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 5762731
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. He is always kind about it. He has not come to clause 7 yet, but he has talked about distress. I find many things in the Bill distressing. Undoubtedly, one of the key tenets is what the Member is talking about. On the question of gender, I take the Member to clause 7(1)(c). He mentioned the number of genders. Whether there are 72 or 85, it does not really matter. Clause 7(1)(c) states:
"if ... the intent is to affirm a ... gender identity which the victim considers is, or may be".
That is one of the most dangerous phrases in the Bill. There is an irony in that what I have just read out is a defence against change or suppression, which are referred to earlier in the Bill. If someone's intent is to affirm one of the wide range of gender identities that a victim presents as or thinks that they are, they can use that as a defence in court, but it does not go the other way. I do not understand that. I will ask a wider question to see whether the Member agrees with me. So many young people in particular — teenagers — are gender-distressed, gender-questioning or gender-dysphoric and need effective and supportive counselling. For somebody to prove that there is no intent in their counselling, however, they have to affirm what that young person presents to them. Does the Member agree that that is just crazy stuff?
251 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: 0.59 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.83).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.55).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.29 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.83 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.59 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.40 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.55 |
| 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 16:38 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.