Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494451
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Alliance Party's vision is for a more shared, equal, tolerant and united community, where diversity is celebrated and where everyone's rights are protected and respected. We are committed, therefore, to taking steps to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are protected from harm based on who they are or whom they love, including through the delivery of a comprehensive ban on cruel and archaic conversion practices. Such practices were conceived at a time when homosexuality and transgender identity were considered mental disorders in need of cure. Today, thankfully, LGBT identities are widely recognised as a totally normal part of human development, and so-called conversion therapy has been discredited by organisations including the British Psychological Society (BPS), NHS England, the Association of Christians in Counselling (ACC) and virtually every reputable medical and counselling body across the globe. Despite those changes and all the evidence that we now have in our possession, we know that such degrading, destructive and denounced practices persist and are still being inflicted on LGBT people in Northern Ireland today. We know that thanks to research such as the work conducted by Professor Fidelma Ashe and Dr Danielle Mackle. I thank them and their participants for their important work. We know that perpetrators of conversion therapy prey on internalised feelings of fear and shame in those struggling with who they are, often taking advantage of young, vulnerable LGBT people and fraudulently subjecting them not to treatment but to torture. Even if it were possible to change someone's fundamental nature, our time would be better spent on making bigots and proponents of conversion therapy more compassionate and leaving LGBT people alone. It is true that existing law already addresses some of the harmful behaviour often associated with conversion practices, including physical violence and threatening conduct. It is also true, however, that there are gaps in the law that allow some forms of conversion practice to fall through. That is why, should legislation not be forthcoming from the Communities Minister, I will seek to introduce a private Member's Bill to ban those practices once and for all. There is no doubt that, when we debate these issues, some will seek to pit LGBTQ+ people against people of faith. That argument, of course, holds no water and ignores the plurality of our society where there are, in fact, many people who are both LGBTQ+ and people of faith. As a member of a liberal party, I believe fundamentally in religious freedom — both freedom to and freedom from religion — but I also reject a situation where religious freedom is invoked only in the name of discrimination and harm against minorities. There is no intent to criminalise expressions of traditional religious belief, far from it. Rather, the intent is to criminalise heinous, coercive and harmful practices, and I am absolutely committed to doing that. I am happy to engage with any Member. Mr Kingston's concerns about the motion are not based on the fact of what is being proposed. I am happy to work with any Member to ensure that a comprehensive ban on conversion therapy can be delivered.
519 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: 0.08 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.11 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| 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.