Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706405
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the House get urgent clarification on when, if ever, a Bill containing a term that is not defined has been debated in the House and, furthermore, when the discussion of said term's definition has been ruled out of order? In these circumstances, we are debating a criminal sanction. How will the courts interpret the term "gender identity" in clause 6? On many occasions, the judiciary has consulted the Hansard reports of debates to gain a clear understanding of what legislation was to mean. Who does the Deputy Speaker believe will provide such a definition? Will it be Stonewall or the Bill sponsor?
111 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: 0.39 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.79).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.24 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.39 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.16 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| 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.