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 5706213

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for giving way. That is an example of a situation in which many parents may well find themselves under the Bill. Will the Member agree that that example would fall not just under clause 8 but under the coercive behaviour provision in clause 5, which at subsection (1)(c) refers to "monitoring the ... day-to-day activities" of what the Bill calls the "victim"?

66 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.26 (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 (0.83).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.09No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.17No
Controversy escalation0.08No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.83Yes
Overall judgement0.26At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.91
No identity-related subject0.08
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification