Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- 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 5707190
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I know that some Members seem perplexed that Members from these Benches dare to articulate the concerns of our constituents, whom we are here to serve. It is on that point that my mailbox has been heavily inundated by parents and grandparents who are extremely concerned about the Bill. Does the Member agree that it is our democratic duty, having been elected by those people, to take as long as needs to be taken to ensure that their views are heard in the Assembly?
91 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: 0.47 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.84).
- 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 | 0.25 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.24 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.17 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.47 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.78 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.20 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.