The UK Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill has faced pushback from free speech groups over how the legislation defines the line between ordinary conversation and a criminal offence.
The draft bill, presented to parliament on June 25, 2026 by equalities minister Olivia Bailey, would create new criminal offences for carrying out an “abusive conversion practice”. Offenders could face up to five years in prison.
Under the proposed legislation, only conduct that meets the definition of “abusive” could amount to an offence.
The draft bill defines abusive conduct as including sexual or violent behaviour, coercive or controlling behaviour, and economic or psychological abuse. It must also cause either “serious harm” or “serious alarm or distress” that significantly affects a person’s daily life.
The draft also exempts healthcare services, unless a practitioner’s conduct falls far below expected professional standards.
The Free Speech Union (FSU) argues that despite these safeguards, the drafting leaves too much room for interpretation.
The group has warned that parents, therapists and religious leaders could face investigation over ordinary disagreements with a child about their gender identity, given how broadly terms like “coercive” and “psychological pressure” could be read by police or prosecutors.
“The Free Speech Union is concerned that parents could be prosecuted simply for speaking with their children, misgendering them, or attempting to talk them out of embarking on a life-changing and irreversible medical pathway. This is not a slap on the wrist but serious prison time,” they explained. The FSU has launched a petition calling for the ban to be dropped.
According to the FSU, the terms “coercive”, “controlling”, “psychological pressure” and “substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities” could be stretched by prosecutors or interpreted expansively in individual cases.
Other rights groups have voiced similar caution.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) welcomed the bill’s aim but said it was “crucial” that the final legislation rest on “clear definitions”.
“It is crucial that the legislation is based on clear definitions and boundaries that protect legitimate medical treatment and therapy as well as ensuring people’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression are not disproportionately restricted,” said EHRC chair Mary-Ann Stephenson.
