Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706461
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There has been literal rolling of the eyes and huffing and puffing coming from some corners of the Chamber about a number of issues that have been raised on this side of the House during the debate. Has the Member noted that what those Members have not done in response is go to the text of the Bill? That is the difficulty here: we are dealing with legislation that is in front of us in black and white. It is wrong for a number of reasons to conflate this Bill and the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. One of those reasons is to do with intent: when it is a person's intent to cause a course of behaviour that results in someone intentionally suffering physical or psychological harm or that person is reckless in causing that harm. There is an important distinction to be made, both on intent and on the other point that I made about Members not being able to point to the Bill to substantiate claims that they have made or to debunk claims that have been made on this side of the House.
191 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.14 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.80 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.