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 5762564

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that intervention. Yes, I agree. More and more, it seems guaranteed that, whatever position the DUP takes on anything, there will be widespread opposition for whatever reason. Our reasons are sound: this is bad legislation, lacking in clear definitions, and it should not be able to progress. It has dangerous overreach into people's human rights. I do not support its progressing any further.

68 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.27 (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).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.11No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.06No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.12No
Controversy escalation0.14No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.53No
Overall judgement0.27At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.94
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.06
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.74
No identity-related subject0.23
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.02
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification