[Lnc-business] Resolution Condemning Conversion Therapies
Jeff Lyons
jeff.lyons at lp.org
Fri Apr 12 11:49:19 EDT 2019
Good morning, everyone!
We are a party dedicated to protecting individual liberties AND opposing the cult of omnipotent state, but that doesn't mean we have to oppose protecting individual liberties when the state does it and it doesn't mean we oppose people voluntarily organizing their efforts to protect those rights.
Don't hurt people. Don't take their stuff. It's that simple. Conversion Therapy is torture. Doing it for payment is fraud, which is theft.
The resolution was clearly worded that we oppose the practice used against unwilling children, and ONLY the UNWILLING who are children. It does not require we support banning it. It does not say they don't ever have to listen to their parents or they don't have to brush their teeth, and it doesn't say parents can't raise their children however they want, be religious, believe in ghosts or Bigfoot or whatever thing they want to teach their kid. 2+2=5.
It says one thing and one thing only: if the participant is unwilling, that is force, and since Conversion Therapy has been proven harmful and completely ineffective therefore fraudulent to offer as a service, we say we oppose the practice of conducting harmful and fraudulent conversion therapy SPECIFICALLY on an *unwilling child*. (Emphasis: not strong enough)
The State currently forces children to endure whatever their parents force them to do up to age 18. Why is it okay for parents to own someone else's body like chattel, and we are afraid to support action beyond talk to protect the rights of individuals? The protection of individual rights will occasionally require the help of others to protect them.
MLK: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
JFK: "the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
LP: "You're on your own, kid!" ???
We should be supporting Self-Ownership, especially when it comes to personal identity and bodily autonomy, and opposing any mandates that say offspring are property up until an arbitrary number of many moons have passed. An age of understanding consent and responsibility is one thing, but there is no age too early to refuse consent, no age too early to say "I'm not ready" or "I don't wish to be harmed".
For examples, check out the film below. I watched this film yesterday, twice, and I'd like every Libertarian to see it-
Http://www.fixmykidthemovie.com/movie/
Password: straight
I brought this forward because I was overwhelmed by the debate on it locally and because I was educated on it by multiple constituents in Region 8 whom I consider experts on this particular subject, and I am asking for an affirmative stance from the LP to help guide these difficult discussions and educate activists who can then speak on this as a Liberty issue.
And yes, we are a political party. Strategically, tactically, and politically, I would rather advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, who are a coaltion of people we can easily add to the Libertarian community and should be courting as voters, rather than placate the radical Christian Tea Party conservatives who came here on their own because they just don't like paying taxes and are unsatisfied with Republicans. This resolution does not treat the latter unfairly, but it will repulse those who refuse to convert and to honestly take the NAP pledge, and I'm happy to see them retreat back to the horrible political party they built for themselves and accelerate its epic disintegration unfolding at this very moment. It's much easier to teach the socially welcoming about a compassionately capitalist economic theory than to convert the moral authoritarians to a Non-Aggression lifestyle.
The political science experts on the Book of many Faces call it "identity politics" and "virtue signaling!!" like thats not how politics has functioned since the dawn of the Stone age. They can get over themselves. I call it picking your battles and actually winning them. Both are things libertarians have historically done poorly (myself included, see: original post). We identify with those oppressed and our virtue is liberation for all people. I hope the next 18 months are full of liberation and victory for us all. How's that for virtue signalling?
I appreciate the lively and highly engaging debate on all this. It has forced me to get sharper (forced in a good way!).
I hope you will vote to approve the version of the Resolution drafted by Mr. Phillips and I, with voodoo included such as "appeals" to "authority" and judicial decisions on the matter, because my goal is to have a conversation that educates, engages, convinces, courts and converts the widest majority of voters on the path to our way of thinking. I'm not worried about offending the dark corners of the LP that fights tooth and nail to stay irrelevant. I hope to convert them into effective Libertarian activists someday, too. This is the way to do it.
Thanks for all you do to grow an LP focused on actually achieving Liberty in our Lifetime for those who need it most.
In Liberty,
Jeff Lyons
LNC 8A
Get Outlook for Android
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 3:42 AM -0400, "Susan Hogarth via Lnc-business" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
I think tying this to *increased state action* is a huge mistake. Do we really want the LP calling for government to ‘do something’? If it’s torture, then existing laws pretty much cover that, I imagine.
Also, if we’re condemning ‘conversion therapy’, we maybe ought to be condemning the practice of medical sex reassignment of children. My guess is that in a few years that will be seen as just as abusive as conversion therapy, and for many of the same reasons.
J B-H writes “I understand and respect those who prefer the LNC generally not take policy positions on anything, or at least things outside of ballot access and electoral issues.”
That is absolutely not my problem with this. My problem is that it is encouraging the state *to act*, and I think most if not all of our political statements should be in support of *discouraging* state action, not *asking the state to take action*.
>
>
>
Susan Jane Hogarth
Region 5 Alternate
919-906-2106 (tel:919-906-2106)
>
> On Apr 11, 2019 at 2:25 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> Is there a list of states considering bans and the bill numbers?
> Normally I'm apathetic about resolutions that mostly repeat what the
> Platform already states. However, this could be productive if it's tied
> to an action plan for the LNC to support state affiliates in changing
> public policy.
>
> ---
> Tim Hagan
> Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee
>
> On 2019-04-11 10:30, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business wrote:
> > To Ms. Van Horn, A difference I see is that this particular issue is a
> > topic on the state legislative agenda this year. 5 states have passed
> > bans on the practice and many others are considering them. I
> > understand and respect those who prefer the LNC generally not take
> > policy positions on anything, or at least things outside of ballot
> > access and electoral issues. But if that's not a hard-and-fast rule,
> > something under active consideration in multiple states would meet the
> > test for me.
> >
> > To Ms. Harlos, I believe that deleting the language persuasive beyond
> > Libertarians would make the resolution less effective in your stated
> > goal of escaping background political noise. I myself would prefer
> > that if we take positions on issues, we endorse specific bills or at
> > least direct staff to distribute statements of support to legislators
> > on specific bills on this topic. There will be few Libertarians among
> > that audience and to be effective it needs to mix calls to a priori
> > Libertarian principles with supporting evidence and information.
> >
> > JBH
> >
> > ------------
> > Joe Bishop-Henchman
> > LNC Member (At-Large)
> > joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> >
> > On 2019-04-11 12:08, Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business wrote:
> >> When I was on the 2018 LP Platform committee I argued against a
> >> proposed 'Parent's rights" type plank. The reason was that it was the
> >> type of idea that says parent's have the "right" to do, and make all
> >> kinds of choices regarding their children, and it was a problem with
> >> the wording and intent which can be misconstrued.
> >>
> >> As a parent, I agree that parent's have the "right", for a better
> >> word, to be able to make many choices concerning their children.
> >>
> >> But, I also advocate, and did so on the platform committee, for
> >> children to not have their basic rights trampled, not even by
> >> parent's. I mentioned that I'd spent time volunteering as a CASA
> >> (Court Appointed Special Advocate) and saw cases of child abuse and
> >> neglect. I told how I'd worked in a children's hospital and saw
> >> horrific cases of child abuse. There is so much of this, if one works
> >> or volunteers in these areas, at first it's shocking to see.
> >>
> >> I regularly explain to people that children are individuals, and have
> >> rights. Children aren't property.
> >>
> >> With that said, I don't support this resolution, for many of the same
> >> reasons mentioned by others. But, also because rights don't need to be
> >> delineated by age. Rights are for everyone. Adults, parents, and
> >> children...all people.
> >>
> >> While I appreciate Jeff Lyon's passion about a horrible practice he's
> >> recently learned about, there are many horrible practices that people
> >> do to children. Do we grab one horrible practice because it's
> >> recently in the news, and tout that as something we're against? Yes,
> >> we're against people using aggression against others. That's a central
> >> part of our platform. Do we spell out each incident and type of
> >> aggression? I don't think that's the way to go.
> >>
> >> Nor, do I think we need a children's rights statement. ALL people have
> >> rights.
> >>
> >> I'd try like hell to stop someone from torturing a child.
> >> Unfortunately, this resolution doesn't do that.
> >>
> >> EVH
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Elizabeth Van Horn
> >> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2019-04-11 10:32, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
> >>> Wow that is an angle I had not considered but that conforms to my
> >>> thoughts
> >>> that we address this as a children’s rights issue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:52 AM Susan Hogarth via Lnc-business <
> >>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This resolution certainly is hard to speak against. But I will.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I feel this is problematic for us as a political party. We should
> >>>> be
> >>>> addressing the role of the state in people’s lives, not weighing in
> >>>> on
> >>>> practices individuals choose.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolutely we are against individuals aggressing against others, but
> >>>> I
> >>>> don’t think it makes sense for us *as a political party* to issue
> >>>> statements condemning individual aggressions. Especially in the case
> >>>> where
> >>>> legislation to ban such practices is under discussion, this makes it
> >>>> seem
> >>>> as if we support state bans. (And guess what, harming people is
> >>>> already
> >>>> illegal).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Susan Jane Hogarth
> >>>>
> >>>> Region 5 Alternate
> >>>>
> >>>> 919-906-2106 (tel:919-906-2106)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Apr 10, 2019 at 11:56 AM, >>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org)> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Good Morning,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I found a subject that I do not believe our platform addresses clearly
> >>>> enough and there has been some debate internally and externally
> >>>> about a
> >>>> recent decision in Massachusetts to ban Conversion Therapy for
> >>>> Minors,
> >>>> because that might include government intervention into how parents
> >>>> choose
> >>>> to raise children.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > After doing some research and speaking with members of the Libertarian
> >>>> Party who: have been personally exposed to this unwillingly as
> >>>> children,
> >>>> were unable to communicate privately with their parents about the
> >>>> true
> >>>> nature of this physical torture, were physically restrained and
> >>>> beaten for
> >>>> attempting to be released from these concentration camps even upon
> >>>> reaching
> >>>> adulthood, and their parents were convinced to sign their child up
> >>>> for
> >>>> Social Security / Disability and pass that government money on to
> >>>> the
> >>>> Therapists to unwittingly pay for the indefinite treatment of
> >>>> detained
> >>>> children, even into adulthood, with absolutely no achievable
> >>>> criterion for
> >>>> patients to win back their freedom; I am DEEPLY disturbed that such
> >>>> a thing
> >>>> is still ongoing in modern America.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Therefore, I will propose the following resolution. I hope you will
> >>>> co-sponsor and I welcome any input and revision that will more
> >>>> strongly
> >>>> codify the Libertarian Party stance in SUPPORT of LGBTQ+ communities
> >>>> and
> >>>> AGAINST torture and involuntary detainment.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Draft:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party asserts that all individuals have the
> >>>> right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the
> >>>> right to
> >>>> live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly
> >>>> interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner
> >>>> they
> >>>> choose;
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > WHEREAS, parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their
> >>>> children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that
> >>>> the
> >>>> rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also
> >>>> protected;
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > WHEREAS, Conversion therapy for sexual orientation is now considered
> >>>> unethical by both The American Psychiatric Association and The
> >>>> American
> >>>> Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry;
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has declined to review and shown no concern
> >>>> with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 3rd and 9th
> >>>> Circuits
> >>>> which have upheld the Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors, and
> >>>> upheld the
> >>>> decision of a lower court in New Jersey where a 12-person jury
> >>>> unanimously
> >>>> declared it "Consumer Fraud".
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > WHEREAS, conversion therapy has been experimented in the past as a form
> >>>> of punishment for homosexuality, and there has been no evidence
> >>>> whatsoever
> >>>> that conversion therapy can successfully alter the gender identity
> >>>> or
> >>>> sexual orientation of unwilling participants;
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > WHEREAS, children are often subjected to conversion therapy against
> >>>> their will by loving parents whom are unaware that the methods used
> >>>> in
> >>>> conversion therapy are extremely forceful and abusive, often
> >>>> utilizing
> >>>> psychological torture, physical punishment, starvation, aversive
> >>>> treatments, and public shaming or embarrassing a child whenever they
> >>>> display undesired behaviors, and that conversion therapy has been
> >>>> shown to
> >>>> result in suicide attempts by 20% of these patients: a five-fold
> >>>> increase
> >>>> in risk of suicide attempts compared to other teens;
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Conversion therapy, also called "reparative
> >>>> therapy," "reorientation therapy," or "ex-gay therapy" constitutes
> >>>> consumer
> >>>> fraud and forceful abuse, which the Libertarian Party opposes.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, the Libertarian Party opposes subjecting
> >>>> unwilling participants through force or coercion, especially
> >>>> children, to
> >>>> conversion therapy treatment or other forms of counseling expressly
> >>>> designed to alter their gender identity, sexual orientation, or
> >>>> hormonal
> >>>> balance."
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Thank you for all you do for the Liberty of others and I believe in this
> >>>> case there are some who sorely need our help.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Thank you.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Very Respectfully,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Jeff Lyons
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > LNC Region 8 Alternate
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Get Outlook for Android
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
>
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list