Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5740908
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard quite a bit tonight about rights. I sense that, from that side of the Chamber, there is a supremacy of rights, meaning that those who are LGBTQ+ — whatever — have more rights than those who sit elsewhere and share my Christian, conservative rights. At what point does a Christian parent have any rights in this world? According to you, your rights trump all. My concern about the debate is that one side believes that they have a higher right, which has supremacy over my rights as a Christian parent. We need to go back to this question: why should they be able to dictate how I bring up my children in my house? It is up to me as a Christian parent to bring up my children in the way I see fit without any meddling from Sinn Féin or the Alliance Party.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kellie is just after saying that I am happy to abuse a child.
What sort of comment is that?
I have a right to bring up my child in the way that I believe that my child should be brought up —
— based on biblical principles. I will not be dictated to by the Alliance Party, which thinks that bringing up a child in the right way is abuse.
That is shocking.
I ask you to withdraw that comment —.
Have the guts to at least say it through the Chair —
— so that it is recorded in Hansard.
263 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: 0.89 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.94); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.67); Dog-whistle messaging (0.80); Controversy escalation (0.80).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (1.00).
- 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.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.94 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.67 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.26 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.80 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.80 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.16 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.89 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.72 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.28 |
| 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 16:41 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.