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 5706267
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way, because that is a very important point that a lot of Members in the Chamber have sought to dismiss and ignore. Does the Member think that it is disappointing in the extreme that the Bill sponsor is unable to put on the record of the House which gender identities he feels that the Bill applies to. It is very clear from this side of the House — the Member has been clear in her speech that she believes that there are two genders, male and female. We know from public utterances that that is not the view of the Alliance Party and others, but they will not put on the record of the House how many gender identities are associated with the Bill. Why not?
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that ruling, because I have not been hostile in asking that question. Can I ask for clarity in relation to that point of order? Is it the ruling from the Speaker's Chair that Members cannot debate what gender identity encompasses in the mind of the Bill sponsor? Clause 6 is clearly entitled:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity".
The Bill is all about gender identity. Therefore, I would like a ruling from the Chair. Surely we are allowed to discuss it.
227 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.76 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.61); Controversy escalation (0.70).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.71).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- All thresholds for flagging were met.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.61 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.23 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.59 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.70 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.76 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.13 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.71 |
| 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 16:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.