Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- 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 5762545
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for taking another intervention from me. Does she agree that, somehow, the Bill sponsor, the SDLP and Sinn Féin have managed to unite people? Sometimes, it is difficult in the Chamber to unite a range of people, but, in opposition to the Bill, they have united people of faith and people of no faith whatsoever, people who are same-sex attracted and people who are straight, and even groups ranging from Christian groups to LGB ones. I have been astounded by the correspondence that I have received on the issue from such a range of people. I wonder whether the Member will agree with this email that I received last week. I have anonymised it, because I told the person who sent it to me that I would. He writes:
"I'm writing to thank you for your interventions during the debate in the Chamber this evening on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill".
The Member opposite laughs. Maybe he wants to listen to what this man has to say, but he can —.
I am reading this email out. The Member should do me the courtesy of listening.
Guys, I can wait. This man should be heard in the same way as anyone else in Northern Ireland. Members on the Benches over there will not give voice to these people, so I will read out what they have said. He writes:
"I'm not a traditional DUP voter" —.
It goes on:
"or a person of faith, although I respect your viewpoints from a Christian perspective. I'm a gay man who, like many from the 'LGB' community, has serious concerns about the impact of gender ideology which, as you pointed out, this Bill effectively seeks to write into law. I thought it was telling that the Bill sponsor and his allies had to resort to misdirection ... in response to your points".
Those on the other side of the Chamber can laugh and make fun of people like him, but I point out to Members and to anyone else who is listening to the debate that such people have as much right to be heard in the Chamber as anybody else. If our party has to be the one that stands up and reads out correspondence such as that, we will do so. Those on the Benches opposite can laugh at and make fun of those people, but I will read out their correspondence and I will be heard. Does my colleague agree with the tone of the email that that man sent to me and that those on the other Benches do not represent the views of people such as him?
443 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.79 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.85); Dog-whistle messaging (0.75); Controversy escalation (0.65).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts a strongly antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.85 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.24 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.18 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.75 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.65 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.16 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.79 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.97 |
| 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. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.