Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5740752
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Clause 7 of the Member's Bill says more about how we define "intent", so I will jump ahead to that. Clause 7(1) states:
"For the purposes of this Act, there is no intent to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity if— (a) there is no intent to direct a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity" —
which one might do in normal conversation with a child —
"(b) the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions, without directing a victim towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity".
Expressing beliefs might include saying what the Bible teaches. That will happen in a church, yet it would be seen as intent. The third one is particularly problematic:
"(c) the intent is to affirm a sexual orientation or gender identity which the victim considers is, or may be, their sexual orientation or gender identity."
In other words, people can only agree with what the person tells them. They cannot challenge the person. They cannot say, "Do you think that is right?". If people do not agree with the person, they are committing that offence.
188 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: weak signal 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: 0.47 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.49).
- 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 | 0.32 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.55 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.34 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.47 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.49 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.45 |
| 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.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.