Editorial: Fighting falsity outside the courtroom
The acquittal of Matthew Grech – pending further legal appeal – will be treated as a victory by those who wage culture wars against progressive and secular human values
Malta’s ban on gender conversion therapies was last week lauded by the same court that found an evangelical Christian activist, who claims to have converted over from homosexuality, not guilty of promoting such illegal therapies.
The acquittal of Matthew Grech – pending further legal appeal – will be treated as a victory by those who wage culture wars against progressive and secular human values. Grech is the general secretary of the conservative party ABBA, and has been mentored by the equally controversial pastor Gordon-John Manché, a millenarian preacher steeped in an American, “end-is-nigh” tradition.
The case has highlighted the limits of Chapter 567 but also the way religious extremists can easily don the cover of freedom of expression, to peddle soft narratives against the LGBTQI community, to foment an unsafe environment, and encourage parents unhappy with their children’s sexuality to seek out harmful therapeutic services.
Grech is a Maltese representative of the International Federation for Therapeutic & Counselling Choice (IFTCC), an organisation which provides support services for individuals seeking “change of their unwanted… sexual behaviours.”
As stated by the court itself, the European Psychiatric Association has declared so-called conversion ‘therapies’ as creating a significant risk of harm for depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicidal ideations, or internalised homophobia.
Grech’s statements in the PMNews interview were clearly part and parcel of the false and scientifically untrue narrative: proclaiming a faith-based aversion to homosexuality; ascribing 92% of homosexual development to “environmental factors”; and promoting “efficient” therapies of “detransitioning”.
The IFTCC’s own chairman testified as a witness for the defence, and did not deny the organisation’s role in promoting “responsible exploratory therapy that… helps individuals reduce distress related to unwanted sexual feelings or identities.”
But this testimony might have been crucial in tipping the scales in favour of Grech, for the presiding magistrate seemed to have been reassured by the term “exploratory therapy”, which Chapter 567 provides as an exception to the banned practice of conversion therapy.
So while praising the merits of the law in its entirety, promulgating it as part of Malta’s national health policy, the court felt it could not condemn any such talk therapy “as long as this amounts to an individual’s decision that leads to the free development and serene affirmation of that person’s identity.”
If this case has revealed anything, it is that legal action alone is an insufficient instrument to confront the soft narratives deployed by Grech.
By using the vocabulary of “exploratory therapy” or “personal journeys”, the discredited ideas of conversion therapy get repackaged in language that appears respectful of personal freedom.
When we are placed in this ambiguous terrain of personal autonomy and pastoral care, such narratives cannot be challenged through criminal law alone. In litigating these culture wars out of legitimate concern for vulnerable people, the risk is that the accused are then shown to be victims of censorship. The response has to find stronger proponents for scientific authority and responsible journalism. Certainly, a more assertive articulation of the scientific consensus cannot remain buried in court transcripts.
More importantly, there needs to be a more vocal response to the ramshackle online platforms.
This is where professional journalism must reassert its function with fact-checking and editorial challenges.
So must advocates for LGBTQ+ equality keep engaging at the level of public persuasion with their own personal testimonies of harm caused by conversion practices, the experiences of families and communities affected by such ideologies, and the voices of faith leaders who reject the premise that sexual orientation requires correction.
While the courtroom can determine whether a particular act breaches the narrow definitions contained within Chapter 567, it cannot determine the broader social meaning of Grech’s falsities.
That task belongs to the sphere of democratic discourse, of scientific evidence, and of exposing the intellectual emptiness behind Grech and his associates.