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 5706835
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is clear that the Member opposite has not been in the Chamber for the whole debate. She came in earlier, made an intervention and then showed huge discourtesy by leaving, and then she came back. If she had been in the Chamber for your remarks, she would know that you read out comments from members of the gay community. Ms Sheerin shows her utter ignorance when she claims that Sinn Féin speaks for an entire community. Sinn Féin does not. I will give news to Ms Sheerin and others: I am proud of the fact that there are members of the gay community who are members of the Democratic Unionist Party. I am proud that there are DUP elected representatives who are gay. I am happy that I was an election agent at the last election for a councillor who is proudly gay and is married to her wife. She is a proud unionist and a proud member of the Democratic Unionist Party. You and your party do not speak for the entire gay community. Stop pretending that you do.
181 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: 0.73 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.92); Controversy escalation (0.80).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.92 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.22 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.80 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.08 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.73 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.41 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.49 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| 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.