Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5762587
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I look forward to the Member testing us by tabling amendments in due course and giving evidence to the Committee, when he will provide greater specificity on what he regards as "gender identity". I note that the Alliance Party rejected the UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act 2010 that "male" and "female" refer to biological sex, so let us wait and see how it scopes out "gender identity" in what the Member brings forward. I remain to be convinced. The Bill is profoundly illiberal. It is not conducive to a society's being based on free speech and freedom of religion. It is designed to have a chilling effect not just on parents but on pastors. It is a charter for activists to pursue people and seek prosecution. They have done it before. Supported by the Equality Commission, shamefully, they did it through the Ashers bakery case. It was only the Supreme Court that, at the last instant, was able to intervene and provide a defence for the young Christian family who stood by their convictions. There is a track record of activism and of persecution through prosecution in challenging people who are engaged in the issues and who hold views that I and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland also hold. Why is it that only unionists seem to oppose the Bill? Like others, I have been contacted by people who hold very different political views from mine, along with different religious views and different positions on sexual orientation, yet they are depending on the DUP and other unionists to provide their voice of opposition. Where are the nationalist representatives and those who proclaim to come from a more Catholic perspective? They are absent — utterly absent — when it comes to the issue. Again, it is left to unionists to provide the voice of those who come from a sincerely held Roman Catholic religious tradition —
— and other religious traditions.
The Bill has everything to do with the chilling effect on those who hold religious views on these matters.
It has everything to do with it, yet unionist parties are the only ones raising concerns on behalf of others in our society.
I will give way to the Minister.
376 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.77 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.83); Dog-whistle messaging (0.66).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.92).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged 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 | 0.83 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.35 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.66 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.55 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.37 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.77 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.90 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.10 |
| 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?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.