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 5706519
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to repeat myself. The safeguards in the Bill are these: the individual must be operating with intent; there must be either a formal course of therapy or a coercive course of behaviour consistent with the definition employed in domestic abuse law; there must be a specific, identified victim; and the behaviour must result in actual harm — not recklessness as to causing harm or the likelihood that harm will be caused, but actual harm. The "harm" concept is consistent with that employed in respect of domestic abuse and similar to that employed in respect of stalking and harassment. Those concepts operate successfully in the courts today. The courts are able to distinguish between reasonable interaction and unreasonable and unsafe interaction.
There is an additional safeguard in the form of a reasonable person test. Again, that test in law is almost as old as criminal law itself. It is present in domestic abuse, stalking and harassment legislation, in the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022 and in civil law. A reasonable person test is a well-established concept and can be used in the unlikely scenario that some circumstance that we have not considered in the Chamber today meets all four tests in the legislation. That is extremely unlikely. There are, therefore, robust safeguards, if Mr Burrows would like to take the time to acquaint himself with them.
231 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: 0.07 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| 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 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.