Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Mrs Diane Dodds
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 5706345

Text

That is absolutely correct. As I said, clause 2(1)(b) states:
"if ... the person has the intent"
— how is that to be measured? —
"of changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity".
Again, how is that to be measured? How do we measure "fear", "alarm" and "distress"? It is important that we know the answer to that, because that will be the threshold for a criminal conviction at some stage for some parent, pastor or teacher. I will whizz on through. In clause 2, the second offence in the Bill is that of "engaging in coercive conversion behaviour", while, in clause 3, the next offence is:
"removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices".
It is significant that the clauses that deal with those offences talk not only about "sexual orientation" but about "gender identity". I noted that Ruth Paterson, a solicitor, said that the Bill introduces:
"the concept of gender self-identification in Northern Ireland, and we know 72% of the population disagree with gender ideology. I do not think the Bill has had the scrutiny it sorely requires."
It is important that we are introducing terms into law that we cannot define. I gave the Member the opportunity to define "gender identity", but he failed to do so.
He repeatedly failed to do so.
It is really important that, when we are introducing legislation that contains significant criminal sanctions, we know what those sanctions will be used for.
There are other issues with the Bill, but I want to conclude my remarks about "intent" and "suppress" and the idea of "psychological harm" and how it is measured and whether it can be self-defined. It will be good to reflect on a piece that I read recently, which states:
"Gender-critical beliefs are protected in law, but this Bill criminalises the expression of them in many settings. So I have the right to say I hold a gender-critical belief, but if I express it or talk openly about how gender identities are contested, or suggest they don't exist, then I could be open to prosecution for doing so, if an individual alleges they were distressed by my words."
That is significant. We are all sitting here puzzled —.
I know; read the Bill. We cannot sit here as if the Bill has dropped out of the skies. The Bill has been produced by the Alliance Party, and we need to read it.
Honestly, I have given way a lot. I would like to continue.
For you, Eóin, yes, I will.

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

Assessment

Qualifying

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.66 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.80).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.69).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.90).
Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
The text adopts a strongly antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.

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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.31	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.27	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.11	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.80	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.38	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.69	Yes
Overall judgement	0.66	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.06
Reports or questions it	0.04
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it (chosen)	0.90

Subject area (top five)
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 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.

Challenge this classification