lemonde.fr
One Million Signatures Demand EU Ban on LGBT+ Conversion Therapies
A European citizens' initiative surpassed one million signatures, demanding a ban on LGBT+ conversion therapies across the EU, triggering a mandatory response from the European Commission although without legally binding power, and garnering support from various public figures.
- What are the immediate consequences of the one million signatures gathered for the petition against LGBT+ conversion therapies?
- Over one million Europeans signed a petition demanding a continent-wide ban on LGBT+ conversion therapies. This triggered a mandatory response from the European Commission, although the petition itself isn't legally binding. The petition garnered support from numerous public figures, including Belgian singer Angèle and former French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal.
- What are the current legal statuses of conversion therapies across the EU, and how do various political figures support this petition?
- The petition highlights the ongoing issue of conversion therapies, which falsely claim to change sexual orientation or gender identity. These therapies can involve harmful practices, such as exorcism and electroconvulsive therapy, resulting in lasting psychological and physical harm. Although eight EU countries have banned these practices, this petition aims for comprehensive EU-wide legislation.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of this citizen initiative on future EU policies regarding LGBT+ rights, and what are the limitations of this petition?
- The European Commission's response, while mandatory, does not guarantee a legal ban. However, this significant public pressure underscores the growing awareness and condemnation of conversion therapies. The upcoming EU strategy on LGBTQI equality, scheduled for post-2025, will likely include further measures to address this issue, potentially leading to stronger legal protections.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing heavily favors the perspective of those advocating for a ban. The headline emphasizes the success of the citizen's initiative, and the article prominently features quotes from celebrities and politicians supporting the ban. The structure and selection of quotes reinforce this pro-ban perspective. While this doesn't necessarily mean bias, it does tilt the narrative towards a particular viewpoint, potentially influencing reader perception.
Language Bias
The article uses strong and emotive language to describe conversion therapies, referring to them as "barbaric practices," "a form of torture," and implying they are inherently harmful. This loaded language reinforces a negative perception of conversion therapies without providing a balanced representation of differing views. While strong words are sometimes needed, using more neutral terms, like 'controversial practices' or 'therapies that aim to change sexual orientation' at certain points would be less emotionally charged.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the support for the ban on conversion therapies, featuring prominent figures and the success of the citizen's initiative. However, it omits perspectives from those who may support or practice conversion therapies, leading to a potentially one-sided portrayal of the issue. The lack of counterarguments might leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the complexities surrounding this debate. While acknowledging space constraints is important, including a brief mention of opposing viewpoints would enhance the article's objectivity.
False Dichotomy
The article frames the issue as a simple dichotomy: conversion therapies are harmful and should be banned. While this is a prevalent view, the article doesn't explore nuances or complexities within the debate. For instance, there might be different types of conversion therapies with varying levels of harm, or differing opinions on what constitutes conversion therapy. Presenting this as a simple 'ban or not ban' choice oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
Sustainable Development Goals
The European Citizens