Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- 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 5707372
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. Much reference has been made to the potential for an individual who objects to life-changing, life-altering medical treatment, be that puberty blockers or medical procedures, and how they may fall under the Bill by refusing that. However, another section of individuals, who have not been mentioned in the debate so far and are sometimes cast aside, sadly, are those who want to detransition. We often find with those individuals that they are almost cast aside by the people who encouraged them, prodded them and pushed them into those life-altering circumstances. Does the Member agree that, under the definition of "conversion therapy" in clause 4, any individual who counsels an individual on detransitioning, coaches them, gives them instruction falls under the scope of "conversion therapy" and, by means of the Bill, risks prosecution and therefore a maximum penalty of two years in prison?
149 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: 0.50 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.63).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.66).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.21 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.63 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.50 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.27 |
| 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.