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 5706825
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No, I will not take another intervention. I gave a clear example of how parents across Northern Ireland — there will be people in the Chamber thinking this; perhaps she is not, but some people will be — show love to our children by saying no. That is how we demonstrate love, because, ultimately, in many cases, we perhaps know better than they do, and we show love to them by saying no. I used the example of Lucozade. I say, "No, because there is too much sugar in that" —
91 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: 0.40 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.43 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.22 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.40 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.64 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.31 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.