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 5740810
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I say, if anyone wants to have a look at that list, they are welcome to do so. I will go back to the definition of the offence of providing conversion therapy. To be guilty of that offence, there are three criteria. The first is that you carry out conversion therapy. The second is that you have:
"the intent of changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim".
The third is:
"the victim suffers physical or psychological harm as a consequence of the therapy."
Clause 8 defines "psychological harm" and states:
"psychological harm includes fear, alarm or distress."
Again, that is a very low bar. For example, there could be child in a school — say, a biological male — who wants to self-identify as female and wants to use the female toilets. If they are instructed, "No, you are a biological male, so you cannot use the girls' toilets", that is giving them instruction. It is also suppressing their identity, as they see it, and causing them distress. That meets the three criteria for that offence.
I will give way to the Member.
189 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.48 (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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.61).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.28 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.50 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.35 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.48 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.61 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.34 |
| 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.