Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706199
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. The fact that the legislation has passed the competence checks and is on the Floor for debate is evidence of how flawed that legal opinion is, and "legal opinion" is putting it strongly. I met the Christian Institute, which commissioned the advice. I note that the Member was keen to point out that the study of conversion practice had the involvement of the Rainbow Project, so it is important to be fair and point out that the Christian Institute paid for this advice. I met it, last year. Its representatives arrived at that meeting, armed with a ring binder full of headlines from 'The Sun' and the 'Daily Mail', and said, "You don't want to do this, because this is the kind of negative publicity that can be generated". That opinion has been bought and paid for by the Christian Institute in an attempt to create negative headlines. We should treat that with the scepticism that it deserves.
165 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: 0.36 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.67).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.27 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.20 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.95 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| 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 16:21 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.