Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494387
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The history of homophobia in this country is a long one — one which, for too long, has heaped shame on the LGBT sons and daughters simply for being who they are. There has been much progress over the years to enable the LGBT community to be who they are and to live the life that they have, but, despite the great progress that has been made on this island, we know that that form of bigotry has not gone away. Recent research into schools in Northern Ireland found that 68% of LGBT+ students faced bullying, the results of which contribute to higher levels of depression, self-harm, drug abuse and suicide. Perhaps even more concerning is that a 2019 Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report recorded that one third of pupils in Northern Ireland thought that their school was not welcoming to the LGBT+ community. Perhaps, then, it is little wonder that the scourge of homophobia persists and remains something that we in the Chamber must continue to fight. There is, of course, a particularly grubby practice in this part of the country that we must address today. It does nothing to remedy the above abuses; rather, it furthers a culture of intolerance and fosters shame, self-loathing and guilt in the LGBT community. It is a practice that the medical and therapeutic establishment has entirely debunked. It is sometimes profitable for those who push it, and it preys overwhelmingly on young people, some who are as young as 13 years old. Future students of history will, with bleak curiosity, one day study conversion therapy alongside electric shock therapy and other forms of discredited and harmful practices. However, today in Northern Ireland, that stigmatising, highly damaging and valueless practice endures. Despite those practices having been roundly dismissed by all credible medical bodies and condemned as deeply homophobic by LGBT+ rights groups, they unfortunately continue to find a market in Northern Ireland. Forms of therapy can differ across the world. Some are sold as talk therapy cures, whilst others can involve heinous so-called corrective rape therapy. All forms cause great harm to vulnerable individuals and erode their sense of dignity and self-worth. All those who have spoken out about their experiences of conversion therapy have unanimously stated that they are not just a waste of time and money and do not work but that they are in fact invasive, manipulative and predatory by design. The fight to end homophobia in this country will not end with the banning of conversion therapy, but it will be yet another step in the right direction. We, as Members of this House, must move swiftly to end what is, frankly, a brainless practice that is pushed sometimes openly, sometimes quietly, but a practice that always fails the people who are at its heart. There may be those in the Chamber who claim that members of the LGBT+ community seek conversion therapy of their own volition, but such an argument is misleading and fails to recognise that most enter into such practices under the fear that they will be ostracised from their families, shunned by their friends and condemned to live on the uneasy margins of society. Those attitudes are the very hallmark of homophobia.
Yes.
I thank the Member for his intervention.
Those are absolutely not my words. They are yours, as you have just stood up. They were at no point any of the words that I used. I think that that gets to the next point that I was about to make, which is on the DUP amendment. This is where we need to be utterly careful about remarks such as those that the Member has just made, because this is not about banning people's ability to seek pastoral care. It is not about banning an individual who wishes to go and pray with their religious leader.
Actually doing that would be absolutely and utterly unfortunate, so that is not something that we should ban.
No, because you put into other people's mouths words that are not what has been said. Previous interventions have been so misleading that I do not wish to take any more in the debate. If somebody assesses another individual and says that their lifestyle and the life that they have are wrong and need to be changed while trying to push that person to convert from who they are, those are practices that we should see banned. Nobody here wishes to see anybody who wishes to speak to their religious leader being banned. However, the DUP amendment suggests that we go back to the drawing board and go out and consult again. It suggests that we take that consultation and try to progress some legislative options. That is pushing us back to the starting line. Those practices have been done. We know where we stand, and we need to just progress and get the ban implemented.
828 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: 0.13 (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 (0.85).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.89).
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.10 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.89 |
| 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 10:36 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.