Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5707403
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was not expecting that. I was expecting Mr Frew to go on until 10.30 pm. Thank you very much. Before I start my contribution, I say to Members: I apologise in advance if you call for an intervention and I do not hear you. My hearing has got a lot worse, and I have difficulty picking up Members speaking, especially if what they say is not picked up by a microphone. You will all be pleased to hear that my contribution will, hopefully, be relatively short, because I am exhausted and my head is busting, but it is important to add a contribution to the debate. I support the Bill. Why would I not? The Bill sponsor is a colleague of mine, Eóin Tennyson, who is my deputy leader, but, on top of that, I believe that nobody in Northern Ireland should be subjected to practices that are designed to change or suppress who they are. It does me no harm in my life for somebody to have their sexual orientation or gender. I have no problem with that. It does not affect me from day to day. I am a Christian. I know that some do not believe that anybody in the Alliance Party is a Christian. I may not be the same flavour of Christian as some DUP Members or other Members of the House, but I am a Christian, and I have no problem with people being who they are. I have lived my life with the view that we are made in God's image, and I have lived it through the lens of not doing someone else harm.
273 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.72).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.27 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.98 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.