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 5762716

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Indeed. That is an impassioned and detailed breakdown of how the organisation views the Bill and the outworkings and problems that it will bring forward. It is important to recognise that not everybody has my world view, and it is important that those with a world view are allowed to express it regardless of whether I like it. It is good to see that the argument is not purely between Christian and secular views. A number of people have come together to show and describe the ill intention behind the Bill and the ill-thought-out consequences that it would create in everyday life. I recognise that it is not purely the Churches that will fall victim to the Bill. I wonder whether Mr Tennyson is aware of the concerns of the vast range of groups coming forward. He consulted and met a number of Christian organisations, but he obviously had his fingers in his ears when he talked to them, because a lot of this seems to be new to him. Time after time, more groups and more legal advice are coming through to say how unworkable and idiotic parts of the Bill are. Reading the Bill and considering some of the unintended consequences that would flow from it causes me distress. There is reference to "distress" in the Bill: that is an exceptionally low and subjective threshold on which to construct a criminal offence carrying the risk of imprisonment. Let that sink in. Distress and imprisonment: that is where ideology has got in the way of creating good legislation. Difficult conversations frequently cause distress. Getting called to the Chamber to account for actions over the weekend obviously caused the First Minister such distress that she felt that she could not come here. I do not think — well, maybe her actions deserve imprisonment, but I am not sure that, just because someone is distressed, someone else should be imprisoned.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Any Member who has asked to make an intervention to date has been given one. There is no time limit on the debate. I am happy to accommodate those who do not agree with me to call me out or to have that debate.

I was talking about distress. Difficult conversations frequently cause distress. A person may already be distressed before they seek pastoral care. A child may be distressed when a parent imposes necessary boundaries for their own good. A person may experience distress on hearing teaching that they disagree with. That can often cause distress. The existence of distress does not demonstrate abuse. In fact, conversion is a central experience of Christians. Mr Tennyson and others simply cannot see outside their world view. As I said to Mr Martin, I might not agree with everything that he has said, but I respect his world view. I have listened to it — it is reasoned — and we can debate it, but the ideology of the Alliance Party is, "It's our world view, and nobody else's matters". The Bible refers throughout to the true believer being one who has passed from death into life, one for whom:

"old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new",

and one who is freed from sin. When somebody becomes aware of their sin and realises its ultimate consequence, that will cause distress in the first instance, as they will realise that they need a saviour. Martin Luther described the law as the "thunderbolt of God" that strikes down the sinner and brings them to tear and despair. I asked earlier whether the Bill sponsor would criminalise the apostle Paul. He addressed my comments, but he failed to talk about the pastor who would preach about Paul. I have little doubt that Mr Tennyson's Bill would criminalise pillars of the faith for comments made throughout the Bible and in their teaching, which is relayed by impassioned preachers across Northern Ireland, which is still a Christian country. Clause 6 would create further uncertainty. It states that a person's:

"sexual orientation or gender identity includes"

what the alleged victim considers it to be and what the accused considers it to be. How could we pass legislation that would open the door to somebody's setting their own gender identity? That would be absolute folly. Last week or the week before, somebody in the House said that there could be 136 genders, 134 of which are fanciful because they are not in touch with biological reality. I have severe reservations about passing legislation that does not define "gender identity" anywhere in it. Biology tells me — it was not so many years ago that I was at school — that you are born either male or female. What objective meaning is the court to apply after listening to this debate? As I said a couple of weeks ago in a point of order, when courts are trying to interpret legislation, they often look back to get an idea of the definitions that the sponsor of a Bill uses. However, when we try to ask the Bill sponsor how many genders he believes there to be in reference to "gender identity" in clause 6, we are closed down time and time again in the House. That answer is still outstanding. It would be helpful if the Bill sponsor were to confirm that before the House tonight. There was deflection and shielding from those who were in the Chair; they did not want that question to be put to Mr Tennyson. How could we write something into our law for the first time while not being able to define the exact number of genders?

942 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 16:38 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.