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 5707364
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes — a very, very, very, very bad Bill and a very dangerous Bill, as I have outlined. I move on to suppression. Clauses 1 and 2 include references to "suppressing". What is it to "suppress" someone's "sexual orientation or gender identity"? Is it a parent saying, "You cannot do that", "You cannot view that", "You cannot put those posters on your bedroom wall", "You cannot wear those clothes", "You cannot cut your hair" or, "You cannot grow your hair long"? What is it to "suppress" someone's "sexual orientation or gender identity"? Those are meaty questions that are at the heart of the offences connected to the Bill. Yet, I have no reassurance that a parent will not fall foul of it and that ordinary parenting will not become an offence. That is how stark this is. That is how dystopian it is. That is why, at the start, I said that I believed that this was the most dangerous Bill that I had read in my 16-year career in the Assembly since 2010. It is really important that the Bill sponsor clarifies all of that not only for my benefit and that of my party and other Members who are worried but for the population, because it is people who will fall foul of all those laws.
To help the Member, I believe so, because, if the victim can state that they suffered physical or psychological harm as a consequence of their parent's behaviour — psychological harm includes, of course, "fear, alarm or distress" — I believe that that parent will fall foul of the law. It is not only puberty blockers; it could be anything. The sponsor of the Bill will say, "But it has to be reasonable". What is reasonable about someone coming home and — serious as the matter is — saying to a parent that they want to identify as an animal or a colour? The sponsor has not defined the terms in his Bill, so how do you put a "reasonable person" test in the Bill when the Bill is so loosely defined as to capture all genders, not just transgender? The Bill's sponsor has not clarified that in any of his interventions. Maybe it will come at the end of the debate; I do not know. I really worry about the Bill. It is the most dangerous Bill that I have ever come across. Parents may routinely set boundaries, challenge their children's decisions and refuse requests that, they believe, are not in their child's best interests, but that goes out the window if the child thinks that there has been psychological harm because of a disagreement over what they deem their gender to be. The Bill is so wide-reaching. The scope is so hard for a parent to define. If a parent refuses to facilitate social transition and encourages a child to wait, that is suppression. If your child comes to you and says, "I think that I am transgender" or "I think that I am in the wrong body", and that parent says, "No, you should wait. Give it a few years. See how you feel when you turn 16", that is suppression, and it is suppression if the victim deems it to be, even if they have consented to waiting a while.
551 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: 0.59 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.88).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.58).
- 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 | 0.25 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.36 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.88 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.59 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.39 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.