Well good evening, and thank you very much, Vice Chancellor.
I'm incredibly grateful to you and the university and of course to
the university's LGBTI advisory group for inviting me here to speak.
And thus enabling me to shine a spotlight on what has to be one of the areas of
gravest concerns still today for the LGBTI community and its allies here in the UK.
I speak, of course,
of what is often seen as the toxic intersection between faith and sexuality.
And of those who sadly are caught, through no fault of their own,
in what is now finally being understood to be the, at times, deadly crossfire.
I recognize that these are strong and emotive words, but
Oxford is no stranger to that.
Indeed, I can think of no better place to speak out about the evils that
continue to traumatize so many of us, even here,
in one of the most progressive societies in the world.
And to call for a new resolve to champion our cause.
For surely, that is what LGBTI history month is all about.
It's a timely opportunity for us to reflect on the pain endured by so
many for so long.
Which, as I will share,
is still affecting thousands who remain hidden in plain sight.
I speak, of course, of LGBTI people of faith.
Those who found themselves born into families and cultures where an integral
part of their Innate human identity is viewed as unacceptable by everyone.
And I mean everyone around them, their families, their friends,
their religious leaders, their religious communities and by default, their God.
For those who have been taught in religious schools, many will find that,
too, a place of prejudice and trauma.
For they lived in bubbles that are hermetically sealed, where there is no
emergency exit, no matter how hard they pray or how much they plead with God.
They exist in a real-life version of the Escape Room, the ultimate horror movie.
Where all the doors are locked, and
there is no secret hidden key that can bring them out to safety.
They are forever trapped, and what is worse this nightmare situation
is faced by those who are least able to cope with it.
Young people, children,
even, who are just learning what it is to experience love and attraction.
Teenagers who have surges of hormones and questions and doubts and
fears, and yet no one they can turn to for
help and, support not without risking losing everything they have.
Be under no illusion.
The scarring that the stars at the start of a young person's life is immense.
Please don't underestimate the trauma that is associated with
having to navigate such a difficult and costly path alone.
Where your whole world, everywhere, everyone you know and hold dear embraces
the same united belief, expressed in love, that who you are is unacceptable.
What's more,
you know that the secret you carry will cause great pain to those you love.
And that ultimately those you turn to for help, if you ever do,
will strongly urge you to do anything but embrace and celebrate who you are.
And the truth is, in all honesty, that there are those who just don't make it.
There are those who find it all just too much.
But the energy required to keep going, to keep putting one foot in front of another,
day by long day, with no remittance is completely beyond their grasp.
And so they take the only way out they know, and
many of us here know some of them by name.
And mark my words, they will be more.
Right now in Britain, there are young kids suffering alone and terrified,
in a country which prides itself as being at the forefront of LGBTI rights.
There is still one large hill to climb, which has been left untouched for
far too long.
It is deemed the impenetrable or impossible mountain trail, but
conquer it we must for the sake of those whose lives depend on it.
You think I exaggerate?
I'm aware I've been accused of weaponizing, safeguarding, or emotionally
blackmailing people to get them to side of my own so called liberal views.
Come on, Jane, things really aren't that bad.
This isn't America.
I've lost, thank goodness for that.
I've lost count of the times this week that I've been contacted by
journalists waiting to do stories on conversion therapy here in the UK.
The request is always the same.
Jane, I want to profile some of your victims.
I want to tell their story.
I really didn't think that this sort of thing was happening in the UK.
I thought it was just in the far-right evangelical movements
in the United States and in Africa.
And then I have to ask them, why do you think that?
Aren't they aware that there are those views over here too?
They've always been here, that we Brits are just as bad, the religious rights
influences are just as strong, although perhaps slightly more hidden.
I then have to explain that no, I can't put them in touch with young
people who've been through conversion therapy,
as most I know are just too fragile to be able to talk to the media.
But because of what they've been through, most are suffering severe
mental health issues and can't cope with any more stress.
Added to which, most have already been rejected by their family and friends
after coming out, normally after finally admitting that therapy just didn't work.
And yet, if they dared admit to having undergone such therapy,
they will put themselves at risk of further rejection by their new
LGBTI friends who will think that they are mad.
It's why the story has been hidden for so long, as the media have found it
impossible to get the case studies they need to sell their papers or
achieve high viewing figures.
But I digress.
Young lives are at risk, seriously at risk, and
we need to take urgent action to recognize this and protect them.
The faith communities have shown themselves totally incapable of
taking this matter seriously.
If anything, they've sought to willfully ignore it.
And have consistently looked to sweep it under the carpet.
This happens with all inconvenient truths.
Many within the Church of England, for instance, would rather not rock the boat.
For there is, we're told, so much at stake,
such as the very future of the Anglican Communion.
Heaven forbid that the lives of young teenagers should get in the way.
How many lives is it worth, I wonder?
Seriously, one, two, five, a hundred?
I seem to remember Jesus himself telling a story about a lost sheep and
the shepherd leaving the entire flock to rescue that one at risk.
But no, evidently, unity of the body of Christ is far more important.
We will, therefore, I'm afraid, need to look to far more robust measures from our
government to deal with this, which they have fortunately publicly committed to.
So ladies and gentlemen, tonight I would like to do three things.
Firstly, I'd like to outline the robust evidence we now have that proves
incontrovertibly that this is a significant current safeguarding issue.
Secondly, I want to share with you what those who have previously
suffered would like to see happen in future.
And thirdly, I'd like to offer some thoughts about what the barriers and
excuses will be from various quarters that risk stopping this issue being addressed.
Even in institutions, dare I say, such as this very University,
which I'm afraid itself is not exempt.
So firstly, the evidence.
Last year, my foundation ran the first national faith survey.
Now, this is where I have to see if I can get this to work.
I have got some printouts,
one page printouts of some of the data I'm about to show you.
It's a summary, and it links you online to all the data, so
you may not want to scribble anyway.
But just so you know, there is a handout if you need it.
So the National Faith and Sexuality Survey examined
the role religious belief has on people's understanding and
their acceptance of their sexual orientation in the UK.
It was the first survey of its kind, and
was open to all individuals over 16 currently resident in the UK.
Participants came from all ages, sexualities, and racial ethnic groups,
and had a variety of beliefs, including those who have no belief.
Indeed, I went out of my way to work with Humanist UK
to ensure we captured the views of those who they call appo-states.
Sorry, apostates, who have rejected their faith,
often because of the difficulties they've experienced over sexuality issues.
That said, the survey primarily attracted responses from those who had
a Christian faith background, despite our best efforts to appeal to other faiths.
It's also important to note that whilst primary
focus of this survey was on sexuality,
2% of respondents identified as a gender different to that assigned at birth.
The project was overseen by an influential advisory board which consisted of some
of the most senior statistical, religious, and healthcare professionals in the UK.
Such as the Bishop of Manchester,
who is the lead bishop on statistical research within the Church of England.
And Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, a former
president of the Royal Statistical Society, and a revered academic.
In that sense, we put ourselves through an internal peer review process.
Indeed, Professor Bernard Silverman has gone on the record himself to say,
the processes which the Ozanne Foundation put in place to this work.
And the way in which they worked with and
consulted the independent advisory board mean that in my view, this survey
should definitely be regarded as having received full peer review scrutiny.
The survey was created using Survey Monkey software and
was made available through social media.
Indeed, it was publicized in the same way that the government publicize
their own national LGBTI survey in 2017.
I'm grateful to organizations such as Stonewall, Peter Tatchell,
the LBTI press, the Christian media, and the national media for covering it, and
for the hundreds of other individuals and organizations that publicized it.
Just out of interest actually,
how many people in this room actually took part in this or was aware of it?
I've got one at the back, okay, well,
it shows that it was a awful lot more, but well, we still had quite a few.
We doubled our completion target, with over 4,600 responses.
Which just under half identified, this is the right hand chart,
I'm conscious that some of these figures are going to be quite small on this,
but you'll get an idea of the bar that's pointing out ahead of the other.
So on the right hand side, 44.5%, about 45%,
sorry had identified as heterosexual or straight.
Everyone else identified across the sexual minority groups, 2,300 of them.
Asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, pansexual or same sex attracted.
On this last point, I was keen to ensure that those who call themselves
same sex attracted felt comfortable with the questionnaire.
These are typically conservative Christians who don't want to
identify themselves as gay or lesbian, but
would rather say they experience same sex attraction.
And as such, believe that they must be celibate for life or
marry someone of the opposite sex.
I therefore invited a coordinator from their support organization,
Living Out, to review the questionnaire.
And I am grateful to the Reverend Dr. Sean Dockerty for his constructive comments.
All of which I implemented, and
which resulted in 57 same-sex attracted people responding.
We didn't hide the fact in the Executive Report that this is,
by definition, a self selected group of respondents.
Indeed, it would have been impossible to do anything otherwise,
as randomly surveying the entire population would not yield a large
sample of the particular LGBTI groups of interest.
We are, however, able to compare the profile of the respondents with
typical ONS and census data.
And we therefore recognized up front in our report that respondents
aged 35 to 64 were slightly overrepresented,
while those aged 16 to 24 were slightly underrepresented.
Those aged 65 and over were significantly underrepresented,
perhaps not surprisingly, given that this was all carried out online.
Respondents in England were also slightly overrepresented compared to Wales,
Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
And despite our best efforts to reach minority ethnic groups,
white respondents were somewhat overrepresented.
While those from black, black British, Asian, and
Asian British backgrounds were underrepresented.
This was disappointing, but not entirely unexpected given
the tremendous difficulties of the LGBTI community in those cultures,
and the significant risks associated with being open.
Even in a survey where the respondents were promised full confidentiality.
One of our recommendations within the report is to highlight the urgent need for
more research into this specific area so
that their voices can be more easily heard.
And the results are shocking, even to someone like myself,
who has been heavily involved in pastoring the LGBTI community.
I must admit, I wasn't prepared for the scale of the harm that we uncovered.
And perhaps even more shockingly, the age at which this was being inflicted.
What is more, to learn that 22 people, that's the highlighted yellow
box at the bottom, who had the courage to fill out the survey,
had been subjected to forced sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex.
That is rape.
And they've gone through that in order to try and change their sexual orientation,
with one person currently aged under 24.
This made me stop and weep.
As Bishop Paul Bayes, my chair, has said in his forward to the report,
we must thank those who have taken the trouble to complete the survey and
to provide the data in this report.
The findings of the reports make hard reading for communities of faith.
And in the case of the church hard reading for
an institution that believes it's built on the love of Christ.
For too many lives, far too young an age have been traumatized by a hidden
inner conflict between their love of God and
their innate desire to love another human being.
This conflict is harsh and potentially deadly.
The level of considered at attempted suicide reported here is shocking and
sobering.
The statistics reflect lives which have been scarred and
strained by mixed messaging of love, acceptance, condemnation, and fear.
He like I wishes to thank those who have revisited this pain in order to help
us all better understand.
Like Bishop Paul I hope that the courageous sharing of our respondents will
not go unheard and that human flourishing and human life will
not be treated as a mere intellectual battle ground for dry conversation.
I speak with specific reference to the 458 respondents, a tenth of the survey, that
green box, who had actual experience of trying to change their sexual orientation.
Their answers provide the first ever concrete study into so
called conversion therapy.
An issue that the government's own LGBTI survey highlighted as a significant issue.
With 2% of 108,000 respondents reporting to have gone through it and
a further 5% having been offered it.
It might be worth me giving a brief explanation here as to what I mean
by conversion therapy.
Forgive me I just gonna have some water.
It's generally accepted as an umbrella term that describes any activity that
is taken with express aim of attempting to change some someone's sexual orientation.
And I've given you a list of different types here and people's responses to them.
The questionnaire explained that it includes attempts or
a range of religious practices prayer, deliverance, emotional healing, and
fasting through to counseling, aversion therapy, and sexual activity.
The survey results provide strong evidence of the harm that attempts
to change sexual orientation are reported to inflict.
For instance, more than half of those, that's the brown line in the middle.
Who had attempt to change their sexual orientation reported mental health issues.
And less than a third said that they had gone on to lead a happy and
fulfilled life.
Less than a third, is that high or is that low?
Nearly half stated they'd found it hard to accept myself for who I am, and
that they've had to leave or change their faith groups.
Of those who suffered mental health issues,
which was nearly two-thirds of those who tried to change their sexual orientation,
91 people said they had attempted suicide.
While 193 said they had suicidal thoughts, 113 people said they had self harmed which
was significantly higher amongst women, and 69 had suffered from eating disorders.
Can I just stress it again, we're talking about a fifth of those who had attempted
to change their sexual orientation who'd actually gone on to attempt suicide.
And this is just out of a small survey group.
But some will say, surely they were prevalent to mental health issues anyway.
We know that the LGBQ community that's a group could define themselves
as being one of the sexual minorities in this survey.
So that's how I call it in this particular survey, LGBQ plus.
We know that the community have a higher prevalence of mental health issues
than the general public.
Surely this is just a reflection of that.
Well, the survey shows that there is clear evidence that the well being of
the LGBTQ plus community is said to be significantly impacted
by the experience of attempting to change sexual orientation.
And that the spiritual well-being and
religious faith is said to be negatively affected by the inner conflicts
they've experienced because of their sexual orientation.
These average mean scores for measures to do with physical, health,
mental health, and emotional well-being.
And on all of them, we found that the weighted average means score for
the full group of LGBQ plus responded to haven't gone through conversion therapy.
Which for top set was significantly higher than the bottom set.
Perhaps not surprisingly, LGBQ respondents with experience attempting to
change their sexual orientation was significantly more likely to agree
that religion had been a source of conflict in my life.
And that it caused me to hate myself for being who I am,
these are statements we asked them to agree.
And that religion no longer played a central part
in their lives compared to those with no experience of attempting to change.
You may just wonder why they just didn't give it all up.
Might be a question you might want to ask me later.
What was perhaps particularly alarming is that it is clear that this is
an issue that specifically effects vulnerable LGBQ teenagers.
Given that half of the respondents said that they attempted
to change their sexual orientation whilst 18 or under.
Several reported they'd be under 12 at the time.
So we are definitely dealing with minors.
But all these cases recent you might ask?
Well, 60 of those respondents were still only under 25 when
they completed this questionnaire in December.
So, yes, it is recent.
Another area that could cause us great concern is that few said they had
sought advice from the medical profession.
This is who they went to for
advice, but nearly half said they'd sought it from a religious leader.
The influence of religious leaders is profound.
They were the most likely to be identified as the person who had advised or
forced attempts to change their sexual orientation.
That's the yellow line in the middle.
Far more so I should say, then parents, which is the green line at the top, and
that should worry us particularly in relation to minors.
And yet they were the least likely person respondents that photo bill to be
open with, that's the blue lines that the average.
And one can understand why given their role in advising or
forcing people to change.
So why did people try to change their sexual orientation,
what was their motivation?
Well, you won't be perhaps be surprised to learn that these attempts were
reported as being, sorry, why did they decide to change?
Well, quite apart from the fact that 43 respondents said that they'd been
given no choice and had to undergo it, that's toward the bottom of that list,
i t seems the primary motivations for attempting to change which you either
to a person's religious beliefs or their internalized homophobia.
This was evidence by the fact that nearly two thirds of those who admitted
attempting to change said they've done so because they were ashamed of their desire.
Or and the quarter said they didn't want to be associated with LGBT people or
their lifestyle.
The top line though, nearly three-quarters said they done so
because I believed my desires were sinful and
over half said it was because my religious leader disapproved.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you put a young
impressionable LGBT teenager in a hermetically sealed bubble,
where all the messages they receive from those they respect and
love is that their desires are sinful and that's who they are is unacceptable.
No wonder they will do anything to try to change.
I know because that is precisely what happened to me.
I would've done anything to change,
indeed I tried virtually everything I could to change.
I just wanted to be like everyone else, married with children, acceptable, and
respected.
I am, but that's a long journey, isn't it?
>> [LAUGH] >> You have to read the book to find
that one out.
[LAUGH] Having tried increasingly more severe forms of therapy which
constantly left me feeling deeply disillusioned and depressed,
not to mention and utter failure in the eyes of God.
I then tried to accept the subsequent consequences that I'd have to
be single and celibate for life.
This felt like an equally impossible burden to me, which severely impacted
my own mental health and drove me for a second time to hospital, given that
I was suffering from acute stress, and then also a second nervous breakdown.
Worryingly, the the survey shows that there are currently 117 people who
participated in this survey who are currently trying to live
with the same Christian sentence imposed by their religious belief and
believing that they have to be celibate for life.
And I personally believe that that is a ticking time bomb.
So did these attempts to change actually work?
Well, you won't be perhaps surprised learn that these attempts were
reported as being overwhelmingly unsuccessful.
Nearly three quarters stated that it didn't work, and
I don't believe it works for others.
However, 13 people after 361 said it did work completely and
another 13 said it didn't work for me but I do believe it works for others.
1 in 6, 60 out of 361 agree that it seemed to work for a while, but
then more often I would class myself in that category.
And it's interesting to try and understand what's going on there.
The amount of social conditioning and
psychological conditioning does make you believe that you are healed.
So, what did respondents want to see happen?
Well, the majority of respondents you won't be surprised over 50%, 51% in fact,
were indeed in favor of criminalizing sexual orientation change therapy.
This perhaps on surprisingly rose significantly amongst those with
experience of attempting to change the sexual orientation as well as with gay and
lesbian respondents.
Interestingly, there's quite a marks difference across the age groups with
those under 55 being clearly in favor of it being made a criminal offense,
including up to three-quarters of 16 to 18 year olds.
But actually all they wanted to criminalize that this was because they
were aware it damaged a person's mental health 98%.
And a significant portion also stated that it was
because they believed it causes self hate.
Now I'm just gonna pause a minute go out of script,
you may think all these statistics are blindingly obvious.
I can assure you, there's a group of very learned religious leaders out there,
who think this is all bunk, that I'm making these figures up,
i.e that it does work, that people should be going through it.
And that's why we need this research.
Anyway I'll come back, so many are so
clear about the dangers of attempting to change sexual orientation therapy.
Why are we seeing it still being practiced today?
How do we protect those most vulnerable to going through it either voluntarily or
forcibly?
And what of the barriers that are likely to stop this issue finally being
addressed?
Well, in my mind, there are three notable barriers, which all deserve naming.
And the first is the age old barrier of disbelief.
So I'll just touch that, where the default position is to ignore or
discredit the results because they are just too plain inconvenient.
Within hours of a survey results being made public there were comments and
then blog from various Christians, mostly evangelical, trying to set out
reasons why people shouldn't pay any attention to the shocking results.
No matter that the project had been overseen by such an eminent group,
including a senior evangelical Dr. Jamie Harrison, who's the chair of
the house of liberty for the Church of England and himself for a GP.
It reminded me of the time back in 2001 when I did some focus groups
research whilst on the Archbishop's Council,
of which I was a founding member, in order to try and
reflect back to the church what people on the periphery of it thought of the church.
Just wonder what you think the church might be a bit scared to find out.
But anyway, following a slightly awkward silence amongst my colleagues,
no doubt in part because of the rather critical nature of the results I'd just
shared, which highlighted the fact that the people found the church aloof,
hypocritical, stuck in its ways, and beset with internal wranglings over sex.
A certain Arch Bishop piped up but Jane you've spoken to the wrong people,
people don't really think this.
I remember there was an even more awkward silence as people nervously
shuffled in their seats before one member of the clergy bravely and yet
quietly responded, but archbishop, they do.
We just don't want to admit it.
It was exactly the same and
I presented some findings a couple of years ago from a YouGov research poll
that I ran regarding people's attitudes towards same sex marriage.
I dared to ask the question which religious group, if any,
respondents affiliated themselves with.
As well as which worshiping community, if any, they were actively part of.
In order that we could break the results down by practicing Anglicans and
practicing Catholics and so on.
Whichever way you cut the data,
the fact remains that results clearly showed there were significantly
more Anglicans in favor of same sex marriage than those who were against it.
Not comfortable findings for our traditionalist friends who then tried
valiantly to dismiss for data by claiming that these weren't real Anglicans.
Evidently, according to the critics, just because people said they went to
church didn't necessarily mean they were proper Anglicans.
I must admit,
I beg to differ given the parallel state of church attendance in the UK.
I personally believe that if someone claims to be a church goer,
especially if they're under 30, where the results were most pronounced in favor
of same sex marriage, then the truth is that they really aren't likely to be one.
Let's be honest, not that many young people are that eager to tell the world
that they go to church these days.
Ironically, as an aside, I should just mention that the one group found to be
significantly behind the rest of the general public in its acceptance of same
sex marriage was in fact, Anglican men over 55.
The very group that was being so vociferous, so
the results were pretty consistent.
Therefore as I said,
people will do anything they can to dismiss data they don't want to hear.
Such as questioning the methodology used as many academics here will know.
Hence the importance of being open to peer review,
as indeed we were with the faith survey.
The fact that we uncovered in a sample of over 4,600 respondents,
91 people who had attempted suicide should make us all stop in our tracks,
and want to know more, rather than dismissing the data out of hand.
Had it been just one person who had attempted suicide, that be seen as one
person too many by a church whose focuse is to believe in the sanctity of life.
The callousness with which these results have been treated
by some is breathtaking, but sadly, not surprising.
For it is easy to dismiss or avoid than to actually engage.
The second barrier relates to matters much closer to home,
particularly with institutions of learning including,
I'm afraid, perhaps this prestigious university, my own alma mater.
Indeed it risks becoming prevalent in all places of public discourse.
I refer, of course, to the recent discussions surrounding what some
will term free speech and others will determine as hate speech,
specifically in relation to the sensitive topics of sexuality and gender.
Should we protect the deemed right of university lecturers and
supervisors to express their views in public, even if they are highly
offenses and likely to cause both hurt and as we've seen tonight, harm.
I was reflecting on this question during my first reading of the Church of
England's new pastoral resources produced by the Pastoral Advisory Group.
Which aims to provide guidelines for
the care of LGBTI people of all ages within the church.
In what has been acknowledged as a groundbreaking first step for
the Church of England, this group has managed to persuade
the House of Bishops to boldly name six pervading evils which
are a bar to good pastoral practice of LGBTI people.
Namely prejudice, silence, ignorance, fear, hypocrisy, and misuse of power.
I saw myself of being quite publicly critical of these guidelines and
their complete inability to tackle the seriousness of
the safeguarding issues I've just highlighted.
I do recognize that there is some merit in being open and
honest about the difficulties that beset us, the LGBTI community within the church.
As a necessary next step however, I've issued the challenge to all
those involved in overseeing the churches' formal discussions around human sexuality,
as to whether they too are guilty of perpetrating these evils?
And I'd like to suggest that you here in Oxford,
might be in a position to lead the way amongst our academic
institutions by having the courage to have the same discourse.
Are you guilty of prejudice, silence, ignorance, fear,
hypocrisy, and misuse of power?
Well, personally I think the University has done extremely
well in it's recent work.
Helped to unsure by your LGBTI advisory board in addressing most of these evils.
You are breaking the silence, you are tackling ignorance,
you are confronting both fear and hypocrisy.
However, I venture to ask whether there is still prejudice in some quarters and
perhaps more importantly, where there is still a misuse of power?
As the Church of England's pastoral resource rightly ask regarding
this specific evil, can it be right that pastoral encounters
still take place without awareness over disparities of power?
And this to me is particularly relevant in an institution where there
are enormous disparities of power between students and lecturers.
As well as between students and their supervisors.
To have one's very identity questioned by someone in such
an eminent position of power is, I believe, abusive in the extreme.
For me, this is not a matter of freedom of speech, but
rather a form of emotional abuse that gives minimal protection
to the vulnerable adult who is both the subject and the object of the prejudice.
And who themselves may be dealing with issues of self hate and
internalized homophobia which these messages can only reinforce.
Toughen up, I hear you say, learn to develop a thicker skin.
But what do we say that to our black and
Asian colleagues when questioned whether they have a right
to exist alongside us in the world, to marry, to love and be loved?
Would we say that to our Jewish friends when they are confronted with those who
hold wholly repugnant views that refuse to accept the horrors of the Holocaust?
I ask you to think for a minute what it must feel like to have spent one's
formative years growing up in an environment, as I set out earlier,
where everyone you know, finds your sexual or gender identity abhorrent?
And where you constantly yearn for the day when you can finally
escape to a place where you can at least be your true self.
Only to find that this very place is just as abusive, just as homophobic,
just as prejudiced, or just worse that those in positions of power and
authority over you to whom you are expected to differ,
are purveyors of the same hostile views.
Please, let us not be under any disillusionment here.
Those who holds such homophobic views are prepared to spout them publicly.
Not for meaningful debate and discourse, but
because they want those around them to know exactly where they stand.
Indeed, for many, it's akin to taking a stand against what they
perceive as an increasingly liberal and corrupt society,
where they see themselves as the last bastion of truth.
To the LGBTI student concerned, a vulnerable adult in my opinion,
this can feel like a declaration of war.
Not an invitation to debate and one where they are perceived as the enemy.
Many will feel they have no choice but to sit there in silence and just take it.
They will chalk up the experience as just another reason why
they should remain ashamed of their desires and
proof that they are unacceptable in a world that charges them not
because of what they have said or done, but because of how they have been created.
It will add further strain to their deteriorating mental health and will
sadly, more often than not lead to greater well being complications later in life.
Freedom of speech has been hard one in our country, and
of course it is a bedrock of any stable and open democracy.
But like everything that is precious,
I believe it should be carefully defined and have its limits.
Most of us have an innate sense of what these limits should be.
There hasn't till recently, been an unspoken moral,
an ethical code to which we all, well, nearly all, subscribe.
The difficulty is, when the boundaries of this moral code are not shared and
when the ability to cause offense becomes in reality,
the ability to cause great harm.
I for one, I'm a great believer in the importance of promoting a society
that enables freedom of speech to the point that it does no harm.
And ladies and gentlemen, if there's clear evidence of harm as
our survey as surely shown, then we have a duty of care to protect,
particularly those who are in a vulnerable position due to either known or
unconscious power differentials.
Primum non nocere, first, do no harm, is one of the principal precepts
of bioethics on which our medical professions is founded.
I believe that this ancient axiom would do well to be
the principal precept of our academic institutions today too.
A new code for all to live by.
So the final barrier that will stop us addressing
the issues is I fear politics, both with a small and a capital P.
Politics in the church, politics in the government,
politics in the mental health professions, and
even politics within the LGBTI communities themselves.
This topic is beset by difficulties that it touches so
many red buttons for so many people.
And as with so many issues that concern Politics with a capital P,
the debates regarding the presenting issues such as in this case
safeguarding of young LGBTI teenagers, become proxy debates for
other more contentious issues where powerful interests are at work.
Some of these interests are obvious, such as party politics,
both in the church and in the state.
And some are not so obvious, such as in the medical professions.
This could be a lecture in itself, so I'll just name the barrier,
and encourage you to watch how the debate unfolds in
the years ahead as we discuss how best to ban or
end conversion therapy, there's a subtle difference there.
However in doing so, we can begin bringing in legislation that
can trully safeguard the most vulnerable in our midst.
So in conclusion, I firmly believe that the gravest challenge that
still faces the LGBTI community today is that of protecting those
court in the deadly crossfire of debates concerning faith and sexuality.
Our survey has shown that there are many whose well being is significantly
at risk because of these debates, and may well lead some to consider
conversion therapy which poses even greater, more deadly risk.
I believe that there is an overwhelming desire for
a ban on conversion therapy to be implemented.
However, what is needed even more is for those who subscribe to
a non-inclusive theology to see the harm that their teaching and views cause.
There will always be resistance to this.
With obfuscation, politics, and debates around free speech each
playing their part, but the tide is turning and a new day is indeed dawning.
I think is no coincidence that faith and sexuality or
perhaps more accurately faith and desire, the out working of our sexuality,
are two of the greatest powers at work within the various tribes and
groupings that constitute humankind.
I'd suggest that they are the touch-paper topics that fueled more arguments and
more wars than any other forces that work in our world,
either now, or indeed in the past.
No wonder therefore, that their nexus is causing such trauma and pain.
I remember my friend Nadia Bolz Weber once asking me why I thought
the church had such difficulties over issues to do with sex.
I said I thought it was because we were scared by the power
that sexual desire can have over people.
She nodded, and noddlingly added,
I think it's because the church see sex as the competition.
>> [LAUGH] >> How true?
So I think that's how society sees it, and by your reaction so do you.
They perceive the church as being anti-sex, ashamed of sex,
embarrassed about sex.
Let's be honest.