Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494458
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to frame what I am about to say with an acknowledgement of the concerns that have been raised with me about freedom of religion. There are those who wish to propagate fear and division when it comes to the issue. The suggestion has been made that we wish to ban the practice of prayer and spiritual engagement, but that is simply not the case. That is a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of what conversion therapy is. The examples that the Member for North Belfast gave — non-coercive conversations, prayer, spiritual guidance, teaching and counselling where consenting, non-vulnerable adults question their sexuality or gender identity — are not conversion therapy and should not be criminalised. That is not what is being referred to here, and that must be made clear. Many Christian denominations and religious leaders have publicly denounced conversion therapy and recognise it to be a harmful practice that contradicts the core tenets of love, compassion and respect for all individuals that exist in Christian faith. The aim of legislative involvement is not to undermine religious beliefs but to ensure that every individual, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is protected from practices that have been widely condemned by medical, psychological and human rights organisations worldwide. Conversion therapy encompasses a range of interventions aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity to conform to heterosexual or cisnormative gender ideals. The aim of such interventions is explicit in its desire to change some element of the individual's identity that is assumed to be broken. Those who are vulnerable, at risk or under the age of 18 simply cannot give informed consent, consent being another key element. That is what sets such practices apart from the notions of praying for or praying with. There are so many testimonies from LGBTQIA+ people of faith about their desire to have the practice banned, as they cherish their faith and want to be able to practise it without fear. Given that it is that cohort to whom the practice poses the most detrimental risk, surely we should listen to and heed those people's calls. The Church of England outlined, in its briefing on the topic, that any proposed legislation should focus on preventing coercive, abusive practice and that any restriction should specifically focus on coercive behaviour in pastoral care. Again, let me reiterate this: we are not talking about interfering with people's right to practise their faith or their ability to engage in mutually agreed prayer conversations. Individuals should still be free to request non-coercive prayer if they wish to explore their sexuality or their gender identity. It is the coercive and abusive practices with a predetermined outcome of changing someone's identity that we want to see banned. My party has consistently championed the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. In previous debates, we have highlighted —.
Yes. Sorry. To conclude, I am clear about what side of the divide I want to be on, and I am clear about what side Jesus calls me to be on. That is the side that I am putting forward today.
517 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: 0.11 (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 (0.88).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.57).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.41 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.57 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.96 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.04 |
| 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 01:20 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.