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 5705800
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way on that particular point. He has set out that, in a test of reasonableness, a parent could be seen to act from love, compassion and care towards their child. However, when it comes to the particular words in the Bill, such as "coercive behaviour", which was mentioned by the Minister, clause 5 refers to:
"monitoring the victim’s day-to-day activities".
If the victim is the child, it is quite natural and right that a concerned parent would monitor their day-to-day activities. When we look at psychological harm, the Member stated in his example that a parent could act in love. However, what if the child does not perceive it to be an act of love? That leads me to clause 8, "Psychological harm". The Bill states:
"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."
What if that child believes that they have been done psychological harm that has caused "fear, alarm or distress"? Under the legislation, would that place the parents under potential sanction?
169 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: 0.13 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| 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 16:21 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.