MLAs should be free to scrutinise the term ‘gender identity’ with regards to a proposed conversion therapy ban, organisations have said.
In a letter to Edwin Poots, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, The Christian Institute, alongside gender-critical group Genspect and the Free Speech Union, sought clarity over whether MLAs are free to properly examine Alliance MLA Eóin Tennyson’s Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.
The communication follows inconsistent interventions from the Chair during the first two Second Stage debates on the Bill, in which the discussion of ‘gender identity’ was curtailed.
Criminal implications
Tennyson’s Private Member’s Bill would create new criminal offences relating to practices intended to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity.
Clause 6 of the legislation states that ‘gender identity’ includes both “what the victim considers it to be” and “what the person considers it to be.”
During the first debate, Jonathan Buckley MLA sought to question what “gender identity” encompasses, but Principal Deputy Speaker Carál Ní Chuilín intervened, 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 the following week when the debate resumed that: “The Bill includes references to gender identity. Discussion of gender identity is therefore permissible in the context of the Bill.”
Mixed messages
However, 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 Institute, Genspect and the Free Speech Union all believe that the intervention raises questions about whether MLAs are being given sufficient scope to scrutinise what “gender identity” means and encompasses within the Bill.
Their letter 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.”
They also asked 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.”
‘Unreasonable’
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.”
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.”
And 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.”