Conversion practices - LGBT+ people of colour and minority ethnic faith experiences: research report

Institutional racism and underrepresentation in policy development

Ogunmuyiwa^[67] states that ethnic minority communities tend to be underrepresented in responses to government consultations and design of policy and legislation. He also states that there is an underrepresentation of people from ethnic and religious minorities in the quantitative data collected in the UK. He highlights that though the UK Government Equalities Office National LGBT Survey in 2018 showed an increased risk of conversion practices in ethnic minority communities, there was still an underrepresentation of these communities in the overall study population. Ogunmuyiwa also highlights that in a study with over 30 participants (by Jowet et al) on conversion practices, there were only 2 non-white people and there were no Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh participants. He also highlights that the 2021 UK Black Pride Survey Report, in which UK Black Pride, Stonewall, and NYX focused on the wider factors about LGBTQI+ visibility and acceptance in home communities and LBGTQI+ spaces for ethnic minorities, did not address conversion practices within black and minority ethnic faith communities.

Ogunmuyiwa, as Equality Network has, also highlights the lack of representation within the EHRCJC written and oral responses at evidence sessions of non-white and / or non-Christian experiences of CP. We have highlighted the lack of representation heard in survivor sessions, and indeed in the work of the EAG - an issue we have tried to somewhat, though not nearly significantly enough, remedy. It is imperative that this work continues beyond the drafting of the legislative Bill. A lack of intersectional LGBT+ representation more generally is problematic. Underrepresentation within the EAG’s work threatens comprehensive legislation that considers and protects all within the LGBT+ community in Scotland. Shakti Women's Aid told us;

We are encountering the same issue as other Bills, where the conversations are only beginning at the concluding stages of a Bill being introduced, without BME people properly shaping this or being represented. This can be compared with the Forced Marriage Bill, which was ineffective because there was no real support and investment to make it work. There needs to be money and long-term investment for legislation to work – in the Forced Marriage Bill hardly any cases have actually been brought to the courts because of this oversight. It is important to understand support as long-term financial investment and capacity building of grassroots BME organisations/groups.

A lack of consideration in wider LGBT+ community engagement, a lack of consideration within policy development, and a lack of representation in stakeholder engagement, is not unheard of for people of colour and people within minority ethnic faith communities. But this lack of representation in this discourse is not the only problem, it has much bigger complications in relation to this work that may cause further harm if not considered properly. Without full and significant engagement with communities of colour and minority ethnic faith communities on how criminal measures to end CP will be shaped and without allowing for flexible modes of reporting and outcome, for example within civil orders and community support, it is strongly felt by stakeholders that LGBT+ people of colour and people within minority ethnic faith communities may be subject to further risk and harm. This is primarily due to three things:

1) A driving of practice further underground for fear of criminalisation – meaning nothing improves and LGBT+ people of colour and those from minority ethnic faiths are at further risk as no civil communication has taken place and there are no culturally safe modes of engaging with the Bill / reporting

2) A fear of putting one’s family or community at risk of criminalisation without scope for civil measures that understand (and can work with) your community

3) A fear of being wrongfully targeted and criminalised by a police force that still has issues with institutional racism and prejudice.

We have heard from The House of Rainbow, Sarbat Sikhs and The Naz and Matt Foundation that without proper consideration of the impact of criminal measures upon minority ethnic faith communities and communities of colour, there will be unintended consequences, including risks to victims and survivors of CP within the LGBT+ community. These communities will potentially be put at further risk due to historically established prejudice and discrimination within the criminal justice system. There are legitimate concerns and feelings of apprehension around reporting whilst this remains the case. For this reason, as has been said within the EAG, considerable work will be required within communities to understand these risks, to safeguard, and to provide awareness and understanding about the legislative measures and support available, as well as multiple pathways to seek reparation and support, where the potential victim or survivor has full autonomy.

Shakti Women's Aid informed us that there is a general concern around criminalisation, there were similar concerns when the legislation on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Forced Marriage were developed. Shakti believe that though FGM has been criminalised in some form since the 1980s, this has made no difference to the practice (or the victims) and this is because communities have not been worked with properly and ways in which to engage with reporting were not appropriate for diverse communities (for the reasons outlined above).

Shakti believes that legislation should allow for confidential engagement and discretion, and it needs not to criminalise in the first instance:

Criminal convictions are so hard to come by in other places like with sexual violence and forced marriage, the civil scheme is the real saviour in that people can actually engage with it. Criminalisation in fact often works against protecting people from harm. For example, when Forced Marriage legislation came in, the numbers Shakti was dealing with in relation to this jumped substantially. The balance of proof needed in the civil scheme to protect someone from harm is much less and that makes it more effective. […] Where we can look to the Forced Marriage legislation as useful and helpful is in how it defines perpetrators within the civil scheme (Not the criminalisation side).

Ogunmuyiwa^[68] suggests that criminal sanctions may force victims to choose between their community, their culture, their religious identity and their sexuality and / or gender identity. This means that some minority groups will not be able to engage with the criminal justice system.

When discussing Forced Marriage legislation, Runnymede^[69] says that opponents of criminalisation were wary of the motives of government and their eagerness to legislate. We have found that some stakeholders have similar concerns. Opponents within the Runnymede piece state that criminalisation measures within the case of Forced Marriage legislation “would have disproportionate impact on certain segments of the population who already may feel scrutinised, feared, stereotyped and marginalised.” We heard the same from some stakeholders in relation to CP legislation. We hope that there can be significant consideration of this when considering both the legislative and civil measures and that work within communities will continue beyond legislative drafting.