No decent person supports cruelty, coercion or abuse directed at someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Where conduct is abusive, it should be investigated and prosecuted.
Northern Ireland already has laws against threats, violence, controlling behaviour and degrading treatment. The PSNI and prosecutors must take homophobic or transphobic motivation seriously.
That is not, however, the question before the Assembly. On Tuesday, MLAs will consider Eoin Tennyson's Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.
This is Alliance Party legislation, conceived by Alliance, promoted by Alliance and presented as though anyone who questions it must be indifferent to abuse. That is a false and dishonest choice. We can protect people from mistreatment without creating vague new offences that reach into homes, churches and private conversations.
Having read the Bill and the legal analysis provided by Aidan O'Neill KC, I believe it presents a real threat to freedom. O'Neill describes it as 'jellyfish legislation': its concepts are difficult to grasp, its boundaries are undefined, yet it carries a sting in the tail of up to two years in prison. He concludes that there are very strong arguments that it falls outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.
The Bill would criminalise efforts to 'change or suppress' a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet 'suppression' is not defined. 'Gender identity' is not defined either. Clause 6 says a person’s gender identity is “what the victim considers it to be”. This is madness.
The Alliance Party wants to place this term at the centre of the criminal law, while leaving parents, pastors, teachers and police officers to guess what it means. Citizens should not face criminal punishment under a law whose essential boundaries nobody can identify with confidence.
Nor would the prosecution need to prove an intention to cause harm. A person who acted from genuinely compassionate motives could still be convicted. The stated threshold includes 'fear, alarm or distress', and the consent of the person who requested a conversation is expressly excluded. The Bill states “It is not a defence that the victim consented to the therapy.” Someone could willingly seek advice, prayer or pastoral support and later allege that the very conversation they requested caused distress. This is downright dangerous.
Alliance will point to a defence where conduct is shown to have been reasonable in the particular circumstances. Yet the Bill provides no meaningful definition of reasonableness, while expressly denying consent as a defence and setting psychological harm as low as alarm or distress. Parents and pastors would therefore be left to discover, following an allegation and potentially a police investigation, whether a court considered their conduct reasonable.