Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5705772
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. The leader of the Opposition has inadvertently stumbled across one of the key flaws of the Bill. To conflate coercive control in a domestic abuse scenario with coercive control in this scenario is a fatal flaw in the Bill. It is quite appropriate that nobody is allowed to give their spouse instructions about what time to be home, what they can or cannot wear and what they can and cannot do. That is completely coercive in a domestic relationship. However, it is entirely appropriate when a parent is dealing with a child, and that is why coercive control cannot simply be lifted out as an instruction, guidance and coaching and supplanted into a conversion Bill about how parents deal with their children. It is entirely different from how two spouses communicate.
133 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.17 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.