Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- 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 5706386
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I now declare that I need to make some progress on the Bill. The Member talks about clause 7, which is a particularly difficult clause for counsellors, therapists, parents of faith, pastors and teachers. Faith is about embracing faith, but it is also about directional living. It is very difficult to see how, in certain circumstances, people can adhere to the dictum that:
"there is no intent to direct a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".
I move on to clause 4, which is very loose and very broad. It is potentially a catch-all for a number of people who engage in the instruction of young people. Clause 4 states:
"In this Act, a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction, (c) a treatment, or purported treatment. (2) It is immaterial if the therapy is provided free of charge or for payment."
Clause 4 goes on to outline the exceptions. There are many ways in which harm can be done to young people and those who are in significant distress. Genspect is an organisation that has supported more than 600 people who have detransitioned. According to Genspect, almost all those people say that they regretted their decision and wished that someone had counselled them not to take the action that they were taking. If that were the case and the Bill were law, those counsellors would fall foul of the law. It is really troubling that we are in a situation where people, in an attempt to do good, may ask hard questions but will fall foul of the law. That is absolutely awful. There is also the situation — of course, there are people across the House who believe and want it to happen, but I believe that it should not — where some Members want to advance the harm that puberty blockers do to our young people. That is also a form of harm. We are not allowed, in the Bill, to direct them or talk about faith or guidance or counselling, but we can give them pills that will chemically change their bodies and their outlook on life. That is very, very disturbing.
I will, yes. I have given way on everything.
391 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.57 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.73).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.72).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.69).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.35 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.27 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.73 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.57 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.30 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| 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 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.