Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706650
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way. It is disappointing that that response was given to you, because it has been made abundantly clear, from these Benches, where the concerns come from. It is because, for the first time in the history of a Western democracy, we have an attempt to create primary legislation that creates the new term "gender identity", which has never been defined. The points that Members from these Benches continue to make is that people are free to describe themselves however they choose but that subjective self-description cannot become the basis on which another citizen is investigated, prosecuted and potentially jailed without a jury trial, as proposed by the Alliance Party.
114 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: close call Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.53 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.62).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.74).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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 | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.62 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.21 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.53 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.37 |
| 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 16:22 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.