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 5707221
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member makes a good point. It was well rehearsed, so I will not have to repeat it. He is absolutely right, and that is just one of our concerns. Before I finish on religious practices and why I think that the Bill would do massive damage to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, I will say that any preacher, pastor, minister or priest will tell you that, when they give instruction or provide sermon or pastoral care to their flock, their congregation or their people, it is meant to be testing. Many times, you can come out of church distressed. I know that it is not the same definition, because the Bill sponsor picked that from other legislation. However, we are not talking about people who could be deemed reasonable people — that is the reasonable people test — we are talking about people who are struggling with their sexuality and their identity. It was said earlier that those people could be suicidal, depressed or anxious. Those people will be in a state of distress even before they come into contact or interface or interact with a coach or someone who is administering instruction — even their parents, a pastor or a minister. Real harm could be caused to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Those are mighty issues.
220 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: 0.33 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.76).
- 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 | 0.31 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.26 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.33 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.22 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.78 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.22 |
| 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.