Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 28 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

28 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5762647

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As a Christian blessed to be co-opted into this North Antrim seat, I have a moral duty to speak out against the dangerous and reckless legislation that Mr Tennyson is attempting to bring in. I do not claim to be a theologian or a preacher; I am just a sinner saved by grace. That is my qualification to speak on the issue. The starting point for any Bill is to recognise the Bill's intention. Through this Bill, the liberal elitists who lead the Alliance Party are once again attacking the Church and attacking the family unit. They do not want anybody to be able to give direction or instruction on how a Christian should live out their Christian life and bring up their children. The Bill's sweeping language will capture innocent, everyday conversations, risking criminalisation of standard pastoral care, prayer, parental guidance and, indeed, instruction. Passing a Bill that includes a term that is not defined by the Bill sponsor will have serious legal ramifications as to how the courts of this land interpret the term used in clause 6, namely "gender identity". My advice to anyone who is liable to go with a sex or gender identity that is not their biological reality is that they need all the pastoral support and care that they can get. Listing gender identity as:

"what the victim considers it to be"

exposes the lunacy behind the Bill. The question before the House is not whether abusive conduct should be banned; of course it should. The truth of the matter is that Mr Tennyson knows fine well that it already is, but his ideology is more important than the facts. The question is whether the Assembly should create sweeping new criminal offences that combine violence and coercion with counselling, prayer, instruction and ordinary conversations. The question is whether the House wants to pass legislation in which key terms are either undefined or extraordinarily subjective and could result in a person being imprisoned. That is how serious the words on this blue paper are.

Clause 4 defines conversion therapy as including:

"(a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction, (c) a treatment, or purported treatment."

That is wide-ranging and chilling. Those words are extraordinarily broad. They plainly extend beyond "violent", "degrading" or "pseudo-medical practices". They potentially encompass the ordinary work of counsellors, ministers of religion, youth workers, parents and friends. The Bill then criminalises such conduct where there is an intent to "change or suppress" a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and where physical or psychological harm results. Yet, the Bill never says what it means by "suppress" sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, does suppression include encouraging someone not to act upon every sexual desire that they experience? Does it include teaching that sexual relations belong exclusively within marriage between one man and one woman? Mr Tennyson presents clause 7 as a protection of freedom of expression. It provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where someone is expressing only:

"beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".

Members, that safeguard is wholly inadequate. Christianity is not confined to an abstract expression of opinion from the pulpit. The Christian gospel is a message of repentance, conversion and changed lives. Let us consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 9 to 11. This is where, I believe, the Bill sponsor has an issue, leading to the Bill that is before us this evening. Verse 9 states:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites".

Verse 10 continues:

"nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Verse 11 states:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

Let us think for a moment about what is said in those verses. Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. In verse 11, however, he immediately adds:

"And such were some of you".

Members, the issue with that passage is the word "were". Some of those whom Paul wrote to in Corinth were homosexuals before they were exposed to Christianity through the preaching of Paul. Let us say that a minister takes Paul's passage and simply points out that the Bible teaches that homosexuals can change so that homosexuality becomes a thing of the past. As Paul says in verse 11:

"And such were some of you".

Surely that is teaching that people can change or suppress their sexuality. Would Mr Tennyson's Bill criminalise Paul? Would it criminalise me for quoting Paul?

I am happy to give way to Mr Carroll.

I thank the Member for his intervention; at least, I think that I thank him for it. I am not saying when homosexuality started.

All I am saying to you, Mr Carroll, is that that is what the Bible lays out, and, if Paul talked about that in the early Church, I have no doubt that that was taking place and, indeed, that was why he wrote to the early Church. Yes, homosexuality predates the Bible. I want to move on and illustrate to Members, for a moment, a scenario that, I believe, will apply to the Bill. If Paul, whose letter to the Corinthians I referenced, were to arrive here in Northern Ireland and come to Belfast the day after the Bill is passed into law and were to speak to somebody in his office after he has delivered a sermon and provide "counselling" — I use the language of clause 4 of the Bill — and say, "You can leave homosexuality behind. You can be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus", would he be guilty of an offence under the new Act? That thought process is not some sort of fanciful idea. One only has to look at what has happened in Finland, where a serving Member of Parliament, a former Government Minister, was subjected to years in the courts because she tweeted Romans chapter I, verses 24 to 27.

And there we have it exposed by the Alliance Party. I said that I thought that those Bible verses were the ones that they took particular offence to. Indeed, I am just quoting from the Bible, so, if you say that that is offensive —

— does that mean that that would be criminalised under Mr Tennyson's Bill?

I am happy to give way.

1,117 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.