Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5637553
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will give a tangible example to address some of the concerns. Adam Graham was charged with two rapes in Scotland. Post-charge, Adam Graham declared that he was a woman. Under the deficient guidance for the Scottish Prison Service, the perpetrator was convicted and went to a female prison. The policy was deficient. That is a real-life example of where the biological sex of the man must be followed. While there are genuine trans people who are going through issues — gender dysphoria or whatever it might be — there will be people who could, post-charge or post-arrest, declare themselves to be a woman and end up in a women's prison. It happened in Scotland. Adam Graham became Isla Bryson and ended up in a female prison in Scotland, despite being charged with and later convicted of rape. That is real life. It is a real scenario. I ask Members on the other side of the House to reflect on that.
161 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.70 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.62); Dog-whistle messaging (0.87).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.71).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.61).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged 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 | 0.41 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.62 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.87 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.70 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.38 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.61 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:12 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.