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 5762535
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I read that piece by Sam McBride and thought it was really good. I agree with it. It makes the same points that I and other Members have made. My colleague Brian Kingston gave a few examples of things that he had looked up online that might or might not be included in the definition. A lot of Members poked fun at my colleague when he did that, but it is a totally valid concern. As Mr Martin said, the definition is left open if it is not in the Bill. As I said, the Bill sponsor indicated his intention that the courts, through case law, would further define what that term means. I am concerned about that. Through their opinions, judges can move things in different directions. We are being asked to vote on the principles of the Bill, and we need to know what the intent and direction are and what the terminology means in order to do so.
I was in court late on Saturday night and saw some of the outworkings of the application of judges' discretion, with a poor judgement that had been made during the day being overturned in the Court of Appeal. That just shows the subjective nature of some of what is decided on in the courts. Had that been a case involving gender identity, it could have gone strongly in one direction, only for there to have been a very different opinion given on another day in another court by another judge. The new offences that the Bill would create are very vague in nature, and that is at the heart of what I consider the danger in the Bill to be. The joint letter that my colleague Pam Cameron referred to is very important, and I welcome the Speaker's guidance in that respect. I feel very strongly that the Bill is not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. It constitutes a strong overreach into private and family life. If the Attorney General were to review the Bill, I believe that that is what would be found. We talked about the Bill's lack of an equality impact assessment (EQIA) and of a high-level review by the Human Rights Commission or the Equality Commission. There has, however, been no detailed testing of how the Bill would affect rights because of its lack of definitions and the impact that it would have on parents, counsellors, teachers and so many organisations.
418 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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| 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.