Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601010
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will move on. Amendment No 73 acknowledges that blasphemy is a common-law offence, rather than one that is codified in any piece of legislation. The last successful prosecution for the offence was back in 1977 and was a private prosecution rather than one brought by the state. The case went the whole way and was mentioned in the House of Lords. It is worth noting what Lord Scarman had to say in his judgement on the matter. He said:
"The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the Kingdom."
He accepted that, historically, the Christian religion is part of the law. He also argued that blasphemy law still served a purpose in maintaining public order and protecting religious believers from grave offence. He went on —.
I am happy to give way.
Indeed, the offence has been repealed in other parts of the United Kingdom and down South, but that does not make it right. The fact that it has happened there does not mean that we should not ask questions or make our points on the issue. My freedom of expression allows me to put my point on the record. The Alliance Party may not like it, but it is my right to do so whether or not its Members like it and want to chunter and speak under their breath. They can do that all that they want. Lord Scarman further explained that the law did not ban criticism of Christianity but, rather, prevented:
"contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible".
I put it on record here today that, while I am a champion of free speech, I am opposed to contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible. I believe that legislators are subject to a higher power and therefore that, when we mess with offences such as this, which have been recognised by the state for centuries, we should do so with extreme caution. We open every sitting with prayers. Why do we do that? We do so because it is part of our Christian, conservative DNA. I strongly believe that, as a Christian country, we should continue to do that. That is why I am speaking out against the blasphemy amendment that has come before us this afternoon. I also note that those in the Alliance Party who are pushing the amendment are ironic in their fashion. I say that because, in my short time in the House, I have found that it is that party that likes to shut down free speech when it disagrees with it. That is the standard that the Alliance Party has set. If any Member in the House questions its liberal gospel on abortion, on immigration or on transgenderism —
— the Alliance Party —.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was using that as an example. When anybody speaks out against its view on those issues, it is the Alliance Party that chunters and sneers at and degrades anybody who tries to speak out on issues that it supports. The Alliance Party wants to abolish all regard for Christianity in law but champions a law that has seen an elderly pastor in his 70s prosecuted for preaching on John chapter 3, verse 16. Forgive me for being cynical by judging the actions and decisions taken in the House on what has gone before. Amendment No 73 is just the Alliance Party's latest attempt to remove Christian safeguards that exist in law. The amendment is not about protections for freedom of speech; it is an illustration of the hypocrisy of the captured ideology of the left. For that reason, and because I do not believe that we should remove laws that recognise the Christian heritage of our beloved nation, I oppose the amendment.
648 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.71 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.84); Cultural grievance politics (0.79); Dog-whistle messaging (0.79); Controversy escalation (0.84).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.98).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.84 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.39 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.79 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.79 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.84 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.71 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 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 15:56 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.