Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 5707170
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. I was going to go further than that, because that covers not only the coaching aspect but the religious instruction aspect, so it covers the two elements of clause 4(b). Let me go on to "instruction". Who is it that gives instruction? A parent. Any parent who does not positively affirm their child's claim to be transgender, whatever that means with regard to "gender identity", will fall foul of this law. It is not just the coach who falls foul of it, therefore, but the parent, and maybe even the grandparent. I will make another point on "instruction". There is a real danger in clause 4 of attacking freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Using the terminology "coaching or instruction" in such a wide sphere brings in the church, pastoral care, preachers and biblical instruction. What if someone comes to you and you say, "This is what the Bible says"? That is instruction, and I believe that you would be caught by the Bill. Acts chapter 3, verse —. I am glad to say that I am not the first person to quote scripture tonight; the Alliance Party, I believe, did so first.
Yes, I will.
203 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: 0.59 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.79).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.64).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.56).
- 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 | 0.47 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.25 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.79 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.35 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.59 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.42 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.98 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.