UK – Warren Throckmorton

Brenda Namigadde remains in the UK – for now

The BBC is reporting just now that Brenda Namigadde will not be required to leave the UK tonight as had been planned. Here is more…

Lawyers for Ms Namigadde lodged papers at the High Court asking a judge to grant an injunction against her deportation, which was due to take place on Friday evening.

When the BBC spoke to Ms Namigadde by phone on Friday afternoon she was already being escorted to Heathrow airport.

Her lawyer, Abdulrahman Jafar, said he would argue that Ms Namigadde should be allowed to remain in the UK regardless of her sexuality.

“The press coverage about her activities certainly expose her to a real risk if she is to be returned to Uganda,” he said.

David Kato, who was recently beaten to death, led condemnation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The Home Office confirmed the granting of the injuction and said Ms Namigadde would not have to be deported on Friday night.

David Bahati intervenes in UK asylum case

This in from Lezgetreal.com:

Brenda Namigadde left Uganda 8 years ago, in 2003. She lived together with her partner, a Canadian woman Janet, but they were threatened, and both left the country, first Janet back to Canada, then Brenda went to the UK:

“Our relationship led us to be sworn at, threatened. Even the house where we were living was hurt, so we had to live in hiding for a month. Janet had to go back to Canada, the last time I saw here was in 2003. I’ve been in the U.K. for 8 years, applied for asylum last year for human protection.”

“I’ll be tortured, or killed, if I’m sent back to Uganda. They’ve put people like me to death there.”

“Yes I was involved in the protest at Trafalgar Square, we wanted to speak out against the law in Uganda. It’s not right how they treat gay people there. In Uganda, I have nobody there, it’s very dangerous for me. If I can stay here in the UK I can continue my studies, live my life freely, openly, without fear.”

This is the woman who faces deportation back to Uganda on January 28^th. International Activists have worked in unity to effect a campaign to save Brenda from certain harm.

Brenda is presently detained at Yarlswood Immigrtaion Removal Centre. She has another removal date set for 28th January 2011 to Entebbe Uganda in Flight VS671 & KQ412 via Nairobi, Kenya at 21.20 hrs.

I am supporting asylum for this woman as it appears to me that she could well face threat in Uganda. The case took an interesting and unexpected turn yesterday when Anti-Homosexuality Bill author called Melanie Nathan, the author of the Lezgetreal blog, to comment on the Namigadde case:

Bahati said he read the piece about Brenda Namigadde where I quoted him and that he was calling to tell me to give Brenda a message. The author of the anti-gay legislation said that the legislation will be presented to the Ugandan Parliament in the next few weeks. Homosexuality Including men and women is considered a crime in Uganda as being against the order of nature. The new Bill by Bahati seeks to affirm its criminalization and also calls for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

He told me that Brenda should stop bad mouthing Uganda; that she would be welcome back to Uganda if she renounced her homosexuality and if she “repented.” I asked him if he based this ideal upon religious beliefs and he said “yes” that he did. I asked what if Brenda did not have the same belief as he did? I asked what if she did not believe that she could repent? He affirmed then she would be tried as a criminal.

After speaking to Mr. Bahati, I realize that he believes that Ms. Namigadde is indeed a lesbian. This serves only to enhance the danger she is in and flies in the face of the UK assertion that she may not have proved that she is a lesbian. She is indeed in danger.

Although the campaign is in full swing in Uganda, Mr. Bahati faces no opposition and must have some time on his hands.

Change.org and Paul Canning have efforts going to alert the UK authorities about what would be good for Ms. Namigadde.

More on this situation from the UK Guardian.

British reparative therapist may lose professional association membership

Fallout from the Patrick Strudwick sting continues. Strudwick presented himself falsely as a client who desired to change his sexual orientation to two therapists, Paul Miller and Lesley Pilkington. Richard Cohen acolyte, Paul Miller apparently avoided sanctions from his professional medical body. Now Pilkington’s case is being decided by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). In the UK, counsellors are not regulated directly by the government, but can become members of charity professional associations such as the BACP. I suspect Ms. Pilkington could still practice if she lost her standing in the BACP but it would cast a shadow over her.

If the news account is accurate, one can hear the reparative theory loud and clear:

Mrs Pilkington says her method of therapy – Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) – is legitimate and effective. The therapy is practised by a handful of psychotherapists in Britain.

Mrs Pilkington, whose 29-year-old son is homosexual, said she was motivated by a desire to help others. “He [my son] is heterosexual. He just has a homosexual problem,” she said last week.

Mrs Pilkington has accused Patrick Strudwick, the award-winning journalist who secretly taped her, of entrapment. On the tape, Mr Strudwick asks Mrs Pilkington if she views homosexuality as “a mental illness, an addiction or an antireligious phenomenon”. She replies: “It is all of that.”

And then…

“We say everybody is heterosexual but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is environmental; it is in the upbringing.”

The SOCE method involves behavioural, psychoanalytical and religious techniques. Homosexual men are sent on weekends away with heterosexual men to “encourage their masculinity” and “in time to develop healthy relationships with women”, said Mrs Pilkington.

Mrs. Pilkington, who has a gay son, sounds like a nice lady. Perhaps, she has helped people with other types of problems. However, on this issue, it sounds to me like she could use some assistance. It also sounds like her objectivity might be effected by her personal situation.

In any event, I am ambivilent about this situation. I agree that professional associations may intervene where false information and potentially harmful techniques are being offered. However, she was set up by the journalist who did not actually participate in counseling. Those opposing her might have a hard time proving actual harm to Mr. Strudwick. If other real clients who say they were harmed have come forward, I think that would change the deliberations.

Instead of removing her membership, the BACP could ask her to complete additional courses in sexuality and perhaps consult with religiously compatible therapists who do not use reparative therapy. Even if Mrs. Pilkington escapes penalty, as Paul Miller seems to have, the BACP could use the incident to advance a balanced position, such as this one from the APA.

Reorientation therapies in the UK: Survey results

A new survey from BMC Psychiatry found that 4-17% of therapists surveyed offer some form of therapy designed to reduce homosexual attractions.
From the article in the BBC News:

A significant minority of mental health professionals had agreed to help at least one patient “reduce” their gay or lesbian feelings when asked to do so.
The survey, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry and conducted by London researchers, involved 1,400 therapists.
Many were acting with the “best of intentions”, said the lead author.
Only 4% said they would attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation, but when asked if they would help curb homosexual feelings some 17% – or one in six – said they had done so.
The incidence appeared to be as prevalent in recent years as decades earlier.

Here is the abstract from the journal article:

Background
We know very little about mental health practitioners’ views on treatments to change sexual orientation. Our aim was to survey a representative sample of professional members of the main United Kingdom psychotherapy and psychiatric organisations about their views and practices concerning such treatments.
Methods
We sent postal questions to mental health professionals who were members of British Psychological Society, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Participants were asked to give their views about treatments to change homosexual desires and describe up to six patients each, whom they have treated in this way.
Results
Of 1848 practitioners contacted, 1406 questionnaires were returned and 1328 could be analysed. Although only 55 (4%) of therapists reported that they would attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation if one consulted asking for such therapy, 222 (17%) reported having assisted at least one client/patient to reduce or change his or her homosexual or lesbian feelings. 413 patients were described by these 222 therapists: 213 (52%) were seen in private practice and 117 (28%) were not followed up beyond the period of treatment. Counselling was the commonest (66%) treatment offered and there was no sign of a decline in treatments in recent years. 159 (72%) of the 222 therapists who had provided such treatment considered that a service should be available for people who want to change their sexual orientation. Client/patient distress and client/patient autonomy were seen as reasons for intervention; therapists paid attention to religious, cultural and moral values causing internal conflict.
Conclusions
A significant minority of mental health professionals are attempting to help lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to become heterosexual. Given lack of evidence for the efficacy of such treatments, this is likely to be unwise or even harmful.

Going a little deeper into the study, it appears that some of the efforts designated as change might not be direct efforts to change after all. Consider some reasons given for what is labeled by the authors as support for change efforts:

“…where someone had a strong faith, then working to help the person accept their feelings but manage them appropriately may be the best approach if (the) person felt they would lose God and therefore their life was not worth living.”
“Some bisexual individuals may wish to choose an orientation that is
comfortable for them and their lifestyle choices for example. This is a
therapeutic issue to explore and support if that is their wish. It is different from behavioural attempts to reshape desire.”
“Yes, possibly those within marriages that wish to continue with that
relationship rather than break up”

Rather, these therapists give what sound like client-centered responses based on the individual circumstances of the clients. I wonder if the authors of this article may have pushed these responses into either change or gay affirming camps without considering a third more neutral position – what Mark Yarhouse and I call sexual identity therapy.
Most of the other comments relied on a belief that therapists should follow the wishes of the client. This seems reasonable if the client is informed that change is infrequent at best and we do not know going in who might shift and by how much. Also, it is necessary to provide prospective clients with accurate information regarding homosexuality without regard to the ideological loyaties of the therapist. Also, it seems clear that non-homosexually identified people experience same-sex attraction. Helping them sort out their particular situation and arrive and a value-congruent position is not the same thing as reparative or reorientation therapy.
The authors paint a picture of 1 in 6 therapists engaging in change therapy and I think that is misleading. The 4% figure seems like the right number of therapists who deliberately promote change among their same-sex attracted clients.