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 5707399
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One hundred per cent. The Member is correct. The issue is also clause 9, which is:
"No right to claim trial by jury".
I understand exactly where the Bill sponsor is coming from here. In the raft of legislation that we have passed in this House, there is no right to claim trial by jury, simply because of the trauma that that could cause to the victim in stalking or domestic violence cases. I get that, but the Bill is so new when it comes to definitions that I wonder whether the Bill sponsor would consider removing clause 9 and allowing people to be tried by their peers in such cases, because they could involve teachers, preachers or parents. It might not be the same as the perpetrator being a stalker. It might not be the same as someone who perpetrates domestic violence. The Bill will capture parents who have tried their best for their children who are living in a confused and distressed state, and criminalising those parents will only make that worse and heighten the pain and suffering for the whole family. That is my fear with the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for my time, and I thank Members for listening. I hope that I have added something to the debate. I am deeply concerned by the Bill. I know that the Bill sponsor will not hear or warrant my appeal, but I ask him to pull back from proceeding with it because of the danger that I perceive to be in it.
258 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: 0.20 (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 (0.95).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.29 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.96 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.