Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5762523
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome that clarity. I was coming to the end of my remarks on the Bill. The general theme of my contribution had been that the main dangers in the Bill were based on the lack of definitions of the terminology used in it, particularly the term that Mrs Cameron mentioned in relation to the joint letter from the Christian Institute, the Free Speech Union and Genspect. There is a lack of definition of the term "gender identity" in the Bill. We have seen the debate closed down time and again, but, through my contribution, we teased out the dangers of not having a clear definition of what the term means, the number of identities, the scope or the general intentions. The Bill sponsor indicated his intention that the definition be drawn out and tested in the courts to bring clarity as to what would and would not be included in the definition.
Yes.
158 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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.57).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.57 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.41 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| 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 16:37 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.