Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741023
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. At the moment, if a parent has a child who is 16 years old, and that parent grounds, disciplines or engages in normal and ordinary parental control of that child, that behaviour could, in theory, be tested against existing domestic abuse legislation. Can the Member point to one example of where ordinary parental control behaviour has landed a parent in court on a charge of domestic abuse? It has never happened. I am glad that the Education Minister is here, because he called that definition of coercive behaviour "the gold standard" in debates on domestic abuse legislation in the Chamber in 2021. The only thing that has changed is the cohort of people whom we are protecting, which is the LGBT community.
129 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: 0.43 (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 (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.70).
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.42 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.43 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| 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.