Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- 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 5707406
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way. I know that she is sincere in what she says, but would she not equally accept that no one on this side of the House raised objections to the Bill because of someone's sexual orientation? The concerns of those of us on these Benches have been around the Bill's being so expansive and lacking definitions. I know that it can be easy to try to belittle, ridicule or rebuke DUP Members based on that perception, but, had the Member listened to the contributions that have been made, she would know that at no time did any Member on these Benches say that the reason for our opposing the Bill is based on anyone's sexual orientation.
121 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: 0.32 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.56).
- 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 | 0.24 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.32 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.32 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.28 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.15 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.