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 5762543
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree. My colleague Mr Givan mentioned the wide range of lobbying that we have received on the Bill. The Member has received that evidence from the Gay Men's Network. I have received correspondence from a range of organisations, including a variety of Churches, schools, youth organisations and sporting organisations, as well as from individual constituents, and it flies in the face of comments from other Members across the Chamber, particularly those from Pádraig Delargy, who, in his outburst, accused the DUP of creating a chilling effect. In fact, I was quoting the psychotherapist Stella O'Malley, who outlined in an opinion piece how the Bill would have a chilling effect. She regularly works with children. That concern from a number of professionals therefore comes from a very sincere place. The talk of a chilling effect is not coming from these Benches. Rather, the lobbying has been strong on saying that the Bill would have a chilling effect. It is not a unionist/nationalist issue. Mr Givan outlined the strong lobbying that came from a number of nationalist organisations. There are people in my constituency who feel as though they have no voice on the issue in the Bill, and, for the first time in their life, they are coming to the DUP, because they feel that we are the ones who are speaking up for them. The legislation is dangerous. It lacks definitions. It is a severe human rights overreach.
246 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: 0.48 (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 (0.72).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.53).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
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 | 0.30 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.33 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.48 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.12 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| 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 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.