Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- 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 5706439
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I intervene genuinely to be helpful. In my opening remarks, I referenced the fact that the UK Government's Bill includes a more explicit statutory definition than the one that we have employed, and I said that I was open to replicating that definition at Consideration Stage. If clarity is the issue, clarity can be addressed through scrutiny and amendment. Is it the case, however, that the Member is ideologically opposed to harm and coercion on the basis of gender identity being included at all? That is a different question, and it is a different position from the one that the Ulster Unionist Party took in 2021 when it tabled a motion in the Assembly calling for change.
124 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: 0.32 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.45).
- 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.53 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.32 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.45 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.35 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.16 |
| 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 16:21 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.