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
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741131
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I have not managed to get many interventions in here this evening, despite giving a few to the other side when I was speaking, but that is up to them. I will read the Member a quote from the Women's Rights Network. To be clear to some Members in the House, it is not a Christian group, which we have talked a lot about this evening:
"Violent and coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation are abusive and already unlawful".
As my colleague has said:
"Assault, harassment, domestic abuse and coercive control offences already exist. The live question is not whether cruelty should be condemned". —
Of course it should, and every Member on this Bench agrees with that —
"but it is whether this Bill is a proportionate, necessary and sufficiently precise criminal statute, or whether a conversion headline is being used to write an undefined, self-declared concept of gender identity into Northern Ireland criminal law."
That is not from a Christian lobby organisation. It is not what the Member for North Antrim, who has just re-entered the Chamber, was talking about earlier: it is the Women's Rights Network. That is its assessment of what is going on. Its concern is not about what I have just read out about the nature of what we are talking about, and we have already condemned all those things. However, will the Member agree with me that there are many people of faith and no faith in Northern Ireland, who she described this evening and I have described previously, who are very concerned about whether a conversion headline is being used to write an undefined, self-declared concept of gender identity into Northern Ireland criminal law?
291 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: 0.52 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.64).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.78).
- 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 | 0.29 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.57 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.52 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.11 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.09 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| 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?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.