Campaigners for free speech in Belfast have said they are challenging a climate of “no debate” days before the Stormont Assembly is to consider a Conversion Practises Bill.
The Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill put forward by Alliance MLA Eóin Tennyson is to be considered early next week.
Ahead of the second stage debate, to take place on Monday, the Free Speech Union brought together lawyers, representatives from faith communities, clinicians and teachers who are opposed to the Bill.
The Bill, introduced in June 2026, explicitly uses the term “gender identity” in defining the proposed criminal offences. If passed, it is first time the term would appear in Northern Ireland legislation.
They gathered in central Belfast on Friday night over concerns that “a climate of fear around discussions of sex and gender is preventing open debate.”
The event, Banned in Belfast? Free Speech, Conversion Therapy and the New Northern Ireland, heard that the Private Member’s Bill would create new criminal offences for practices intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Critics have described the legislation as “jellyfish-like”: impossibly vague, subjective and ill-defined, with a “sting in the tail of unintended consequences that they fear could see parents, teachers, therapists, religious communities and even friends facing prosecution.”
While the Bill appears to command significant political support from Sinn Féin, Alliance and the Social Democratic and Labour Party MLAs, the organisers of Friday’s event warn that this should not be mistaken for an absence of serious concerns. Against a backdrop of protests, threats and accusations of bigotry directed at those questioning fashionable approaches to sex and gender, many people have become reluctant to speak openly, leaving important questions about the Bill’s scope and potential consequences insufficiently heard.
Speaking on Friday, organisers said they aimed to give key concerns a platform as the legislation is scrutinised at Stormont. They made the case that legislation carrying criminal penalties demands open and rigorous debate.
Campaigners pointed to the potential consequences for therapeutic practice, families, freedom of expression and ordinary conversations about sex and gender.
Members of the public had been invited to attend and they have been encouraged to make a submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s call for evidence ahead of the 1 October deadline.
Dr Stella O’Malley, psychotherapist and Executive Director of Genspect, said that while abusive practises should be outlawed, “this Bill does not do that.”
“It risks making therapists afraid to ask the difficult questions that are part of effective and ethical therapy,” the well-known author said.
“At Genspect, we have supported more than 600 detransitioners, many of whom tell us they wish they had received better guidance before medically transitioning. Asking a young person whether their distress could have another explanation, or whether they can slow down, is not conversion therapy. It is conventional therapy. We should be extremely cautious about passing a law that risks criminalising it.”
Dr Jan Macvarish, Director of National Engagement at the Free Speech Union, said:
“The debate taking place in Northern Ireland is part of a much wider conversation about attempts to legislate on so-called ‘conversion practices’ across the UK and Ireland. These proposals raise questions that go far beyond Stormont, and the public needs to be part of that discussion.”
She said the event was about opening up conversations and making sure people, particularly parents, were aware and understood what was being proposed, and that they felt able to have a say.
“With the consultation still open, we want people to be informed, ask questions and take part,” she added.
It comes as the Stormont Assembly was urged to clarify rules after MLAs were “blocked” from probing matters related to “gender identity.”
Genspect, the Free Speech Union and the Christian Institute have written to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr Edwin Poots, seeking clarity over whether Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are free to scrutinise the meaning and scope of “gender identity” in the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.
The letter follows what they described as inconsistent interventions from the Chair regarding the discussion of “gender identity” across the first two days of the Bill’s Second Stage debate, held on 15 and 22 September.
“The Private Member’s Bill, introduced by Alliance MLA Eóin Tennyson, would create new criminal offences relating to practices intended to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity. “Gender identity” is an operative term throughout the legislation, with clause 6 stating that a reference to a victim’s gender identity includes both “what the victim considers it to be” and “what the person considers it to be,” said Genspect on Friday.
“During the debate on 15 September, Principal Deputy Speaker Carál Ní Chuilín intervened when Jonathan Buckley sought to question what “gender identity” encompasses, stating: “It is self-determined, so it is not for Eóin Tennyson or anyone else to talk about how many genders there are.” Later that day, Deputy Speaker John Blair clarified that discussion of gender identity was permissible where it related to the Bill. Speaker Edwin Poots reiterated on 21 September that: “The Bill includes references to gender identity. Discussion of gender identity is therefore permissible in the context of the Bill.”
“Yet, when the debate resumed on 22 September, Jonathan Buckley was prevented by Deputy Speaker John Blair from asking another MLA how many gender identities she believed would fall within the Bill. The intervention raises questions about whether MLAs are being given sufficient scope to scrutinise what “gender identity” means and encompasses within the Bill,” the group said.
The letter to Edwin Poots argues that what “gender identity” means has a direct bearing on the scope of the new offences, stating that “Members must be able to test which asserted identities clause 6 would encompass, particularly by putting that question to the Bill’s sponsor. Otherwise, they cannot properly assess the reach of the proposed offences.”
The letter asks the Speaker to provide “clear guidance from the Chair confirming that Members may probe both the meaning and the scope of ‘gender identity’ as used in the Bill.”
Dr Stella O’Malley, Executive Director of Genspect, said: “It is extraordinary that politicians could be asked to create new criminal offences involving gender identity, while being told there are limits on the questions they can ask about what gender identity means. The lack of clarity in the Assembly raises serious concerns about how therapists and parents are supposed to know where the boundaries of the criminal law lie.”
Lord Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, said: “The Free Speech Union is concerned that this legislation should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, given that it could mean the long arm of the law reaching into people’s homes and policing private conversations between family members.”
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of the Christian Institute, said: “The public are astonished at the spectacle of MLAs being told they can’t debate the term ‘gender identity’ despite it being in the Bill.
“Elected representatives must be allowed to question those who back this Bill on exactly what kinds of speech they want to criminalise. It’s yet another illustration of how unreasonable LGBTQ+ ideology is.”