Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705646
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that you appreciate that I asked that question genuinely. I have the Bill in front of me, but I am not clear from clause 6 exactly what is entailed. If the Member could outline the number of gender identities that, he believes, the Bill entails, I would perhaps have more clarity as to who would fall under the auspices of this private Member's legislation. The Member may provide clarification, but, from what he has said so far and from your intervention from the Chair, I am not any clearer. It is incumbent on me as an elected representative to ensure that the Member's words meet the expectations of what is in the Bill, and I am not clear at this stage whether they do.
135 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.30 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.74).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.30 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.74 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.25 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 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 16:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.