Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5706930
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way. She has referenced parents on a number of occasions. So that I can understand this, can the Member tell me whether there are any circumstances in which the Member or the Bill sponsor believes that a parent can say to their child, "I do not agree with you. I do not agree with how you are identifying in terms of sexual identification"? Parents may say that repeatedly and never change their position, because that is a sincerely held belief of many people of different religious beliefs. Out of love, they will feel that that is the right instruction and the right coaching to provide to their child. Does the Member believe that, in those circumstances, a parent will be protected from the legislation and will always have the right to say, "I do not agree with how you have decided to identify"?
Will the Member give way?
Will the Member give way?
158 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain
Uncertain: this record is excluded from all totals until a person reviews it.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.55 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.73).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.41).
- 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 | 0.33 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.53 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.55 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.39 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.20 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.41 |
| 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 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.