Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights — The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir

On December 8, 2020, I provided (virtual) testimony before The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, one of the Committees of Canada's House of Commons responsible for researching Bill C-6, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy). I shared the story of my six years in a form of “conversion therapy,” and I made recommendations for Bill C-6, including that I think the ban should be for all. The full text of my comments are below. All hearings can be viewed on the Committee’s website.

It may go without saying, but it was my great honour to provide testimony at such a prestigious Committee. Indeed, this has been a highlight of the previous decades: to tell federal lawmakers that I lived through “conversion therapy,” and that it was wrong, and should now be legally banned throughout Canada for all.

The entire hearing, however, was not without its discontent.

Immediately before my testimony, another “survivor,” a woman, presented an argument actually in favour of conversion therapy. She described being “gang raped” years earlier, and said that her subsequent “conversion” treatment, presumably serviced by a faith organization, had helped reduce her consequent same-sex desires, and sex and pornographic addiction. Her entire argument left me disorientated.

Assuming this woman’s story of “rape” was even true, it seemed to me that she was erroneously conflating sexual trauma (and its aftermath) with sexual orientation. It struck me that her argument in favour of what she then termed “conversion therapy” was more about a treatment to “help” in the recovery of trauma. I’m not sure if this woman’s belief in the correlation between her sexual orientation and her sexual trauma was something she believed herself or if it was presented to her as part of this faith-based “healing,” but it also seemed to me that whatever same-sex desires this woman may or may not have had, and likely still has, had absolutely nothing to do with her sexual assault, and no one, not the faith organization or anyone close to her, has helped her in the long run by conflating the two. Finally, the faith-based treatment this woman claims to have received, and she argued in favour of not banning, was absolutely not conversion therapy.

The conflation of conversion therapy with other kinds of legitimate (or even illegitimate) therapies or services causes me great concern. It’s an argument that pops up often, and I rarely see it unpacked to any great extent. I fear that this is also exactly how conversion therapy passes as valid forms of treatment today—practitioners defend the right to “help” a (vulnerable) person with past trauma, but in reality end up attempting to shame them out of their non-heterosexual orientation or gender identity. This is very dangerous. It is also how my own former psychiatrist ensnared me in his own treatment of my sexuality.

Two days after my hearing, on December 10, the Committee resumed with a “clause by clause” review of Bill C-6. Rhéal Éloi Fortin, one of the members, presented a motion to suspend such a review until after all of the roughly 300+ briefs, submitted by concerned Canadians, could be properly reviewed by the Committee. The motion was struck down, and the review of the Bill proceeded. From my cursory reading of these briefs, I have no trouble admitting that I do not share the opinion of many of these citizens; I do think, however, that each and every one of these voices should have been read and considered before the Committee proceeded with such an important piece of legislation that has the potential to touch many lives throughout Canada. What is the point of a Committee’s “research” into new legislation, and an extremely controversial piece of legislation at that, if in their research they do not even read the formal written opinions of the general public that were submitted specifically for their consideration?

During their meeting, the Committee also discussed the idea of “forced” conversion therapy. While I think all members agreed in principle to the idea of banning what they termed “coercive” forms of conversion therapy, some defended the position that the ban should only apply for adults in cases of being “forced” into treatment.

Listening to these kinds of discussions reminds me of how divergent the reality of “conversion therapy” in practice can be from what law, and a lawmaker, can and is often able to do. Even debating the possibility of consent around these “conversion” treatments completely misses the point. Let’s be real: so-called “conversion therapy” is a misnomer; in reality, there is no such thing as “conversion therapy”—these treatments are not real therapy at all but institutionalized abuse, an expression of homophobia and transphobia, that targets a minority of people based solely on their sexual orientation and gender identity. “Conversion therapy” is a violent assault on the core self of a minority of people, and all forms of these treatments are inherently coercive. It is simply illogical to describe some as coercive and others as, I guess, non-coercive. Walking of one’s own presumed “free will” into the lions den of one of these treatments—even if a person says they “consent” to such a thing—does not change the fact that these treatments exist as an expression of the homophobia and transphobia that has literally groomed these people into seeking out that treatment in the first place. Coercion has occurred, regardless.

The December 10 hearing concluded with an adoption of the amended Bill. It saddened me to read that the Committee did not adopt the recommendation of many that “conversion therapy” should be banned outright. Instead, they chose to adopt the previous language that would ban conversion therapy for minors, and allow it for “consenting” adults. To be clear: Banning conversion therapy for minors while allowing it for “consenting” adults makes about as much sense to me as banning assault for minors but allowing it for “consenting” adults. This entire argument, from where I stand, defeats the purpose of such a legal ban.

Comments delivered before The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, December 8, 2020

My name is Peter Gajdics. I’m here to make recommendations for Bill C-6, based on my lived experience. I went through six years of conversion therapy with a licensed psychiatrist when I was a legal adult, between 1989 and 1995. I was 24 years old when I met this doctor, 31 when it ended.

I am the author of the book The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir, about my years in this “therapy” and my road to recovery. For the past 23 years I have spoken out about conversion therapy; in 2018, I helped initiate the first Canadian municipal ban on conversion therapy in Vancouver.

I had already come out as gay before I met this psychiatrist; after starting counselling with him he told me that my history of childhood sexual abuse had created a false homosexual identity, and so my therapy‘s goal would be to heal old trauma in order to, as he said, “correct the error” of my sexual orientation and revert to my “innate heterosexuality.” His methods included prolonged sessions of primal scream therapy; multiple psychiatric medications to suppress my homosexual desires; injections of ketamine hydrochloride followed by “reparenting” sessions to heal my “broken masculinity”; and when none of his methods “worked,” aversion therapy.

At their highest dosages, he was prescribing near fatal levels of these medications and I overdosed. I still consider it a miracle I didn’t die.

I left these six years shell-shocked. It was not so much that I wanted to kill myself as I thought I was already dead.

I later sued the doctor for medical malpractice; he denied treating me in order to change my sexual orientation; he claimed I had consented to his treatment; he said he had treated me for depression.

I imagine some will view my experiences as extreme, that it “couldn’t happen again today”; except that these are the exact words I have heard for over 20 years: As I write in my book: “The horror of it all provokes disbelief.”

Though the facts of my treatment will differ from others, I believe the basic principles of a fraudulent practice, combined with a client’s vulnerability, trust, and lack of informed consent, will always apply to all, even today.

Currently there are no federal laws that would prohibit what happened to me today, with another legal adult, or even that could hold a similar practitioner accountable for their actions.

These are my recommendation for Bill C-6.

This ban must be for all ages. Banning conversion therapy is about ending a fraudulent practice that causes harm. This applies to all.

The ban should not include the word “will” or any suggestion of coercion.Suggesting coercion or the idea of “forced conversion therapy” or even mentioning the “will” of the client makes it sound as if conversion therapy could be anything other than coercive; it deflects attention away from the fraudulence and harm of these practices and to the actions of the client, their supposed “willingness” or consent to participate.

All forms of conversion therapy are inherently coercive and exist solely as a form of oppression over LGBT people; to imply otherwise is to invalidate the experience of survivors.

Proper informed consent is not possible in these circumstances because all of these treatments are based on the false premise, the lie, that a person is broken by virtue of being gay or trans and that they can and ought to be changed. To suggest that a person could consent to such a thing is to say that they choose to do to themselves what has been done to them from the start. It is illogical and defeats the purpose of the Bill.

Please ban conversion therapy for all, including for adults.

Thank you.