Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- 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 5707340
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In a lot of those situations, the people who are giving counselling on that matter and supplying such drugs have based themselves in places such as Singapore and are therefore out of the reach of the UK justice system and outside of UK control and regulation. Is it right that such people can insidiously influence our young people in that way when the Bill would not allow young people who are being targeted to have a discussion with their parents or their pastor — the people who love them — about how they might be protected from that kind of thing?
101 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: 0.53 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.75).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.65).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.52).
- 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 | 0.30 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.27 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.75 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.53 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.46 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 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.