Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- 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 5706793
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member opposite. I will pick up on some of her points. Some of the bodies that she mentioned — the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNESCO — have been waxing lyrical about affirmative practice and affirmative counselling in some of these areas for a long time. The Member is within her rights to have her own opinion, but, for the past 15 years, some of those bodies have been affirming kids as, perhaps, being trans and turning a blind eye to puberty blockers. Therefore, while they have their opinions — they certainly do — they do not have a great track record on some of this stuff. Some of those bodies seemingly did not know what was going on or did not really care about the stuff that we are learning about today regarding the longer-term effects of puberty blockers. I have my doubts about the veracity of some of their views. Anyway, I want to make a wee bit of progress. Clause 2(2) relates to the reasonable defence. I have had a couple of interventions on that. I cannot remember who those were from, but I am grateful to whomever made them. The Bill states that:
"It is a defence for the person to show that the coercive behaviour was reasonable in the particular circumstances."
I made this point earlier, but, honestly, how many parents want to end up in a criminal court using a defence of reasonableness under those circumstances? I suggest not many, but some could be forced into it. They might just be able to mount that defence, they might just win their case and they might not end up with a criminal record. I suspect that is why the Bill sponsor put reasonable defence in the Bill. However, I make this point, which I made earlier: how many parents want to be in that position with their child? How many parents want to be in court with a solicitor and a barrister mounting a defence of reasonableness with their child? I would not want to see a situation where that was the case.
356 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: 0.41 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.61).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.62).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.21 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.61 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.41 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.62 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.36 |
| 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.