8 countries have banned it, 19 countries have no regulations — The current state of human rights reflected in the EU's regulation of "conversion therapy"

"Conversion therapy" is not medical treatment but violence aimed at changing people

In Europe, the debate over so-called "conversion therapy" is once again gaining significant momentum.

Conversion therapy is a term used to describe actions aimed at "changing," "suppressing," or "correcting" the sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression of LGBTQ+ individuals. Although the term "therapy" is sometimes used, international human rights organizations and medical and psychological experts have strongly criticized it as an act lacking scientific basis and causing deep psychological and physical harm.

The content goes beyond mere persuasion or advice. Reports include cases involving psychological pressure, religious rituals, isolation, shaming language, pseudo-medical practices, and, in some instances, physical or sexual violence. Even when it appears that the individual has consented, they may have been "chosen" under pressure from family, religious communities, schools, medical professionals, or local societies, highlighting the complexity of this issue.

This time, the European Commission has indicated its intention to issue a recommendation urging EU member states to ban conversion therapy. This move is backed by a European Citizens' Initiative calling for a legal ban across the EU, with over one million citizens signing the petition. The signatures met the necessary criteria, compelling the European Commission to formally respond.

However, what the European Commission chose was not a ban with direct effect across the EU but a "recommendation" urging member states to prohibit it. This is the crux of the current news.

Eight countries have already banned it, but the EU as a whole is not in sync

According to the original article, eight EU member states have already introduced laws banning conversion therapy: Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Malta, Portugal, and Spain.

However, even in these countries, the scope of regulation and penalties are not uniform. Some countries take a stricter stance on actions against minors or vulnerable individuals, while others vary in what they include as prohibited, such as advertising, provision of services, involvement by medical or psychological professionals, or implementation in religious contexts. Thus, even if a country is said to "ban" it, the level of protection varies.

Meanwhile, many of the remaining member states do not have clear prohibitive laws. While future bans are reportedly being discussed in countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, there is strong resistance in countries like Slovakia. Political and cultural divisions over LGBTQ+ rights are deepening within the EU, and the ban on conversion therapy is no exception.

Haja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Equality, explained that establishing a binding EU law would require unanimous agreement among member states, which could lead to prolonged political stalemate. In other words, the Commission chose "a recommendation that can immediately pressure each country" over "an ideal but difficult-to-achieve total ban."

Reactions are sharply divided on how to view this decision.

"The most realistic progress" or "a historic missed opportunity"?

Those who support the European Commission's decision view the recommendation as "the most effective measure currently available."

While the EU has common principles regarding human rights and anti-discrimination, member states have strong authority in areas such as healthcare, criminal law, family policy, and religious freedom. Even if a legal ban across the EU is pursued, it could be thwarted by opposing countries. The view is that it is more realistic to first encourage member states to enact their own bans and advance victim support, professional training, and awareness activities rather than spending time on politically unfeasible legislation.

In fact, the current policy includes not only "calling for a ban" but also making it easier for victims to access legal remedies, strengthening medical and psychological support, raising social awareness, and advancing policy dialogue involving member states and civil society. Conversion therapy tends to occur behind closed doors, making it difficult for victims to speak out. Multiple measures are needed, including legal advice, education, professional ethics, and relationships with religious organizations and schools.

On the other hand, critics focus on the very "lack of binding power."

More than a million people demanded not just a message but a legal ban from the EU. The European Parliament has also supported the ban. UN experts and the Council of Europe have harshly criticized conversion therapy as a human rights violation. Nevertheless, if the European Commission ultimately chose a non-binding recommendation, substantial change might be delayed in countries where harm continues.

This issue reflects the current state of European politics regarding LGBTQ+ rights. While the principle of "no discrimination is allowed" can be stated, when it comes to implementing binding systems, national sovereignty, resistance from religious conservatives, the rise of far-right and conservative parties, and cultural wars over gender become obstacles.

Thus, the current announcement is both a step forward and an insufficient compromise.

Numbers reveal the spread of harm

Conversion therapy is not an extreme case.

According to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 24% of LGBTIQ+ individuals in the EU have experienced some form of conversion practice. The percentage is even higher among transgender individuals. The harm includes verbal insults and humiliation, pressure from family and religious leaders, physical violence, and sexual violence.

The weight of these numbers is significant. A ratio of one in four indicates that conversion therapy is neither "a thing of the past" nor "an exceptional abuse." Moreover, such acts often occur within families, religious facilities, private counseling, and informal gatherings, making the full scope of harm difficult to see. Many cases are believed to go unreported in official statistics.

More seriously, conversion therapy repeatedly instills the message that "you are wrong as you are" in the individual. This is not merely a difference of opinion. It can lead to self-denial, isolation, anxiety, depression, self-harm risk, and social exclusion. Particularly when conducted on young people, it leaves deep scars early in life.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that conversion therapy has no place in the EU. Commissioner Lahbib also emphasized that there is "nothing to be cured" in LGBTQ+ individuals. The question is how far this principle can be translated into legal systems.

Mixed reactions of welcome, disappointment, and anger on social media

Various reactions have spread on social media regarding the current announcement.

In official Facebook posts by the European Commission and EU Justice, the emphasis was on the fact that over one million citizens demanded a ban on conversion therapy, with messages like "listening to the citizens" and "conversion practices should be stopped." As an official communication, the current policy is positioned as a result of citizen participation.

ILGA-Europe welcomed the European Commission's commitment to a recommendation to end conversion practices as "an important step forward." However, they also communicated the need for EU-level coordination, professional training, victim support, and effective system-building, emphasizing that it should not end with symbolic promises or fragmented responses by individual countries. While welcoming the move, they are also calling for further action.

In a post by the liberal group Renew Europe in the European Parliament, the tone was "over one million citizens have spoken" and "what is needed is real action, not empty words." Comments included voices eagerly awaiting bans in European countries, including Germany, reflecting the expectation among stakeholders and supporters that "we have finally come this far."

On the other hand, the international LGBTQ+ support group All Out criticized the European Commission's response as "words, not action." Against Conversion Therapy, which supported the European Citizens' Initiative, also labeled the decision as a "missed opportunity." These reactions express dissatisfaction that a non-binding recommendation is insufficient to immediately protect victims.

In social media shares by news media and LGBTQ+ media, the headlines showed a clear temperature difference. Some conveyed the news positively as "EU urges member states to ban," while others harshly reported it as "EU rejected a total ban." Some, like GoodGoodGood, viewed it as "not yet a law but a hopeful step," and the evaluations on social media were not simply for or against but highlighted a middle-ground reaction of "progress, but not enough."

Additionally, on X, there were voices from cautious and opposing groups welcoming the European Commission's decision not to step into a binding ban across the EU. Such positions are often linked to concerns about the expansion of EU authority, religious freedom, parental rights, and political conflicts over gender medicine. The debate over banning conversion therapy is not just an issue of medical ethics or human rights but also a frontline of value conflicts in Europe.

The "recommendation" is weak but not meaningless

So, is the European Commission's policy ultimately a failure?

It is too early to conclude that. Recommendations do not have legal binding power. However, in EU politics, recommendations play a role in indicating policy directions to member states, supporting domestic discussions, and leading to future legislation, budget measures, and expert meetings. In countries where bans are already being discussed, the European Commission's recommendation could become an important basis for domestic advocates.

Particularly in human rights violations like conversion therapy, which tend to occur in secret, "illegalization" alone is not enough. It is necessary for victims to recognize the acts they suffered as harm, have places to consult, ensure that psychological and medical professionals are trained not to participate in harm, and not overlook coercion in the name of religion or family. If the European Commission seriously advances these complementary measures, the recommendation will have some significance.

However, the limitations are clear. There are no immediate penalties for countries that ignore the recommendation. Governments that are politically passive about LGBTQ+ rights are less likely to act on a recommendation alone. The situation where the safety of LGBTQ+ individuals living across the EU is greatly influenced by the country they reside in continues.

In other words, the current announcement is not the goal but the beginning of the next battle.

The question is "what kind of community are we protecting?"

The EU often upholds freedom, equality, dignity, and human rights as common values. However, these values cannot be protected by mere declaration. When individuals are treated as "beings that should be changed" due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, their dignity is harmed. Furthermore, if this is done under the guise of family, religion, education, or medicine, the individual is often left with no escape.

Whether to ban conversion therapy is not just an issue for LGBTQ+ individuals. It is also about how much society allows "correcting people to fit the majority," how to protect the self-determination of those in vulnerable positions, and how to create an environment where children and young people can safely express themselves.

The European Commission's response this time contains both hope and disappointment. The voices of over one million citizens moved the EU, and the message that conversion therapy should be ended was clearly demonstrated. However, it did not reach a legal ban across the EU.

The reactions that spread on social media also reflect this duality: the welcome of "we have come this far," the anger of "it's still not enough," the expectation that "now each country should act," and the backlash and political resistance over LGBTQ+ rights.

The focus going forward is how specific and effective the European Commission's recommendation scheduled for 2027 will be, and whether the unprepared member states will actually create prohibition laws in response.

Will the words "there is nothing to be cured" end as a mere slogan, or will they be institutionalized as a right to live authentically regardless of the country one resides in? The EU is now being questioned on its seriousness.

Source URL

ModernGhana. Reporting on the European Commission's policy, the ban status in 8 member states, and reactions from both supporters and critics as an RFI distributed article.
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1493259/conversion-therapy-is-banned-in-eight-eu-countri.html

European Commission press release. Confirmation of the response to the European Citizens' Initiative, the policy of recommending bans to member states, and its relation to the LGBTIQ+ equality strategy.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1070

European Citizens' Initiative official page. Confirmation that the number of signatures exceeded 1.1 million and met the necessary criteria in 11 member states.
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/news/european-commission-replies-ban-conversion-practices-european-union-initiative-2026-05-13_en

European Commission document. Confirmation that 8 member states have adopted laws banning conversion practices, the names of the target countries, and the EU's response policy.
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/document/download/1de84b11-b269-479a-a46f-796aca71235e_en?filename=C_2026_3333.pdf

AP News article. Confirmation of the European Commission's announcement, over one million signatures, FRA survey, and the political background before Brussels Pride.
https://apnews.com/article/gay-conversion-therapy-lgtbq-pride-ff90fde255a0e661681d5bfe27f1bb84

Euronews article. Confirmation that the European Commission's recommendation did not result in a binding ban across the EU, Lahbib's statement, and the issue of unanimity.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/13/end-barbaric-conversion-practices-now-brussels-tells-eu-countries

EU News article. Confirmation of the direction of the 2027 recommendation, awareness-raising, victim access to justice, medical and psychological support, expert groups, and policy forums.
https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/05/13/the-eu-commission-calls-on-member-states-to-ban-conversion-practices/

European Parliament announcement. Confirmation that the European Citizens' Initiative sought EU regulations, the discussions in the European Parliament, and the background in which the European Commission was asked to respond.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/plenary-news/2026-03-25/10/an-eu-ban-on-lgbtq-conversion-practices-meps-to-discuss-citizens-initiative

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution. Confirmation of the content calling for a comprehensive ban on conversion practices as harmful, unscientific, and violating human rights autonomy.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/35883

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report. Confirmation of the actual harm based on the FRA survey, cases involving family, religious figures, and professionals, and the forms of conversion practices.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/35742/html

ILGA-Europe Facebook post. Referenced as a social media reaction that welcomed the European Commission's recommendation policy as "an important step forward" while indicating the need not to end with symbolic responses.
##HTML_TAG_169