Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- 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 5707154
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. It is an interesting discussion. We have not really covered this specific point, and it is important that we do, because we need to think out every connotation. The Member explained specifically that the definition of conversion therapy in clause 4 includes coaching and that he believes that that definition is too broad and therefore open to different interpretations. The Bill sponsor, if I am right — I do not want to misquote him — suggested that the Bill would not prevent any coach of a sports team having a conversation about gender identity or gender persuasions when it comes to sports. I think that that is what he said; I will be corrected if it was not. The point is that, when it comes to the offences as defined, when we look at clause 8, we see that "psychological harm" includes "fear, alarm or distress". If an individual claims to have experienced any of the harms set out in clause 8, of course they will fall under the scope of the Bill. I can be corrected by the Bill sponsor if my interpretation of what he said is not correct, but that is pretty worrying.
203 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: 0.15 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.81).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.81 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.18 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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.