KC warns Stormont Bill enables gender “self-ID” in law – and criminalises parents who stop children watching Andrew Tate

• Legal opinion from Scotland’s “lawyer of the year” warns “conversion practices” Bill could criminalise parents for guiding a child away from gender transition, discouraging sexualised clothing, or blocking access to Andrew Tate content or hardcore pornography. 

• O’Neill calls the proposals “jellyfish legislation”: “impossible to grasp” with “a sting in the tail”. Says there are “very strong arguments” that the Bill is beyond the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. 

• Bill due for Second Reading in Stormont, 15th September. 

A leading KC has warned that Northern Ireland’s proposed “conversion practices” law would establish landmark “gender self-identification” into Northern Irish law, with serious repercussions for parents and pastors. 

Clause 6(1) of the NI Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill, proposed by Eóin Tennyson MLA and set for second reading in Stormont on Tuesday 15th, provides that a reference in the bill to an individual’s gender identity includes “what that victim considers it to be”.  

Aidan O’Neill KC, who was recently named Scotland’s “lawyer of the year” and whose legal opinion examines Eóin Tennyson MLA’s  Bill, says the legislation expressly envisages that an individual may have a particular gender identity because of their own “self-identification or assertion” – completely open to personal interpretation. 

The problem, he argues, is that this self-declared identity would then become the reference point for criminal law. Anyone subjectively judged to have attempted to “change” or “suppress” that identity could potentially face prosecution, even though the Bill provides no definition of what a gender identity is or how it is to be identified by police, prosecutors or courts. 

O’Neill describes the proposals as “jellyfish legislation”, saying its concepts are “impossible to grasp” and its limits “wholly undefined”, while the Bill carries a “sting in the tail” of up to two years in prison and steep fines for those who transgress. 

He concludes that there are “very strong arguments” that the legislation would be beyond the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly because of its breadth and its disproportionate interference with private and family life, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. 

Parents could face penalties for guiding their children away from porn or “sexualised clothing” 

The legal opinion says the undefined term “gender identity” could extend well beyond transgender identity, potentially encompassing claims to be non-binary, non-gendered or even “cisgender”. O’Neill argues that this breadth is significant because the Bill does not simply prohibit attempts to change someone’s identity: it also expressly prohibits attempts to “suppress” it. 

The opinion, for example, says a parent could potentially commit an offence by advising a child against socially or medically transitioning; discouraging a daughter from wearing overly-sexualised clothing; directing a heterosexual teenage son away from Andrew Tate podcasts or blocking his access to hardcore pornography. O’Neill says such conduct could, “in principle”, be criminalised under the Bill. 

“If the parents’ actions constitute a course of conduct seeking to question, impede or change their children’s choices on how they wish to express, explore and develop their proclaimed (hetero)sexual orientation and/or (cis)gender identity then the parental action could be judged under this proposed legislation to constitute coercive control against their daughter or son,” writes the KC. 

Repercussions to be felt by spiritual advisors 

O’Neill warns that mainstream pastoral work, prayer and religious counselling could be caught where a minister expresses orthodox teaching about sex and gender in a way considered to be directing an individual away from their claimed identity. He specifically identifies religious conversations in churches, mosques, synagogues and temples as potentially affected. 

Outside regulated healthcare settings, O’Neill says the Bill appears to permit expression which affirms a person’s claimed sexual orientation or gender identity, while potentially criminalising counselling, coaching, instruction or expressions of belief intended to direct someone towards a different identity. 

“Prayers and pastoral discussions could be criminalised if their content did not conform to the new state requirements only to affirm, validate and support the identity and lived experience as expressed and stated by an individual from time to time.” 

He also warns that a person can be guilty even where there was no intention to cause harm and where they acted from entirely benevolent motives. 

Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, said: 

“Everyone agrees that violence, abuse and actual coercion should be dealt with by the criminal law. Northern Ireland already has laws against those things. 

“The question here is whether the Assembly should create sweeping new criminal offences covering ordinary conversations, advice, prayer and parental guidance – using key concepts which the Bill itself does not even define. 

“When a Bill can potentially criminalise a parent for setting reasonable boundaries, a minister for offering basic religious counsel, or a citizen for expressing a sincerely held belief, MLAs need to stop and ask whether this is compatible with a free society. Before Northern Ireland creates new criminal offences carrying the possibility of imprisonment, it must be absolutely clear what behaviour is being criminalised. On this analysis, the Bill falls far short of that standard.” 

Diane Dodds MLA, DUP Assembly Spokesperson for Health, added: 

“This Bill has huge implications that its sponsor hasn’t even begun to consider. It seems to confuse genuine abuse, which is already illegal, with all sorts of innocent parenting and religious activity. It is a dangerous and illiberal piece of legislation.” 

ENDS