Debate contribution: Conversion Practices
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- 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 4494464
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I would like to think that everyone in the Chamber will be united today in opposing conversion practices. That pseudoscience is nothing short of barbaric and is predicated on the idea that LGBT people need a cure. It has been termed as creating a "significant risk of torture" by the United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination, and it has been denounced by just about every credible medical expert. It is sometimes called "therapy", but it is nothing of the sort. It is undeniable torture designed to repress people's identity, which is one of the most cruel things that can be done to any individual. It is also worryingly common. In 2022, a YouGov survey found that 18% of LGBT people had been subjected to efforts to change, cure or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. The fact that we have still not banned the practice is an outworking of how dominated our society has been by religious organisations and coercive social conservatism. In my view, there is nothing Christian about conversion practices, and I know that Christians and people of all faiths are opposed to such practices. It is 2024, and the slow progress on LGBT+ rights is a sign of a society that has an entrenched fear of and hostility towards people of difference that is rooted in patriarchal norms and standards and dominated by religious teachings. When we have made progress, it has often been made not in this Chamber but at Westminster. The Assembly has so often failed to act for LGBT people.
LGBT people have already had traumatic experiences in society and been subjected to levels of fear and discrimination that would shame other parts of these islands. It is the job of politicians and the Assembly to unpick that history. Banning conversion practices is part of that journey. Amnesty International supports our call today, calling conversion practices "inherently humiliating, demeaning and discriminatory". It has been clear that international human rights law prohibits conversion practices, and any Bill that is introduced must meet the recommendations of the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. The question is not about whether the Assembly supports a ban, but about when we will get the ban over the line. I was really disappointed that, in the previous mandate, we failed to introduce such a ban. We were told that a ban was to be introduced by the then Minister —
— the last time that we debated it, in 2021. Let us do this. Let us get it over the line.
429 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: 0.25 (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 (0.65).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.49).
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.20 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.21 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.35 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.49 |
| 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.