Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494425
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I trust that no Member of the Assembly would ever defend any form of abuse or coercion of any individual. Any such practice should, rightly, be condemned. When we examine conversion therapy worldwide, we see clearly that it has included coercive and abusive practices being inflicted on people. There is no justification for that, and there never will be. Those extreme examples of conversion therapy are already illegal in the UK. There is legislation in place to prosecute those offences. It is also clear that there are instances of individuals from a faith background who approach friends, parents, ministers or their small group for pastoral support and deeply personal conversation on matters relating to their sexuality. The pastoral support that I am referring to is genuine pastoral support; it is not a course of therapy that, in some countries, is dressed up to look similar to clinical therapeutic intervention.
The problem is that the motion calls for:
"an effective ban on conversion practices".
It does not make any distinction. We seek to ensure that support that is given genuinely and lovingly in response to someone seeking personal support cannot be misinterpreted and become the grounds for prosecution. It is possible to make some distinction, rather than including everything in one category. Genuine pastoral support is wholly different from the abusive practices that I outlined. In such cases, the individuals are not being coerced, forced or pressurised to seek support; they are, of their own volition, sincerely seeking personal and spiritual assistance. The motion would mean that those affirming mainstream Christian teaching, and the faith position of other religions, on same-sex attraction could well be prosecuted and handed a significant fine or, even, a prison term. In fact, that could apply even to parents who provide orthodox religious guidance to their children. According to the report that is referenced in the motion, the definition of "conversion practice" is:
"all medical, psychological, religious, cultural, or any other interventions that seek to erase, repress, or change a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity."
It provides no provision for, or recognition of, same-sex-attracted individuals who actively and honestly seek guidance or support. The document also states:
"Therapy that supports an LGBTQI+ person with personal, emotional, psychological or spiritual issues relating to their sexual orientation or gender identity where that support does not seek to direct that person to suppress, ‘cure,’ or change their sexual orientation or gender identity are not considered conversion practices."
That is extremely vague. It does not deal with, for example, the case of a same-sex-attracted person of faith who wishes to remain celibate and asks their minister to pray for them. Our amendment seeks to provide protection for the individual seeking support and the person who provides it. We must allow freedom of choice for anyone seeking pastoral support. That support must be equitable.
The absurdity of the wording in the motion is that, in its application, a heterosexual person seeking prayers and guidance on their sexuality or sexual practice could receive them from their minister. However, a homosexual person seeking the same could be leading that minister into committing a prosecutable offence. Essentially, the motion, if it were made into law, could also be used to criminalise any minister or priest teaching or communicating within the confines of a church building what is simply a mainstream Christian sex ethic.
In summary, we are completely in support of banning the harmful, coercive and abusive aspects of conversion therapy, and that is clearly reflected in our amendment. However, those aspects must be defined, something that the original motion fails to do. We also want to see religious liberty and freedom being respected.
Yes. This is the last sentence. Same-sex-attracted individuals should be able to receive the personal support that they request in sincerity without the risk of criminalising others.
643 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.36 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.56).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.29 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.13 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.31 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.30 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.