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 5707395
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I realise that I am drawing him back a little here, but Mr Buckley gave an example earlier about someone who has transitioned but changes their mind and seeks to detransition in that regard.
We talked about how someone might risk prosecution by talking to that person and saying, "Stop. Think about that". That shows the Bill's unreasonableness. Surely anyone in this place, even those of us who feel that such a person should not have gone through transition in the first place, would think that, if someone has taken the huge decision to transition and has then changed their mind and wants to transition back, those are two huge and potentially traumatic decisions to make and show that that person is struggling with something. Surely we should all want that person to be able to seek help and talk to someone and have someone to counsel them and provide therapy for them in a way that helps them without the person who is trying to help them facing the chilling effect of possibly facing prosecution for stepping into that space.
188 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.36 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.38 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.36 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.18 |
| 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.