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

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Jonathan Buckley
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 5707109

Text

I thank the Member for giving way. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the broad definition of "conversion therapy". As has been outlined extensively in the debate, such a definition can intersect with parental rights in the home and, indeed, genuine, heartfelt religious expression. I acknowledge that the Member outlined some extreme examples of conversion therapy that were practices in the past that caused real harm and, indeed, are outlawed, but we also see a problem with the legislation, as outlined by Mr Aidan O'Neill KC, relating to the use of the word "suppress". The Member knows that those harmful therapy practices, which are already outlawed, are not happening, but, by using the word "suppress", he seeks to encompass other genuine religious teachings. That in itself is why the Bill is dangerous.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.32 (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 (0.85).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
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

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	0.26	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.06	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.17	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.25	No
Controversy escalation	0.18	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.85	Yes
Overall judgement	0.32	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.63
Reports or questions it	0.04
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.32

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.80
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.19
Another identity-related subject	0.01
No identity-related subject	0.00
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.

Challenge this classification