Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 28 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Timothy Gaston
Party at the time: Traditional Unionist Voice
Date: 28 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5762705

Text

Absolutely. I thank the Member for her intervention. I have a right to do that. I read out that passage and laid out a scenario because ministers and pastors in Churches across the country are concerned about the implications of the Bill and its chilling effect, because it would inhibit them from carrying out their duties in the way in which they otherwise would. We are talking about offence. Coming from the Alliance Party, that is ironic, given that, last week, one of its Members said to me, "So you are happy to abuse a child", after I had intervened to say that I have the right to bring up my child in the way in which I see fit and on the basis of the biblical principles to which I hold. I will take no lectures from the Alliance Party about offence, because I am yet to receive an apology from the Member who said that. She may say to the Speaker that she did not say it, but she did. She said it in the House. I return to the point that I was illustrating about what we have seen happen in Finland and how the protections played out when that Member of Parliament tweeted Romans chapter 1. Yes, she was ultimately acquitted, but she was convicted on the basis of a booklet that she had co-authored in which she described homosexuality as a "sexual deviation". I fear that Mr Tennyson, through his ideology, is trying to take his Bill down that route. Clause 8 defines psychological harm as including "fear, alarm or distress". My goodness. Distress? I get distressed in here often, but that does not mean that somebody should be taken to court or imprisoned or that there was any harm behind what they said. It is about how the Bill is interpreted, including how words such as "distress", "fear" and "alarm" are interpreted. That exposes the nature of what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve and the cunning way in which he is doing it.
Yes.

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

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.69 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.69); Controversy escalation (0.71).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.72).
Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.46	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.23	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.18	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.69	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.71	Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.52	No
Overall judgement	0.69	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.24
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.02
Adopts it (chosen)	0.72

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.85
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.15
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.

Challenge this classification