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 5707380
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That was a helpful intervention by the Member. I teased out the question that I asked earlier about what is encapsulated by clause 6 and what the victim considers their sexual orientation or gender identity to be. It could be everything and anything. That is telling. I thank the Member for that intervention. A parent who refuses to facilitate social transition, encourages the child to wait, restricts access to particular online material or strongly advises against transition may cause distress without behaving abusively, but — here is the thing — it is not even about transition; it is just about sexual orientation. I ask the Bill sponsor this: if a young person is addicted to porn, is that not their sexual orientation? If they watch porn and spread pictures and posters of naked women or men around their room and are told by their parents to take them down, is that suppressing their sexual orientation? If not, will the Bill sponsor explain why not? I will give way to the Bill sponsor if he wants.
That, too, was a very interesting intervention. We have now heard about someone who has a disorder. When someone has a disorder, they need treatment, because they are sick with something, whatever that might be. Here we have the flip: for so long, we have been accused of calling people "ill" or "sick" or saying that they need to be fixed, but, when I talked about addiction to porn, the Bill sponsor spoke of "sexual disorders". What if some young person or some old person, for that matter, likes porn? How does that affect the Bill?
Yes.
272 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: 0.64 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.80).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.47).
- 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 | 0.29 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.28 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.80 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.51 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.64 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.46 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.06 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.47 |
| 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.