Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705574
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. No one in our society should be abused, harmed or coerced simply because of who they are or who they love, but, right now, gaps in existing law are allowing a specific and pernicious form of abuse to persist in our society. Conversion practices are driven by a belief that LGBTQ+ people are ill and in need of a cure, that they can be forcibly changed and that subjecting someone to just enough psychological pressure will somehow stop them from being who they authentically are. Many people assume that conversion practices are a relic of a very distant past, but, sadly, these cruel and archaic acts persist in our society today. People are shamed, humiliated and told that they are broken. Their own adverse childhood experiences are weaponised and used against them. People are locked in cupboards until they reflect and repent, or are threatened with rape if they do not change their identity. Those are real stories that involve real people in our communities and real abusers who are getting away with that heinous abuse. With this Bill, that changes. Those discredited, damaging and deeply destructive acts have no place in Northern Ireland, and they must end. The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill seeks to fill those gaps in existing law in order to ban conversion practices and protect LGBTQ+ people from the harm and trauma that they cause. It gives victims and authorities a clear legal framework by which to identify and tackle that insidious abuse and sets boundaries about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. The Bill seeks to protect and respect the rights and dignity of every person in our society, protecting LGBT people from torture and degrading treatment whilst upholding the fundamental freedoms of religion and expression. Throughout the development of the Bill, we took a rights-based, victim-centred and trauma-informed approach, always focused on the needs of victims and survivors of conversion therapy. I thank those victims and survivors who have courageously spoken out publicly and shared their experiences, be that with me during our public consultation or in the course of research into conversion therapy in Northern Ireland. One respondent told our public consultation:
"I consented to a conversion therapy programme. I was faced with losing my family, my friends and the church that I loved... I suffer serious anxiety and depression, coupled with previous suicide attempts... They did not mean to harm me, but it almost cost me my life."
Another survivor
Apologies, Deputy Speaker.
Another survivor told those undertaking a study of conversion practices —.
I will, thank you.
I agree, and I thank the Member for making an intervention to allow me to regain my composure, because these are difficult issues. I have spent time speaking to people who have been affected by them. The way that we approach the debate today really matters.
483 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.58).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.41 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.