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

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 15 September 2026.

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 5706380

Text

I thank the Member for generously giving way. If she reads clause 7 of the Bill, she will see that it expressly states:
"there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if— (a) there is no intent to direct a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity" —
and if —
"(b) the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions".
When it comes to the question of legislating for self-ID, that is wrong; it is false. The Bill has no bearing on matters such as access to single-sex spaces, nor does it have any impact on the legal process for gender recognition in Northern Ireland. The phrase "gender identity" is used rather than "transgender identity" so that it is universal. If somebody has transitioned and wants to de-transition, they cannot be harmed or coerced away from that course of action either. This is about universal protection, and that is why that language has been used.

163 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: 0.17 (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 (0.88).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.11	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.09	No
Controversy escalation	0.12	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.88	Yes
Overall judgement	0.17	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.89
Reports or questions it	0.03
Criticises or condemns it	0.07
Adopts it	0.01

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.

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