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 5706495
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Can the Member help me with the point that he is trying to make? In what circumstances or in what world would a parent disciplining their child in a reasonable way, restricting their access to their phone or social media, preventing the child from being exposed to inappropriate material, be deemed to be motivated by an intent to change or suppress the sexual orientation or gender identity of that child? Again, we are falling into the trap of looking at individual lines in the Bill and not at the Bill in its totality, which are the tests that need to be met.
102 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: 0.34 (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 (0.71).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.72).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.49 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.34 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.20 |
| 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.