Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Peter Martin
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 5706755

Text

I thank my colleague. I will make reference to the various aspects of the Bill. I will tie this section off. I will quote Ruth Paterson again, because she sums it up very well:
"The issue is not whether abusive practices should be criminalised; the issue is whether the Bill has been drafted narrowly enough to distinguish abuse from legitimate counselling, parenting, religious teaching and exploratory therapeutic discussion".
The Westminster draft requires abusive conduct that causes serious harm with a substantial effect on day-to-day life. However, the Northern Ireland Bill's significantly different threshold leaves school settings more exposed, and that will have a chilling effect. Clause 5,"Coercive behaviour", includes controlling and monitoring day-to-day activities or making someone feel humiliated or punished on more than two occasions. I will not repeat what my Upper Bann colleague said. She gave a range of examples for that. However, rules about, for example, losing your phone — that happens in my house weekly: sometimes it is me; sometimes it is my kids — clothing, social media and sleepovers all form part of a contagion where the Bill could have overreach. It can be extremely distressing for any teenager to talk about their sexual orientation. If a well-meaning but not-up-to-speed therapist cannot identify their sexual orientation, specifically to affirm it, we risk criminalising the therapist, and ignorance will be no defence. I am sure that many parents and therapists are listening to the debate. My colleague referenced it, but it is ultimately worth taking another piece of Aidan O'Neill's evidence. I know that the Bill sponsor does not like his evidence, but I am going to read it out. He offered an expert legal opinion on the issue, and he said that parents could be criminalised under the terms of the legislation:
"if their actions were judged to be an attempt to change or suppress their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity."
A parent could, in all good conscience, refuse puberty blockers or affirmative counselling to affirm the child in their chosen gender and fall foul of the legislation, and that could be anyone in the Chamber or anyone listening to the debate, and that is expert legal opinion.
Of course.
I thank the Bill sponsor.
Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.
Mr Tennyson has strong views on the issue.
However, as my colleague pointed out, if we are looking for expert legal opinions, I do not think that there is anyone in the Chamber as well qualified as Aidan O'Neill KC to proffer said opinions.
I want to make a wee bit of progress. No, I will take an intervention from the Member opposite. She does not always take them from me, but I am more than happy to.
You did.

462 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: weak signal 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: 0.40 (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 (0.88).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.49).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.17	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.16	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.04	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.59	No
Controversy escalation	0.17	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.88	Yes
Overall judgement	0.40	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.49
Reports or questions it	0.07
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.43

Subject area (top five)
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.

Challenge this classification