
We will be following these issues in the weeks ahead, and of course not just the weeks and the months ahead, but in the years ahead. But right now in this turning point between 2021 and 2022, we see the shape of the challenge coming to the Christian Church even more clearly, or even more ominously. We are about to find out where the biblical Christians are on both sides of the Atlantic, and as you and I know, on both sides of the American/Canadian border.
Mohler’s “Direct Threat to Religious Liberty” sounds like a diatribe, i.e., a forceful and bitter attack, against conversion therapy bans based upon his belief in what could be as a result of the enacted, but not yet enforced Canadian Bill C-4 and the proposed law in the UK The reality is that the meaning and enforcement of the “Definition of conversion therapy” words “practice, treatment, or service” have not yet been established.
Mohler has corrupted his great gifts of words used and expressions engendered to fabricate a questionable narrative unnecessarily provoking and inflaming intense emotions about the unknown that may be found fallacious! As a contrast, read the responses from Canadian Religious Freedom Summit (CRFS) here and Pastor Paul Carter’s column titled “Bill C-4: History, Concerns, and Response” here. With the exception of these two responses, the others have looked more like emotional reactions rather than carefully thought-out concerns about what could be.
CRFS is a Canadian organization and Carter is a Canadian pastor. Both have examined Bill C-4. Both are concerned about what could be but have responded rationally about Bill C-4. In contrast to Mohler’s Briefing. note that the two Canadian responses appeal to the intellect rather than stirring up the emotions.
We applaud conversion therapy bans as long as they are only applied to licensed psychological counselors and not others. Christians should be thankful for the fact that “The bans do not apply at all to private individuals or ‘members of the clergy…providing religious counseling to congregants’” in the US and pray that this would be true in Canada and the UK.
Earlier we refer to Pastor Paul Carter’s column about Bill C-4, in which he says:
In the Canadian legal system, Charter rights are considered supreme rights, against which no law can be made. The Charter identifies freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of media communication as fundamental freedoms. Therefore, it is difficult to see how a charge against a pastor for preaching on Genesis 1:27 or Galatians 5:22-23 could withstand a Charter challenge.
We believe that Canada will respect and follow their “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” And we are hopeful that the eventually enacted law in the UK will look similar to those in the US.
Bill C-4 has yet to be interpreted, clarified, and enforced, and the law in the UK has yet to be enacted. Preaching about biblical sexual morality should continue to be done regularly and enforced throughout the church world. In the meantime, let every believer not fear what could be but keep courage in Christ and continue to speak truth from the Word of God without fear and without taking an adversarial stance, but one of concern and love toward our adversaries,including government officials, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders for whom Christ died!
We agree with Pastor Carter, who has clearly said:
While I cannot speak for all pastors in Canada, I for one am hopeful that the church will not be drawn into an adversarial posture toward the LGBTQ community. These are people created in the image and likeness of God that we are called to love and to treat with respect and dignity. I want to extend to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes a sincere belief that the grace of God in Christ provides both forgiveness and the power to change. That is the same Gospel that saved me and that continues to give me hope today. I am praying for the wise application or emendation of Bill C-4 such that abusive or coercive practices are forbidden while “speaking the truth in love” continues to be permitted.
We also pray that these conversion therapy bans will be a wake-up call to pastors who are sending their flocks out to psychotherapists for soul care. Instead of being concerned about government restrictions on licensed psychological counselors, pastors need to repent from sending their people out to such psychotherapists for soul care. We all need to renew our understanding of the new life and new identity believers have been given in Christ: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). Believers need clear and repeated teachings on the new life described and explained in Romans 6-8, performed by the Holy Spirit as the believer trusts and obeys the Lord. All this concern about the counseling rights of licensed, professional, paid psychotherapists to use harmful methodologies is a great stain on the church. All of us as believers and especially pastors and leaders need to make a huge turn-around back to teaching and trusting the very Word of God ministered by the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the saints, both in our own lives and in the lives of others who are seeking transformed lives through biblical salvation and sanctification.
In reference to our original article, “Canada’s Conversion Therapy Bill C-4,” we wish to correct the “response” we attributed to The Gospel Coalition (TGC) of Canada. The “response” was actually produced by the Canadian Religious Freedom Summit (CRFS) and quoted in full on the website of Canada’s TGC. It is the same as the Statement by the (CRFS) quoted above.
 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, “Canada’s Conversion Therapy Bill C-4,” https://pamweb.org/contending-for-the-faith/canadas-conversion-therapy-bill-c-4/.
 Paul Carter, “Bill C-4: History, Concerns, and Response.” The Gospel Coalition, Canadian Edition, January 3, 2022, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/bill-c-4-history-concerns-and-response/.
 Canadian Religious Freedom Summit’s letter to church leaders, quoted by The Gospel Coalition of Canada, December 17, 2021, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/want-to-respond-to-bill-c-4-as-a-church-here-is-one-way-to-do-so/.
 “US Christian Right group accused of promoting anti-LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy,’” Open Democracy, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/us-christian-right-conversion-therapy-despite-bans/.
 Albert Mohler, “Direct Threat to Religious Liberty: Legislative Bans on Conversion Therapy on Both Sides of the Atlantic as Canada Passes Most Comprehensive Conversion Therapy Laws in the World and Britain Seeks to Follow Suit,” The Briefing, https://albertmohler.com/2022/01/03/briefing-1-3-22. All quotes from Mohler in our article are from this Briefing.
 John J. Lapin, “The Legal Status of Conversion Therapy,” Georgetown University Law Center, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2021/08/Legal-Status-of-Conversion-Therapy.pdf
 Hugo Greenhalgh, “Britain’s proposed ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy too soft, say critics,” Reuters: The Daily Docket, 10/29/2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rights/britains-proposed-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-therapy-too-soft-say-critics-idUSKBN2HJ1ML.