No protection for the expression of belief

The Bill contains no clause protecting the expression of belief about sex or gender identity. Gender-critical belief is protected under the Equality Act (Forstater), and other offences protect discussion and criticism expressly (s.29JA Public Order Act 1986). The Scottish Parliament has expressly protected “discussion or criticism of matters relating to… transgender identity” (s.9, 2021 Act); this Bill offers no equivalent.

​

Here, “any conduct” towards an individual (cl. 1(2)), an undefined “emotional pressure” factor (cl. 1(6)(e)) and a distress threshold (cl. 2(1)(b)) leave room to frame sex-based language as a conversion practice. Examples include declining to use a person’s preferred pronouns, or referring to them by sex-based language in public commentary. The Bill requires no relationship between the person accused and the complainant.

​

This is not hypothetical. The Galop report Still Not Illegal (2026), which the former Minister cited in Parliament as showing “appalling abuse”, counts “refusal to use a chosen name or pronouns” as a conversion practice (p.27). Existing offences are already used against sex-based language. The journalist Helen Joyce has described a crime report made against her over social media posts about a trans-identifying speaker she shared a panel with, posts that used his male name and pronouns. The police found the posts did not meet the definitions of harassment or malicious communications well enough to investigate, but recorded the report as a crime against her name. The complainant has since sought judicial review of the decision not to prosecute, and a further report has been made. (see sources)

​

Effects: Individuals and organisations holding a protected belief can face complaints, private prosecutions or protection-order applications from those who disagree with them, including people with no connection to them. Their officers face liability under cl. 5. An offence with a distress threshold, no relationship requirement and no protection for expression would make reports like the one against Joyce easier to make and harder to dismiss. Convictions may be unlikely, but the cost and strain of the process fall on the defendant regardless.