EU won’t ban LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’ but will push states to act

Lead

The European Union will not pursue a bloc-wide ban on so-called "conversion therapy" targeting LGBTQ+ people, but will instead urge its 27 member states to adopt their own national laws, the European Commission announced on Wednesday. The decision comes despite a petition signed by over a million people calling for a union-wide prohibition of the practices. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said conversion practices "have no place in our union," as reported by the South China Morning Post and RFI.

Instead of proposing binding legislation, the Commission said it would issue a recommendation next year for member states to introduce national bans. This approach, according to Equal Commissioner Hadja Lahbib, as quoted by RFI, is the "fastest and most realistic path to action," given that a binding law would require unanimous approval and could take up to 18 years to negotiate.

Coverage Comparison

Two international outlets, RFI and the South China Morning Post, covered the announcement from Brussels, each with a slightly different framing. RFI, the French public broadcaster, emphasized the divisive reaction among campaigners and lawmakers, featuring critical quotes and describing the decision as "balanced" in tone. The South China Morning Post, meanwhile, presented a neutral account, focusing on the official statements from the European Commission and the message that conversion practices are not supported.

Despite their different angles, both outlets confirmed the same central facts: the EU will not enact a binding ban, but it will push member states to act individually. Both also noted the existence of the petition, which had gathered over a million signatures, and the statement from Ursula von der Leyen.

Key Claims

• The EU will not introduce a bloc-wide ban, but will recommend that member states adopt their own legislation, as reported by both RFI and the South China Morning Post.
• Over one million people signed a petition last year calling on the block to prohibit conversion practices, a figure cited by both outlets.
• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that conversion practices "have no place in our union," according to the South China Morning Post.
• The Commission will issue a recommendation for national-level bans in the coming year, as reported by the South China Morning Post.
• Eight EU countries have already outlawed conversion therapies, according to RFI; this detail was not mentioned in the other source.
• Possible future bans are being discussed in Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, a claim carried by RFI and not independently verified.
• United Nations experts have called for a worldwide ban on conversion practices, describing them as discriminatory and a violation of bodily integrity, per RFI.

Perspectives

EU Officials: Equal Commissioner Hadja Lahbib, quoted by RFI, argued that the recommendation approach is the pragmatic choice, noting that binding legislation would have faced prolonged negotiation and unanimity requirement. She called the practice "shameful" and "unacceptable," but framed the national-level approach as more "effective" in the long run.

Campaigners and Critics: Activists who supported the petition expressed disappointment at the lack of a binding EU-wide measure. While the exact quotes from campaigners were not included in the available excerpts, RFI's report suggests that the decision has been met with criticism. The framing of the practice as "violence in disguise" in Lahbib's remarks reflects a broader concern several member states have already taken steps, with eight countries having banned the practice, indicating that national action can be achieved even without a bloc mandate.

The decision leaves the issue to the member states, where progress varies. As reported by RFI, some countries are already exploring bans, which speaks to the ongoing momentum that the EU's non-binding recommendation might support. The difference between the EU's affirmative but only-non-binding stance and the demand of civil society for a blanket prohibition remains a point of contention.