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

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 28 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Brian Kingston
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 28 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5762802

Text

The Member makes an important point on clause 7. We had a debate last week about a minister of religion or a pastor preaching their sermon during a service. What happens if a pastor or a minister is approached by an individual who asks them, "Can you tell me your understanding of what the Bible teaches on these matters?" and the individual requests that support? The get-out clause in clause 7(1)(b) is:
"there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if ... (b) the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".
Again, that comes down to how it is perceived. If a minister or a pastor is asked to give their interpretation of what is taught in the Bible and they do that genuinely, the person could say that they were directing them towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, even though they requested that counselling and guidance. I feel that the Bill is suppressing traditional Christian beliefs and practices that people sincerely see in the Bible and that have been taught for centuries through the Christian church. I do not think that any of the clauses that are meant to provide some sort of protection provide any protection at all, because, if you are asked sincerely what you believe and you present your belief, a person can say, "Oh, you are directing me towards a particular view", even though you are doing so genuinely and in a loving way. While I am on my feet, if the Member is content for me to continue, clause 7(1)(c) also seems to be a contradiction. It states:
"For the purposes of this Act, there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if ... (c) the intent is to affirm a sexual orientation or gender identity which the victim considers is, or may be, their sexual orientation or gender identity."
That is like saying, "There's no intent to change someone's political views if you are just confirming them". It seems like a pointless clause. You cannot be accused of trying to change somebody if your intent is to affirm what they already think. Again, to me, there is no protection there whatsoever.

383 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification