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 5707184
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. After that interesting distraction from the Opposition, I want to get back to the point that he raised. I know that he was moving on from it, but it is important to me. It is the issue around sports and coaching. The Bill sponsor gave the example, and I was interested in hearing his explanation. It is a circumstance where somebody who identifies as transsexual turns up to a single-sex sporting event, whether that is a female or a male event, and they are not allowed to take part in the team on the basis of their sexual orientation as defined by the Bill. Clause 6 states that the:
"victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity includes— (a) what the victim considers it to be".
Given that we have talked about the broad definition of suppression, how, still, can we not conclude that that particular issue and that particular circumstance would not fall under conversion therapy as defined in the Bill?
167 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: 0.40 (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 (0.84).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.43).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.12 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.37 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.40 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.43 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.43 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.14 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| 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.