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 5707355

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for her intervention. That is what we are striving for: we are trying to get common ground to see exactly where we can go with regard to the Bill. However, if we do not like a Bill, we do not like a Bill, and we will explain why we do not like it. My colleague was highlighting the differences between the Westminster Bill and this Bill and asking what the Bill sponsor's intent is on those differences. They are really important.

85 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.08 (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 (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.33No
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.70
No identity-related subject0.29
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification