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

Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Ms Emma Sheerin

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

22 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5740531

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As party colleagues have done, I support the Bill. At the outset, I thank the Bill sponsor for the work that he has done to bring his Bill before the House. It is a careful, considered piece of legislation. It is well drafted and has obviously been well thought out. I listened with intent to the Bill sponsor's contributions last week, and it is very clear that the issue is personal for him. The testimony that he provided was powerful and touching, and it is only right that we pay tribute to him and to the work that he has done. With that in mind, I also pay tribute to my comrades to my left and behind me, who, in their respective roles as Ministers in the past did a lot of the legwork to ban the harmful practices of so-called conversion therapies. That cross-departmental effort has to be acknowledged, and I would like to see us continue in that vein. I would like to see the Bill receive cross-party support today in the Chamber, because it is important and has the potential to prevent further harm and hurt. Unfortunately, the damage that such practices have done to previous generations and to people in the past cannot be undone, but we can say, as a collective, that that stops now, that it goes no further and that nobody else should be subjected to those torture practices. There are a couple of specific points that I want to —.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will address that in a fulsome way throughout my remarks. I ask him to consider the inference that can be drawn. The very idea that someone needs to be coaxed, coached or counselled out of being gay tells people that there is something wrong with being gay. The Member can shake his head. Can he tell me how that cannot be inferred?

Yes.

The Member misses the point. In the debate, there have been numerous references to "balancing of rights". I have a particular difficulty with that phrase, in and of itself. Where does one person's right to practise religion give them the right to suppress someone else's identity? Regardless of whether it is torture or how it manifests itself, the fact is that you are trying, by whatever means, to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. The question that I am asking you is really straightforward: can you show me how, in trying to change someone's sexual orientation or identity, you are not directly telling them that there is something wrong with them as they are — as God made them, as you would say? Can you tell me that?

We have been round the houses on the risk of prosecuting parents or threatening parents with legal action, but you still have not addressed the core tenet of what we are talking about. I have noticed that the DUP is a lot more strategic and wise with its language than it has been previously. The DUP has a history of blatant homophobia. You have tried to move away from that — I acknowledge that — but your words are on the record. Unless anyone can correct me, I am not aware of any examples of current and former DUP representatives apologising for the hurtful and harmful comments that they have made about members of the LGBT community. The point that I am making is this: regardless of how you try to do it, once you establish that someone's sexuality has to be changed or suppressed, you are accepting, acknowledging, stating that there is something wrong with that person's sexuality as it is. That in itself tortures members of the LGBT community, because there is nothing wrong with being gay. That is a critical point of the entire discussion that I would like us to get to.

What are you talking about? Do you hear yourselves? Honestly. You say that nobody is saying that: so, why does anybody need to have a change?

Go raibh maith agat, a chara.

Yes, I do not see any change in perspective. As you said, the DUP is being more refined and attacking one element of the Bill and focusing on parents, but the intention remains the same. During last Tuesday's debate, a DUP MLA — he is not present today — attempted to patronise me and tell me that he was disappointed in me. I have news for Members of the DUP: I will be a long time dead before I care about what any of you think about me, but I will be a longer time dead before I sit and listen to someone suggest that a child's identity needs to be changed for their own good in the same way that a responsible parent withholds Lucozade from their child. To try to trivialise this in such a way is not only insulting but stupid. The damage that that does to a section of our community that already suffers higher rates of mental ill health, suicidal ideation and suicide as a result of the sustained discrimination that it has been subject to, and the abuse that it is subject to, is a disgrace.

Just as, I am sure, many of you are now embarrassed by the comments of Iris Robinson, the Speaker of the House or various Members of your party — you all harrumphed when my comrade made reference to the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign — in the fullness of time, you will be embarrassed that you ever said that, Mr Frew. To be brutally honest with you, my sympathy will be light if that is what you consider to be acceptable. Gender identity is not the same as a child presenting as an animal, and how dare you make such a suggestion.

Gender —

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle —.

Once again, the DUP and other unionists' obsession with gender identity raises its head. I sit on the Justice Committee. This morning, during a presentation from the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, we heard that transphobic hate crime is on rise in this jurisdiction. The Member for North Antrim chairs the Committee, and I am sure that he will recall the same information. On that basis, people would do well to consider their language and talk carefully about these issues.

I really do not want to give way —

— because I am talking about a Bill that is intended to prevent harm to a minority in society, and you are obsessed with talking about gender identity and raising culture wars for your TikTok.

Mr Buckley, with the greatest respect, that does not do anything for the young people across the North who are struggling with their identity and, as a result, their mental health and are facing unnecessary hateful remarks and commentary and dehumanisation.

If you are a Christian, you acknowledge that we all exist on this planet and that we are made in the image of God, so I do not understand why you are so obsessed with other people's gender identity, which has nothing to do with you.

I am not giving way.

I have given way multiple times, and I am not going to do that any more, because I want to talk about the Bill.

Through the Chair, I suggest that, if the Member wants to make a contribution on this piece of legislation, he will, I am sure, be afforded an opportunity to do so.

As I understand it, the DUP has put names on the speaking lists for everything that we are discussing at a 100% rate.

In my opinion, this is a well-thought-out Bill that gives us the opportunity to do less harm than we have been doing.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I want to move on. I did not intend to speak for very long on the Bill this evening, to be honest. I have made it clear that I support the Bill. The opposition to it that we have heard thus far is as depressing as it is predictable. We should be working collectively to outlaw such practices, which, quite frankly, belong in the dark ages. There is a real conversation to be had about the element of the Bill that has been focused on by political unionism: the ability or so-called right of people, in the guise of practising their religion, to outlaw somebody else on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is not a very Christian way for anybody to behave. There is something serious that we have to reckon with in this place. Ultimately, it comes down to the notion of supremacy, and the DUP is not unique in that regard. Across the world, there have been examples of communities that enjoyed a majority of rights in their countries seeing other people being brought onto a level playing field with them as a threat and a loss. Anybody who worked with me throughout the bill of rights process will know that I am resolute in my opinion that rights are not a pizza: more for someone else does not mean less for you. We all have the right to coexist in peace. It is really important that the message that we send from the House is that people, regardless of their cultural background, religious identity, sexual identity or sexual orientation, have the right to live free from harm, free from oppression and free from somebody else telling them that they do not have the right to exist.

1,605 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 00:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r7, methodology 1.7.

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