Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- 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 5706397
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Well, I will give you a chance to reorganise your papers there. Just as you reference puberty blockers, in clause 7(1)(c):
"the intent is to affirm a sexual orientation or gender identity which the victim considers is, or may be, their sexual orientation or gender identity".
In that instance — the Member may agree with me — actually affirming puberty blockers in that situation would be affirming the gender identity of, for example, a trans young person, despite the actual danger that those puberty blockers could have for that young person. Cass covered the inherent and long-lasting dangers of puberty blockers very nicely. However, in this legislation, that is a defence. The defence is to affirm a gender identity that the victim considers he or she may be, so the actual provision of puberty blockers would be an offence in the Bill.
142 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.49 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.65).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.24 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.46 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.49 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.32 |
| 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.