Any resemblance to Live Action is purely coincidental

Any resemblance to Live Action is purely coincidental June 1, 2012

In the country that used to be a England, a gay activist goes to a Christian psychotherapist, lies that he is a Christian who wants help with his same-sex attraction, and then brings her up on charges when she tries to do what he asked her to do. What’s more, he wins and she is being stripped of her accreditation and, effectively, her livelihood after years of helping suffering people.

Let me repeat that: for doing what *he* asked her to do.

Dear Gay Activists: This is why people hate you. You’re welcome.

"What powerful nation doesn't have a dark history? Yours certainly. There have always been progressives ..."

If Isaiah were writing today
"Or maybe it's just that you're not funny."

If Isaiah were writing today
"Thank you, Linda. I do despair, but you're right."

If Isaiah were writing today

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ivan_the_mad

    I wonder if the same people who think that it’s justified to lie to PP to expose them will be outraged by this …

  • Scott W.

    Did you catch the end of that article?

    LifeSiteNews reports that Strudwick has told Pink News, a homosexual news service, “We want to root out therapists and psychiatrists who are practicing these techniques and ultimately bring an end to them through exposing them, as well as disrupting their meetings.”

    So there it is; the only imagine the homosexualist movement wants to us to have is a boot smashing a face for eternity. It’s not often you catch progressives using their Darth Vader voice; when you do, it is quite creepy.

  • anon

    So…If someone is unhappy with their sexual orientation or their gender identity and asks a professional to try to help them change that part of their self, it’s unprofessional and damaging for the professional to agree and offer therapy that uses cognitive, behavioural and psychological techniques.

    But if someone else is unhappy with their actual sex and physical gender and asks a professional to try to help them change that part of their self, it is professional and laudable for the professional to agree and offer counseling and surgical alteration for the transition.

    Does this seem odd to anyone else?

    • Dan

      It’s only unprofessional and damaging if the client is unhappy with his same-sex attraction.

      If a client is unhappy with a feeling of femininity in a male body / masculinity in a female body, it’s professional to help them change their bodies, but unprofessional to help them change their feelings.

      Alles klar, ja?

  • kenneth

    If someone is practicing medicine or psychology in ways that fall outside of the standards of care and ethics governing the field at that time, they have no cause to gripe when they get caught and disciplined. The fact that the “investigator” had a vindictive agenda means their actions are something far, far short of heroic, but if the doctor knows they’re doing something they’re not supposed to be doing, they better be prepared for the possibility that they’re going to get busted for it. It’s no different than doctors who write unlimited oxycontin scripts for tennis elbow. They may feel their helping people. The addicts they serve are certainly happy by the arrangement, so where would I get off going in with bad faith and setting up the poor doc for a bust? There are doctors who offer “caner cures” using weird walnut extracts or goat urine or whatever happens to be the alternative fad of the day. Plenty of people are happy to go there and infuriated when someone blows the whistle. Personally I think people ought to have the freedom to undergo unproven treatments if they’re fully informed that they’re scientifically unproven and possibly harmful. That said, when professionals flout the regulations and laws of their professions, they better be prepared for the reality that they will be living in the crosshairs of their enemies.

    • Mark Shea

      You could have just said “Heads you win. Tails Christians lose.” It would have been less windy. Have you noticed how verbose you get when you are trying to justify evil?

      • kenneth

        Verbosity is part of what we old-fashioned debaters call “reasoned argument.” It’s dreadfully boring stuff to wade through, I grant, with all of the logic and details and conclusions, but it offers something to engage for those few still willing to do so. I will concede that the dominant method in online debate is simply to pronounce someone and their opinions “evil” or righteous, but doing that seems such a waste of the forebrain mass that our ancestors worked so hard to evolve.

        In this topic at hand, I don’t care whether the therapist is Christian, Bahai, or Santeria. When you’re a medical or psychological professional, you stick to the standard of care and therapies which are proven to be reasonably effective, or violate those things at your own risk. There is no science demonstrating that sexual orientation can be “fixed” by psychotherapy nor that the attempt causes more good than harm. That being the case, selling such therapy is unethical and deceptive. It is fraudulent. It has no place whatsoever in the profession and deserves no quarter.

        If this therapist wanted to help people with SSA in an ethical fashion, she could have done so in a religious ministry context. Even the Church doesn’t presume that SSA can be “fixed.” It does offer a theology about how to live with it, how to make choices about acting upon those attractions or not etc. This therapist didn’t do that. She chose to make a buck selling snake oil, she got busted, and now we’re supposed to cry for her as the victim because her motivation for fraud was holy and all…..

        • ivan_the_mad

          “Verbosity is part of what we old-fashioned debaters call “reasoned argument.””

          Perhaps. But what you gave wasn’t reasoned argument, it was an argument by analogy and lacked completely an attempt to trace the similarities in the examples to the conclusion (you don’t have to take my word for this, GoogleBooks is replete with venerable tracts on logic, argument and debate, dialectic etc). I’m going to call “false analogy” on this. No actual counter-argument is necessary here, because, as we “old-fashioned debaters” might say, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

          • kenneth

            No actual counter-argument is ever necessary for any point I raise, or any argument made by anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion of the thread. The tactic of “this argument isn’t even worth engaging” is sometimes true, but its far, far more often than not simply the refuge of people who have no game, no plausible answer. Both conservative and liberal enclaves in this country have become so isolated and intellectually inbred that most of their respective residents simply don’t have the skills or drive to respond to an argument with an argument. That structure of the brain has simply atrophied from a generation of utter disuse. This is also why young people are turning away from organized religion in droves. They’re not impressed by people who assert moral authority and yet can’t articulate a plausible answer to even moderately tough questions, and in fact act like it’s beneath their station in life to even have to formulate an answer.

            • ivan_the_mad

              I pointed out your argument type (argument by analogy) and that you failed to develop support for analogies, you only asserted them (hence the quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur bit). In response, you give an opinion piece asserting that people “don’t have the skills or drive to respond to an argument with an argument”. Don’t complain about lack of quid pro quo when you yourself fail in that regard.

  • Matthew

    Rod Dreher recently updated his post on this ruling with the following link:

    A qoute:
    “*BACP dismissed Strudwick’s initial intention of having LP banned for conducting Reparative Therapy. They weren’t really interested in arguments from either side on the validity or otherwise of this kind of counselling approach.
    *The real issue was, from BACP’s perspective, the way that LP exhibited very poor counselling practice by not keeping clear personal boundaries, letting sessions over-run and imposing interpretations on her client even when the client denied the events that the counsellor claimed had happened in the client’s life.
    *Neither side is willing to accept the above – the liberals seem to think that BACP ruled that Reparative Therapy was wrong (it didn’t) and the conservatives seem to think that LP was victimised for practising Reparative Therapy (she wasn’t).”

    It seems the therapist in question got in trouble, not for reparative therapy, but for breaching professional standards. She also seems like a bit of a quack (i.e., suggesting the homosexuality stemmed from a family members possible involvement in Freemasonry. That said, the activist campaigns behind these dishonest stings are morally dubious no matter who engages in them. But the fact that such activists exist do not, I think, warrant broad-brush characterizations of the gay rights movement, any more than the methods of Live Action warrant generalizations about the pro-life movement.

    • Matthew

      Sorry. Should be e.g. not i.e.. Don’t want to spread bad grammar habits.

  • EBS

    Yeah, I always read the first line of Kenneth’s comments and skip to the last. Haha, I can’t be bothered.
    1. How can you not end up neurotic with such round-about winded explanations in an attempt to make ONE point. And in the end, you don’t even know what point was being made except – sneaky gay weasel “journalist” = good, senior experienced psychotherapist with good intentions = bad.
    2. Therapist should counter-sue him. Gay activist weasels fabricating their own stories should be held accountable- Dressing up and conning someone into “not acting appropriately” is not journalism or heroic. And before you say it, Live Action was protecting the unborn from abhorrent acts- murder- by showing how prevalent sex-selection abortion is encouraged- even Sascha Baron Cohen took a swipe at it in “The Dictator”. In other words it’s common knowledge, Live Action was proving it. Strudwick merely ruined the career, and livelihood of a long-standing therapist, not to save or protect anyone- was this therapists harassing him to change him? Did she have this crusade or agenda to mess with gays? Please?! HE CAME TO HER! Big difference. Not same broad brushstroke Mathew.
    3. And re:Mathew comment, whose to say that the BACP findings were biased. Whose version of what happened in the session did they take? Whose to say he wasn’t lying in the sessions- SSA in family present etc He lied to fabricate this how is he now honest in any of his conduct.
    4. FYI Mark, I don’t have the link (but Im sure you can google 60 minutes, Australia website)- 60minutes Australia ran a story a few weeks ago about multiple pregnancy abortion from IVF patients that is being carried out in the USA and thankfully not “legal” in Australia, and it made me weep.

    • Matthew

      EBS: You can read the ruling yourself at the following:

      Regarding your questions; nobody here, it seems to me, is in any position to answer them. You can assume all you want based on your suspicious about people, but such assumptions will be unwarranted unless backed up by facts. You must judge based on the evidence you have and beyond that, withhold judgement.

      • EBS

        Thank you for the link Mathew. I read it.
        The points presented make broad claims that demonstrate the “flaws” in the therapists approach. For example talking to him about Rugby to improve his masculinity (haha- is this grounds for misconduct), talking to him about her personal views about homosexuality etc… Basically what the Therapist said, not what the patient said that prompted the Therapist. Get me?
        There is no indication as to what the client was telling her/prompting her/lying to her about to slowly nudge her into talking this way. The Therapist is clearly honest with the patient (whether you agree with her views or not), and the patient isn’t. Period.
        I myself have been to therapists, on recommendation that they share the same faith as me therefore would understand me better. I wouldn’t go to an Athiest therapist because the Athiest therapist will tell me my problems are as a result of my Christian beliefs. This is common sense.
        There is “biased” in every profession- law, education, medicine etc.. For example Doctors who choose to write scripts for the Contraceptive Pill and those that dont. Schools that teach the Catholic faith, schools that don’t.
        This is called personal belief and is reflected everyone’s approach to their profession. Im sure the gay “journalist” is biased in his newspaper articles- and what a hypocrite to tell others they cant be in their profession!
        This gay activist knew she was a therapist that helped with SSA, and his intention was to destroy her. Who is the victim here?
        If you don’t like someone’s approach to the service they provide- don’t go to them. Don’t ruin their life, their livelihood. That’s monstrous!
        What is the world coming to where we can’t express or use our beliefs in our personal aswell as our professional life? Is this a dictatorship?

        • Matthew

          Just for clarification: this woman did not lose her livelihood. People seem to be assuming she can never work again. From the link above:

          98. Taking into account the findings, all the mitigation in this case, the need to protect the public and the effect of any sanctions upon Mrs Pilkington, the Appeal Panel is of the unanimous opinion that the sanction imposed by the Professional Conduct Panel should be varied to that set out below:

          Mrs Pilkington’s BACP accredited status will be lapsed with immediate effect.

          Once the sanction has been satisfactorily completed, Mrs Pilkington may apply for reinstatement of her accreditation.

          Within one month from the date of the imposition of this sanction Mrs Pilkington is required to provide a copy of her current written contract and a written submission which evidences her immediate reflections, learning and understanding of the issues found proved by this Appeal Panel.

          Additionally, in no less than 4 months and no more than 12 months, Mrs Pilkington is required to provide a further written submission countersigned by her supervisor, with appropriate examples from her practise, that evidence the following:

          Changes that she has made in her practise since the imposition of the sanction that demonstrates her learning, including how she uses the first session for contracting and assessment.

          These written submissions must be sent to the Head of Professional Ethics & Legal Services by the given deadlines and will be independently considered by a Sanction Panel.

          99. This concludes the decision of the Appeal Panel.

          • EBS

            That’s a relief. Good to know she only:
            1. got stopped from practicing after the complaint (surely that didnt affect her livelihood)
            2. has to re-appeal her Licence
            3. must prove she is “fit” by probably being monitored by a third party or references from her Patients. How demeaning.
            4. Affect her name and good- standing with her current Patients, and ability to obtain new
            5. Her name was dragged through the mud, her face posted in news articles
            6. Finally, she must NOT include her personal beliefs in how she conducts her Practise.
            Surely that was not much disruption to her livelihood nor her career nor her professional standing.
            Why does anyone have to be subjected to this, when they were manipulated into this situation in the first place.
            I hope previous Patients of hers come forth and vouch for her and how she has helped them live happier lives in overcoming their SSA. If only to rub it in the face of that snakey journalist.

            • Matthew

              EBS: She lost her accreditation, not her license. She can still practice. When she was accredited, she submitted herself the oversight of this committee. And I, and I think also you, don’t know that facts of the case well enough to know whether the accusations were justified or not.

      • EBS

        I take offense by your comment: read my previous comment properly Mathew and you will see that I in fact read the notes in your link.
        It is not clear what authority the BACP has on her professional standing- is the BACP enforcers of the codes of ethics for her professional body or are they just an association that therapists join to network and obtain support?
        1. I don’t see how the accusations were justified when it clearly states in your link that when the Therapist tried to appeal by stating that she was deceived into a false sense of security and revealing her personal views, the BACP ruled that being an UNDERCOVER journalist still defined him as a patient. The accreditation is not taking into account the deception involved, and making irrelevant the true identity of the patient. He was not a legitimate patient! He was undercover! I don’t see, in all fairness, how the conduct of the journalist can be justified. Infact, after reading the ruling I failed to find anything to even slightly imply that the journalist conducted himself in a deceptive misleading manner, that intended to “trap” her. This is very puzzling.
        2. Also there is an obvious bias within the BACP rules that states that when the therapist updates her professional education, she is not permitted to reference studies that show the negative impact of SSA. Almost implying that one type of belief system must be supported, and all others ignored, otherwise the therapist will be deemed unprofessional and negligent.
        3. Mathew, when exploring the “facts” I see that because the BACP is her “governing” body, it does not mean that their findings were impartial or unbiased. And in my opinion, it is better for a therapist to not be accredited by such a body, if she can help it, in order for her to continue to provide therapy for SSA. This is her belief, and the service she chooses to provide. She isn’t harassing anyone to come to her therapy session- people in need of her services seek her. And by her statement to the Panel, that she was deceived into a false sense of security, implies she wouldn’t have provided this SSA therapy if journalist had not asked for it. The journalist asked for it.
        4. Furthermore, my previous statement that the “governing” body of each profession does not have the authority to dictate ones personal beliefs when conducting ones profession. If you don’t like the persons beliefs (and individual beliefs are prevalent and very much used in ones profession), then don’t entrust oneself to that professional. It does not give grounds for an unwarranted witch hunt.
        5. And as I stated in my previous comment, complaints such as this WILL have a damaging affect to the therapists professional standing, and WILL impact her livelihood. You and I will not know exactly how damaging this will be in the long term- don’t assume this is just a slap on the wrist.
        Lastly, read Marks last paragraph:
        “We want to root out therapists and psychiatrists who are practicing these techniques and ultimately bring and end to them through exposing them and disrupting their meetings”. Nothing harmless there.

    • Here’s a scenario for you:

      An activist lies to gain entrance to a health professional and coerce that professional into providing a service that the activist sees as morally abhorrent and unethical. Activist then reproduces a recording of the meeting for an international audience posting it primarily to friendly websites. Those who support the health professional decry the tactics of the activist and claim that those tactics prove the bad faith of everyone who falls on the activists’ side of the debate.

      Now, who is the activist and who is the health professional and which one of them acted in a morally and ethically correct manner which can be universally known by reason based on nature, hmm?

      • EBS

        Read Mark Sheas heading “Any resemblance to Live Action is purely coincidental”. Make your own inferences.
        Your scenario is neither new nor “shocking”. If you want to compare:
        Number one: look at the intention of the “aggressor”
        Number Two: look at the result achieved.
        Hip hip hooray the gay man won. The unborn got the proverbial finger by the media!
        Don’t compare the two- it’s not an even playing field.
        There is nothing “moral” or “ethical about the gay movement, either in their approach or in their conduct. And spare me the essay about the man that shot to death an abortionist. NOONE, NOONE in the pro-life movement condones, supports or endorses ONE looney mans behavior and besides the looney got punished by law for it.
        Do you get punished for ruining a long standing therapists livelihood, career and life? Or is it different rules for different people? God bless such a phony democratic world we live in. “Let’s muzzle those that oppose us”- EXACTLY, what Mark has been talking about all along- Gay Brownshirts with the biggest chip on their shoulder and a nasty agenda.

  • Matthew

    Might I suggest that making generalizations based on news items is rarely justified? The reason for this is that news items are usually reports of exceptional events- that is why it is *news*- and thus not a basis for generalizing. When was the last time you saw a headline saying “Pro-lifer goes to the abortion clinics on a weekly basis to peacefully pray for and calmly counsel people seeking abortions!” Anyone familiar with the movement realizes that such behavior is typical, but if you were not a part of the movement you would not know that because your one and only source of information is the news, and the only time the pro-life movement is in the news is when some nut job shoots someone or says something completely outrageous. During such times members of the pro-life movement are on the defensive, because they realize that the judgments being made about them on the basis of these stories does not correspond to reality. If it happens to us, why should it not happen to others, like the gay rights movement? I know that eliminating the news as a source of justified inference will severely limit generalizations we are willing to make, but I think that is fine. I think we greatly overestimate what we actually know outside of the bubble of our experience.

    • Matthew

      To stave off misunderstanding, I am not saying we should ignore the news. Only that we should take care when generalizing based on the news. For example: this week’s news has shown that two individuals on the East Coast have engaged in cannibalism, but we should not infer from this that Easterners are prone to eating their own. Not quite a serious example, but you get the point.

  • Observer

    The use of deception usually means one becomes prone to deception (and being deceived.)

    When LA used tactics for deceiving (and the activist above), what says (or what is necessarily defined in reality) that the other side cannot also use deception? There’s isn’t (there’s no moral basis for deception.) God does not evoke fires from the sky, so-to-speak, as soon as a bad guy uses deception. And under the same view, God does not evoke a blue, bright, and halo-glissening sky for the good guy who deceives. Point of fact, there isn’t actual evidence which God grants or even warrants an act of grace to the deceiver for deceiving because he is a good guy.

    When you evaluate the activist, for instance, who misled the psychologist, you don’t have any sort of empirical consequence which God has actually laid down from heaven some punishment upon the un-suspecting person. In other words, the real consequences are a face-and-point of reality: deception leads to more deceiving. The activist used the same tactics as LA for some apparent good: confronting any obstacle to the movement. And was successful (for good and for bad.)

    Continuing, take for instance what someone said about LA protecting life versus the activist who didn’t. The person missed the parallel, in the observation, is that both were defending something. Certainly protecting life is more meritable (there is a moral merit for it.) However, there is a merit to protecting one’s association from being demolished we well. You could argue the difference of moral merit. Yet, morality does not suffice as an argument since the methods and means (to deceive) are the same for different purposes: in deceiving.

    The good of defending one’s association, as a general notion, (which one could also grant as an argument in protecting life – by defending the association of the living) may mean something more than a mere association of people who have a particular lifestyle. Yet, the means of deception is the underlying basis for both. And, you cannot change deception from what it is: deceiving. And you cannot change the actual empirical nature of deception by some moral reason, either. Deception is deception and the act of deceiving always entails.

    Can you tell me when soldiers are in a fire fight and are being apparently deceived by the night-sky, the enemy, or a smoke screen (perhaps of their own) have not actually fired on themselves or their own? The occurrence, though not necessarily occurring for the most part in every battle, happens. Thus, a smoke screen (or the nightsky, dense fog, or any other obstacle presenting obscurity to the vision and site of a soldier) presents deception (to them and the enemy.) Likewise, deception used for good or bad does not change its’ nature and presents an all entailing dangerous proposition to all involved: innocent, guilt, good, and bad alike.

  • Observer

    Think in Revelation: The big red dragon swept a third of the stars (angels) with his tale and took them down with him. The devil is the greatest of all deceivers and those angels (pure spirits): were persuaded angels of God to be his (the devil) angels. The devil used an apparent good by deception since he is a deceiver (as he did to Adam and Eve.) And guess what? Innocent, good, bad, and guilty alike suffered for it.