Like a storm in a summer sky, the latest debate on what is known as conversion therapy has hit this country when it least expected it.

It is quite strange this controversy was occasioned by a statement by a group of experts commissioned by the church. This small group consists of well-respected persons, both within church and academia. The only complaint one can raise is it is heavily weighted with all members but one being male and no representative from the gay  Catholic groups on it.

The statement then does not say what the various gay groups claimed to read into it over the past days. It is, one may say, quite indicative of a state of affairs which has prevailed in this country for the past few years that the LGBT area, possibly justifiably after so many years in a closed environment, react and maybe over-react whenever the gay issue is mentioned by non-gay persons.

In this case, one may speak of hasty and unconsidered reactions which honestly find no basis in the text of the church’s committee statement.

But while this may be, in a way, condoned, one is honestly surprised by the speed with which the prime minister jumped on the issue on Sunday and ploughed in with his condemnation and distortion of the church commission’s statement. One must here note that, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the prime minister took a stance without the bill being published, and without the bill being discussed by the parliamentary group.

The Opposition has so far not declared its opinion but may do so today. In its defence, one must say the bill has so far not been published. However, the country will be watching to see how the Opposition will discuss and decide on this issue. There are increasing voices within it from the LGBT sector and they have had, in their cases, a double uphill climb.

With regards to the text itself, the core of the issue, removing off the distortions and the attacks on it, the statement strikes an objective reader as more inclined to safeguard the human rights than to put across a religious stance.

It would be worth it, when the bill is published and the discussed in the country and in the House, to examine and provide safeguards in this respect.

While conversion therapy as is usually understood, is abusive and should not be allowed, there can still be cases when a normal gesture can be construed as abusive and leading to a conversion therapy. Proper safeguards must thus be put in place to ensure that human rights are not infringed on this or on that side of the matter.

Maybe, but this is not conclusive, such a statement insisting on full respect of human rights, without any religious overtones or undertones, would have been better in the circumstances.